Final Report : Automated Speed Enforcement Pilot Project for the Capital Beltway: Feasibility of Photo-Radar

ABOUT RITA | CONTACT US | PRESS ROOM | CAREERS | SITE MAP

Final Report : Automated Speed Enforcement Pilot Project for the Capital Beltway: Feasibility of Photo-Radar
Click HERE for graphic.

Click HERE for graphic.

FINAL REPORT

AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT PILOT PROJECT
FOR THE CAPITAL BELTWAY:
FEASIBILITY OF PHOTO-RADAR

Cheryl W. Lynn ROBYN LAU
Senior Research Scientist Graduate Legal Assistant

Nicholas J. Garber JANICE V. ALCEE
Faculty Research Engineer Graduate Legal Assistant

Wayne S. Ferguson JONATHAN C. BLACK
Senior Research Scientist Graduate Legal Assistant

Torsten K. Lienau PETER M. WENDZEL
Research Assistant Graduate Legal Assistant

(The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this
report are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the sponsoring agencies.)

Virginia Transportation Research Council
(A Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the
Virginia Department of Transportation and
the University of Virginia)

Charlottesville, Virginia

November 1992
VTRC 93-R6

SAFETY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

W.H. LEIGHTY, Chairman, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Motor Vehicles

J.D. JERNIGAN, Executive Secretary, Senior Research Scientist,
VTRC

J.L. BLAND, Chief Engineer, Department of Aviation

R.J. BREITENBACH, Director, Transportation Safety Training
Center, Virginia Commonwealth University

MAJ. J.K. COOEE, Assistant Chief of Law Enforcement,
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

M.L. EDWARDS, Executive Assistant, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation

W.S. FELTON, JR., Administrative Coordinator, Commonwealth's
Attorneys'Services and Training Council

R D. FERRARA, Ph.D., Director, Division of Forensic Sciences,
Department of General Services

D.R. GEHR, Assistant Commissioner-Operations, VDOT

LT. COL. C.M. ROBINSON, Director, Bureau of Field Operations,
Department of State Police

J.T. HANNA, Assistant Professor, Transportation Safety
Training Center, Virginia Commonwealth University

T.A. JENNINGS, Safety/Technology Transfer Coordinator, Federal
Highway Administration

B.G. JOHNSON, Associate Specialist, Driver Education,
Department of Education

SGT. R. J. LANTEIGNE, Operations & Tactics Bureau, Virginia
Beach Police Department

W.T. McCOLLUM, Executive Director, Commission on VASA.P

S.D. McHENRY, Director, Division of Emergency Medical
Services, Department of Health

MAJ. R.R. MINER, Commander, Traffic Division, Fairfax County
Police Department

COMM. S.E. NEWTON, Patrol Division, Albemarle County Police
Department

J.T. PHIPPS, Director, Roanoke Valley ASAP

J.A. SPENCER, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General

E.W. TIMMONS, Director of Public Affairs, Tidewater AAA of
Virginia

A.R. WOODROOF, ESQ., Manakin-Sabot, Virginia

PHOTO-RADAR TASK FORCE

William R Archer, Maryland Department of State Police

Captain Braxton G. Bell, Virginia Department of State Police

Nancy G. Dunn, Virginia Department of State Police

Wayne S. Ferguson, Virginia Transportation Research Council

Ronald D. Lipps, Maryland Department of Transportation

Lt. James W Petefish, Virginia Department of State Police

Richard L. Reed, Maryland Department of State Police

James B. Robinson, Virginia Department of Transportation

Captain David L. Tollett, Virginia Department of State Police

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xi

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Description of the Beltway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Operating Speeds on the Beltway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
PURPOSE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
History of Speed Enforcement Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Time-Distance Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Tachograph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
History of Photo-Radar Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
LEGAL ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Constitutional Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Evidentiary Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Requirements for Legal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Statutory Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Film/Photograph Handling Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Chain of Custody Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Privacy Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Recommended Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
FCC Policy on Photo-Radar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Site Visits and Manufacturers' Nonempirical Demonstrations . .27
Field Demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Site Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Photographic Quality and Utility. . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Accuracy of Recorded Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Effect of Vehicle Clustering on Accuracy
of Speed Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Percentage of Usable Photographs of
Vehicles Exceeding Threshold Speed . . . . . . . . .36
Misalignment Flexibility (Cosine Effect). . . . . . . . .37

