Violators say tickets from traffic cameras difficult to appeal

CEDAR RAPIDS - Speed and red light ticket recipients have complained about Cedar Rapids's automated traffic camera system, citing obstacles such as difficulty contesting tickets, duplicate billing. and missing or unclear evidence, according to emails released by the city and interviews.

This fall Cedar Rapids police realized an online freuently-asked-questions (FAQ) section incorrectly told violators failure to pay 'may result in a suspension of driving privileges.”

'That whole paragraph needs (to be) removed,” Cedar Rapids Police Officer Mark Asplund wrote on Oct. 23 to Susan Stelmach, of Gatso USA, and Cedar Rapids police Sgt. Michael Wallerstedt. 'Is that something you put out or on our end?”

Citation are considered a civil penalty and do not affect driving records or insurance, according to city records.

Wallerstedt followed up on Oct. 28 asking, '(How) fast can you change the following from the FAQs?” He proposed new language.

Beverly, Mass.-based Gatso USA is contracted by Cedar Rapids to run the program, but local police have a number of responsibilities, including responding to concerns, according to emails obtained by The Gazette through an open-records request.

According to the emails, Cedar Rapids police have been fairly prompt in responding to violators and attempting to correct problems when they discover them.

Cedar Rapids Police Chief Wayne Jerman has declined requests for interviews about the traffic camera program in recent weeks, citing pending litigation of a federal class-action lawsuit. Jerman's only comment about complaints, sent by email from a spokeswoman, was, 'All complaints go through the established process.”

Some cited with tickets say it can be confusing to fight the ticket, or they experience technical difficulties so they don't bother. Support staff for the payment processing center can be slow in responding, which makes it difficult to appeal in the allotted time, some said.

David W. Elliott, 56, of Hastings, Minn., told the city he tried to contest his ticket online but received an error message, and in reviewing the photo of his violation, key pieces of information were blurred and not legible.

Reached by phone, Elliott said an error message instructed him to retry at a later date. But over the next several days, he received the same message.

Within two hours of an email from Elliott to the city on Oct. 1, Asplund responded internally, 'I will look into this immediately,” and set out to address the concern. By the end of the day, Asplund had scheduled a 'by mail” appeal hearing, and responded to Elliott.

Elliott said he participated in a telephone hearing, but he concluded his appeal was futile. 'I said, ‘I'm wasting your time and you're wasting mine. I'll just pay the 75 bucks.' But I'm not going back to Cedar Rapids or Iowa ever again,” Elliott said.

David J. Piasecki of Hoffman Estates, Ill., wrote to the city on Dec. 16 he was paying 'under protest” because his request to appeal was not registered. He said he called to request an administrative hearing on Nov. 17, three days before the deadline, and again Nov. 18, as he worked on a mail-in request for hearing.

The second time he called the processing center, he sought to clarify where to mail the request for hearing - 'Ohio as stated on this (request for hearing) form or Beverly, Mass., as stated on the notice of violation.”

He didn't receive a call back until Nov. 19, at which point he requested the hearing by phone and stated he had mailed in the form on Nov. 18. However, the representative didn't note this in his file, and two days later the center sent out a 'notice of determination,” which meant he was obligated to pay, Piasecki wrote in his letter, which he also sent to The Gazette.

Once the notice of determination had been sent, he had no mechanism to challenge it, he said. He left a detailed message with the processing center on Dec. 4 but had no response as of 12 days later.

Matthew Heidenwirth wrote to the city on Oct. 1, stating he had just received a bill for a ticket he had already paid in July or August.

'I'm guessing the guy below got a second notice because it is taking too long to properly deposit checks and credit the account as paid,” Sgt. Wallerstedt emailed to Gatso the next morning. 'Is there a solution for this issue? This is not the first time we have received complaints of this nature.”

Gatso, which developed the camera technology, had outsourced citation processing, but earlier this year began handling it internally.

Cedar Rapids police declined to allow The Gazette to observe the process for verifying tickets, although it provided an explanation by email.

During a small-claims hearing at the Linn County Courthouse, ticket review officer Harvey Caldwell described the process, saying the police department verifies the registration matches the vehicle description, makes sure the speed information is listed and that the vehicle is identifiable in the photograph.

Caldwell said it typically takes 35 to 40 seconds of review to decide whether to approve the ticket, and roughly 10 to 15 percent are rejected.

Richard Kosina, Gatso's chief technology officer who also testified at the hearing, said Gatso throws out about 40 percent of tickets before they are submitted to Cedar Rapids police for approval.