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Ease of Detection by Radar Detectors. . . . . . . . . . .37
Effect of Photo-Radar on Speed Characteristics. . . . . .38
Public Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Site Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Paradise Valley, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Pasadena, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Field Demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Photographic Results for Each Manufacturer. . . . . . . .44
Comparisons Among Manufacturers on
Photographic Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Accuracy of Recorded Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Effect of Vehicle Clustering on Accuracy of
Speeds/Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Percentage of Usable Photographs of Vehicles Exceeding
Threshold Speed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Misalignment Flexibility (Cosine Effect). . . . . . . . .67
Ease of Detection by Radar Detectors. . . . . . . . . . .67
Effect of Photo-Radar on Speed Characteristics. . . . . .68
Public Acceptance Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Photographic Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Accuracy of Recorded Speeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Efficiency of Photo-Radar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Misalignment Flexibility (Cosine Effect) . . . . . . . . . . .72
Radar Detection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Public Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

LESSONS LEARNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

APPENDIX A: Standard Criterion Photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . .83

APPENDIX B: Public Acceptance Poll Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . .95

APPENDIX C: Description of Photo-Radar Equipment. . . . . . . . . 101

APPENDIX D: Conditions Under Which Manufacturers'
Photographs Were of Highest Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

APPENDIX E: Calculations of Public Acceptance
Poll Sample Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

APPENDIX: Model Photo-Radar Statutes for
Maryland and Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Trip Itineraries and Persons Interviewed During Site
Visits in the United States and Europe. . . . . . . . . .28

Table 2: List of Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Table 3: Number of Photographs Taken for Analysis by Each
Manufacturer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Table 4: Locations of Photographs Taken. . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Table 5: Weather Conditions Under Which Photographs Were Taken . .50

Table 6: Vehicle Location in Photographic Frame. . . . . . . . . .50

Table 7: Direction of Operation of Photographs Taken . . . . . . .51

Table 8: Mode of Operation When Photographs Were Taken . . . . . .51

Table 9: Format of Photographs Taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Table 10: Number of Vehicles in Photograph. . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Table 11: Type of Vehicle in Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Table 12: Lane in which Photographed Vehicles Were Traveling. . . .53

Table 13: Photographic Performance Measures: Receding Traffic . . .54

Table 14: Photographic Performance Measures: Oncoming Traffic . . .54

Table 15: Reasons License Plates in Photographs
Could Not Be Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Table 16: Reasons Driver's Face in Photographs Could Not Be
Identified. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Table 17: Effect of Highway and Environmental Characteristics on
Photographic Quality for Receding Traffic . . . . . . . .58

Table 18: Effect of Highway and Environmental Characteristics on
Photographic Quality for Oncoming Traffic . . . . . . . .58

Table 19: Differences Between Loop and
Photo-Radar Speed Readings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Table 20: Hit Rate for Oncoming Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Table 21: Hit Rate for Receding Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Table 22: Lane Distribution of Usable Photographs . . . . . . . . .66

Table 23: Hit Rates by Distribution of Speeds of Speeding Vehicles
Photographed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table 24: Maximum Error in Recorded Speed for Misalignments Up to 8
Degrees (Cosine Effect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Table 25: Radar Detection Distance for Each Piece of Equipment. . .67

Table 26: Comparison of Speed Characteristics at Study Sites. . . .68

Table 27: Opinions Concerning Potential Use of Photo-Radar on
Beltway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Table 28: Opinions on Photo-Radar Use by Demographic
Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Capital Beltway in Virginia and Maryland . . . . . 3

Figure 2: Allowable Differences Between Photo-Radar and Loop
Readings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

ABSTRACT

Because of increasing difficulties in enforcing posted speed
limits on the Capital Beltway around Washington, D.C., local
officials proposed that experiments be conducted with photo-radar
to determine if that method of automated speed enforcement (widely
used in Europe for about 30 years and very recently employed in the
western United States) could help reduce average speed and speed
variance.

A project task force led by the Virginia Department of State
Police, with assistance from the Maryland Department of State
Police and the Virginia and Maryland Departments of Transportation
and with technical assistance from the Virginia Transportation
Research Council, conducted site visits to cities in Europe and the
United States where photo-radar is being used. The task force also
invited six manufacturers of photo-radar equipment to staff and
demonstrate their equipment. Five of the manufacturers conducted a
2-week series of tests on sections of interstate highways with
varying volumes of traffic and different traffic characteristics.
The tests, which were conducted from June through September 1990,
were designed to provide the evaluators with data on the accuracy,
reliability, and efficiency of each unit (in terms of the number of
speeding cases that could potentially be generated by the use of
photo-radar on the Beltway) and help the study team determine if
photo-radar could be successfully deployed on the Capital Beltway
as an enforcement tool. In addition, the project included an
analysis of legal and constitutional issues associated with photo-
radar use as well as an evaluation of public sentiment concerning
the use of photo-radar on the Capital Beltway. The evaluators
concluded that photo-radar use was feasible on high-speed, high-
volume roads such as the Capital Beltway and, therefore,
recommended efforts to pass state enabling statutes and test
further the efficacy of photo-radar in actual traffic enforcement
conditions. Although the results of the study indicate that it is
feasible to use photo-radar on high-speed multilane roadways,
further study is required to determine its effect on travel speed
and safety.

There are also important operational issues that must be
considered when using this device. Some items of consideration are
identification and selection of operational sites and times to deal
with identified traffic safety and enforcement problems; provision
of equipment-specific training programs for police officers to
ensure the equipment is properly operated; provision for the
availability of properly trained technical support personnel to
ensure the continuing accuracy of the equipment; setting of speed
thresholds that are realistically determined and target the
excessive speeder; number of lanes on the roadway; visual
obstructions on the roadway; and customizing of photo-radar
applications to fit the highway safety problem area.

FINAL REPORT

AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT PILOT PROJECT
FOR THE CAPITAL BELTWAY:
FEASIBILITY OF PHOTO-RADAR

Cheryl W. Lynn
Senior Research Scientist

Nicholas J. Garber
Faculty Research Engineer

Wayne S. Ferguson
Senior Research Scientist

Torsten K. Lienau
Research Assistant

Robyn Lau
Graduate Legal Assistant

Janice V Alcee
Graduate Legal Assistant

Jonathan C. Black
Graduate Legal Assistant

Peter M. Wendzel
Graduate Legal Assistant

INTRODUCTION

In response to a growing public concert) about incidents,
crashes, congestion, and delay occurring on the Capital Beltway
around Washington, D.C. (hereinafter called the Beltway), the
Secretaries of Transportation in Maryland and Virginia, in
cooperation with the senior leadership of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), created an interstate task force in 1988 to
study the problems associated with the Beltway and recommend, test,
and implement measures for remediation.

Since one of the concerns of the task force was controlling
speeds on the Beltway, one of their proposals was a demonstration
project to evaluate automated photographic speed enforcement
(APSE). A device with APSE technology, which is capable of
identifying all vehicles being driven above a selected speed using
either radar or some other detector equipment, photographs the
vehicle's license plate and the

driver's face and records the speed of the vehicle and the time of
the photograph. Photo-radar is a form of APSE with radar being used
for detecting a speeding vehicle. The task force was aware of the
limited use of photo-radar in speed enforcement in Pasadena,
California, and Paradise Valley, Arizona, as well as its long-term
use in Western Europe, Scandinavia, South Africa, and Australia. It
was not clear, however, whether photo-radar technology had been
successfully employed on roadways with characteristics similar to
those of the Beltway.

In order to determine the feasibility of using photo-radar
equipment on the Beltway, a study group was formed consisting of
personnel from the Virginia and Maryland Departments of State
Police and Departments of Transportation. The Virginia
Transportation Research Council (VTRC) was selected to staff the
study group and perform the evaluation (Lynn, C., Ferguson, W, and
Garber, N., 1990, PhotoRadar Automated Speed Enforcement.- An
Experimental Application on the Capital Beltway Around Washington,
D.C. VTRC Report No. 90-WP20. Charlottesville: Virginia
Transportation Research Council).

Description of the Beltway

The Beltway is a 64-mile-long limited-access highway
encircling Washington, D.C. The majority of the Beltway, 41.6
miles, is in Maryland; a section of approximately one-tenth mile on
the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge is in Washington, D.C.; and the
remaining 22.1 miles is in Virginia (see Figure 1).

The Beltway was constructed in the late 1950's and early
1960's as a four- and six-lane facility to carry an estimated
annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 40,000. In the 1960's and
1970's, most of the Beltway was widened to eight lanes because
traffic growth was higher than originally assumed; however, there
are still some six-lane sections. Increasing the number of lanes
resulted in a significant reduction in shoulder width, mainly
because of the limited right of way, thus making safe enforcement
by mobile police patrols difficult and hazardous because traffic
stops are made in close proximity to the high-volume travel lanes.

There is a diverse mix of trip purposes, vehicle types, and
traffic patterns associated with the Beltway. Although the Beltway
was originally conceived as a bypass around Washington, expansion
of the metropolitan area and extensive development along the
Beltway and intersecting highway corridors have placed the roadway
within the metropolitan area, rather than around it.

It is estimated that nearly two-thirds of all trips and one-
half of all vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the Washington
metropolitan area in 1989 were made on the Beltway. Further, in
1989, the traffic volume was estimated at 120,000 vehicles per day;
however, the volume on some sections exceeded 150,000 vehicles per
day.

In 1989, there were approximately 3,034 reported crashes on
the Beltway, an average of 8.3 per day. The estimated cost to
society of these crashes, using NHTSA criteria for cost per
accident, was $69.7 million. The accident rate for the Beltway in
1989 was estimated as 86 accidents per 100 million VMT.

Click HERE for graphic.

Operating Speeds on the Beltway

Speed data collected in 1990 for the Maryland and Virginia
sections of the Beltway indicated that average nonpeak speeds
ranged from approximately 58 mph to approximately 64 mph, depending
on the location. About 80 percent of the vehicles exceeded the 55
mph maximum speed limit, and about 40 percent exceeded 65 mph. The
monitoring of 65,850 vehicles traveling in one direction during a
24-hour period in 1988 indicated that the average speed on the
Beltway in Virginia was 64.6 mph. These Virginia data include
speeds for rush-hour traffic, when traveling faster than the posted
limit is generally not possible. Even so, during this 24-hour
period, more than 43 percent of the vehicles exceeded 65 mph. The
number of speed violations on the Beltway for one 24-hour period
(28,503) almost matched the total number of traffic citations for
the entire year of 1988 reported for the metropolitan area by the
Virginia Department of State Police.

In Maryland, speed surveys were conducted at four sites on the
Beltway.
These data show a similar but slightly lower rate of speeding. The
Maryland surveys were conducted for traffic traveling in both
directions on the Beltway and indicated the following fourth
quarter results:

I-495 @ River Road 74,733 vehicles
18,928 exceeding 65 mph (25.3%)

I-95 @ Md. Rt. 214 71,239 vehicles
22,792 exceeding 65 mph (32.0%)

I-95 @ Temple Hills Road 19,823 vehicles
8,474 exceeding 65 mph (42.7%)

I-495 @ Md. Rt. 650 42,846 vehicles
7,031 exceeding 65 mph (16.4%)

These data indicate a high rate of violations of the 55 mph
speed limit and a significant percentage of traffic exceeding 65
mph. Because the shoulders on the Beltway are narrow and because
puffing over vehicles traveling on the inside lanes is dangerous,
speed enforcement capabilities on the Beltway are extremely
limited. Clearly, given the physical limitations on speed
enforcement and the volume of speeding vehicles on the Beltway,
there is a need for innovative methods of speed enforcement.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of
using photo-radar technology on high-volume, high-speed
expressways, such as the Beltway. A

secondary objective was to compare and contrast the performance of
several brands of photo-radar devices to determine whether they
meet the minimum levels of accuracy, reliability, and efficiency
required for use on the Beltway in accordance with the U.S. legal
system. In addition, the impact of traffic characteristics on
accuracy and reliability was examined. A final objective was to
make recommendations concerning the use of photo-radar on types of
highways other than urban expressways should photo-radar use on
interstate highways prove infeasible.

Information concerning the various brands of photo-radar
equipment and their capabilities was obtained from manufacturers'
sales literature and was corroborated by the results of several
site visits. However, the most important information concerning the
performance of the various devices came from actual demonstrations
on the Beltway and other high-speed interstate highways in Virginia
and Maryland. Thus, the feasibility of using photo-radar was
largely determined by the results of performance testing on site,
rather than by manufacturers' claims or nonempirical demonstrations
in Europe and the United States.

The scope of this project was rather limited. The researchers
assessed the technical and operational feasibility of the different
types of equipment but did not evaluate the effectiveness of the
use of photo-radar in reducing travel speed or the number of speed-
related crashes since it was not possible to give citations during
the demonstration period. In order to avoid creating a hazardous
environment for the manufacturers and the study team, and to avoid
disrupting the traffic flow at the study sites, no special signing
was used. In addition, media coverage was limited to a press
conference on the second Tuesday of each demonstration period.
Thus, no fully coordinated media campaign was employed. A further
limitation on the scope of the study was that Multanova, one of the
major manufacturers, declined to participate in the demonstrations
in Virginia and Maryland. Therefore, there are insufficient data
from which to draw conclusions concerning the accuracy,
reliability, and efficiency of Multanova's equipment.

BACKGROUND

Many people approach the use and evaluation of photo-radar as
if it were a new and uniquely invasive technology. In fact, photo-
radar equipment is simply the combination of several pieces of
previously existing equipment-camera, radar, and electronic
controls-all of which have been used either together or separately
in enforcement and the prosecution of offenses for many years. The
validity and reliability of these older forms of speed enforcement
technology had to be proved to both the police and the courts prior
to general acceptance. Thus, it is an important to consider the use
of photo-radar in the context of (1) the history of speed
enforcement technology, and (2) the history of photo-radar
technology.

History of Speed Enforcement Technology

In the past, the introduction of a new and innovative speed
enforcement technology often generated a negative reaction. The
public's distrust of the use of high technology by enforcement
officials is often evidenced by claims that the technology is
simply another attempt by "Big Brother" to invade their lives. When
radar was first introduced in the 1950's, Time Magazine ran an
article headlined "Big Brother Is Driving," the text of which
characterized radar as being "as invisible as the Thought Police in
Orwell's chiller [1 9841. " 1 The use of radar was also challenged
as being unconstitutional.2 The history of speed enforcement is
replete with examples of new enforcement techniques; subsequent
negative public reaction and resistance; and finally, assuming
survival through legal challenges, ultimate acceptance.

Time-Distance Method

The use of the first known method of speed enforcement dates
back to 1902 in Westchester County, New York. This system was
composed of three dummy tree trunks set up on the roadside at 1-
mile intervals. A police officer with a stopwatch and a telephone
was concealed in each trunk. As a speeding vehicle passed the first
trunk, the hidden police officer telephoned the time to the second
police officer, who recorded the time at which the vehicle passed
him and then computed its speed for the mile. If the vehicle was
exceeding the speed limit, the officer telephoned the third police
officer, who proceeded to stop the vehicle by lowering a pole
across the road. The "tree trunk" method was subject to hearsay
objections in court because officers had to testify regarding the
time statements of other officers since there was no way to observe
the vehicle over the entire distance.4

This is an early example of the time-distance method of speed
enforcement. Time-&stance measurements are computed by measuring
the time taken to traverse a distance of known length.5 Several
methods of speed enforcement employ the time-distance principle.
Pavement markings or mirror boxes that are observed by police
officers with a stopwatch have replaced dummy tree trunks, and two-
way radios between patrol cars or aircraft have replaced the
telephone system, but the technique remains much the same.6

The speedwatch, also referred to as the Prather speed device,
was one of the first "electric timers" to employ the time-&stance
principles This device consisted of two rubber tubes that were
stretched across a street at a known distance apart. 'The tubes
were connected to two switches, which were in turn connected to a
control panel containing a stopwatch, a switch, and a reset button.
A police officer was positioned so as to observe both tubes, and
when a vehicle approached, he flipped the switch to activate the
first tube. On contact with the tires of the vehicle, the switch in
the first tube started the stopwatch, which was stopped when the
vehicle hit the second tube. The stopwatch was scaled to reflect
the speed of the vehicle.8 The speedwatch is believed to have been
accurate to within 2 mph, and the officer's testimony as to his
observation of the speeding vehicle and the accuracy of the instru-
ment was admissible in most courts.9

The most recent technique employing time-distance measurements
is the visual average speed computer and recorder (VASCAR). VASCAR
is a computerized system that mechanically computes the speed of a
car by measuring the distance between two fixed markers and the
time traveled, thereby giving the observing police officer a quick,
easily readable speed determination. 10

In 1947, only 1 state used a time-distance device," but by
1970, 34 states were employing at least one-the majority using
VASCAR or aerial surveillance.12 Because time-distance devices have
been categorized as "speed traps," their use has been prohibited in
at least 2 states: California and Washington. 13

Pacing

Another widely used method of speed enforcement in the 1940's
was "pacing."14 Police officers paced a speeding vehicle by
following it for a specified distance and observing the speedometer
of the police vehicle to calculate the average speed of the paced
vehicle over the distance. In 1947, 20 percent of the states re-
quired pacing before apprehension of a speeding driver.15 A large
percentage of states used unmarked cars, identifiable only by
decals, and/or motorcycles as pacing vehicles. 16 Because pacing
depends on the accuracy of the pacing vehicle's speedometer, many
states adopted the use of calibrated speedometers and regulations
defining the frequency at which speedometers must be calibrated. 17

Tachograph

The tachograph, also referred to as a tactograph or
tachometer, was a speed enforcement method used by trucking
companies to control the speed of truck drivers. The tachograph
contained a clock with a paper dial attached to the driveshaft or
transmission of the truck. The dial recorded the speed of the truck
at any given time. 18 The chart produced by this device was used to
corroborate the testimony of the arresting officer;19 ironically,
however, it was often admitted into evidence to prove the innocence
of the implicated driver.20

Radar

Police radar was introduced in the late 1940's and early
1950's. Although generally referred to as "radar," police radar is
not technically radar. True radar has the ability to measure an
object's distance, direction, and size as well as its speed, but
police radar measures only speed. Police radar operates according
to the scientific principle known as the Doppler effect: the
frequency of sound waves (or microwaves) being emitted by or
reflected off of an object will vary in direct relation to the
speed of the object itself. The Doppler effect is noticeable in
everyday life in the rising and falling of a car horn's pitch as
the car approaches and passes. Police radar transmits microwaves at
a set frequency. When the microwaves are reflected off of a
vehicle, the frequency of the returning microwaves shifts because
the vehicle is in motion. This shift in the original frequency, the
Doppler shift, is measured by the radar device, which converts the
signal into a measurement of the vehicle's speed.

An early hurdle encountered by police radar (hereinafter
called "radar") was evidentiary in nature. Before judicial notice
was taken of the underlying principle involved, courts required
that an expert witness testify as to radar's accuracy and re-
liability.21 The Virginia Supreme Court was among the first courts
to take judicial notice of radar's underlying principle, thereby
eliminating the need for expert testimony.22 However, testimony as
to the accuracy of the particular machine used to detect the
violation is still required.

Constitutional questions have also arisen in radar cases, as
they invariably do whenever a new scientific technique becomes
useful in enforcement.23 The Virginia statute providing that radar
evidence constitutes prima facie evidence of speeding was found to
be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.24 The defendant in the case argued that the provision
was tantamount to his being presumed guilty25. However, the court
held that the defendant was still presumed innocent under such a
standard.26 A Pennsylvania due process claim based on the alleged
instantaneousness of the machine's determination and the potential
for error was likewise denied.27 In denying the claim, the court
noted the complete absence of cases holding the use of radar for
speed measurement to be unconstitutional.28 Cases raising the issue
of a citizen's constitutional right against self incrimination have
likewise been unsuccessful.29

History of Photo-Radar Technology

Law enforcement's latest innovative technology for the
enforcement of speed laws is photo-radar. Photo-radar equipment
combines a camera and radar with electronic controls to detect and
photograph a speeding vehicle. The unit can photograph the driver's
face and the front license plate if deployed to photograph oncoming
traffic or the rear license plate if deployed to photograph
receding traffic. The license number of the speeding vehicle is
extracted from the picture, and a citation is sent to the
registered owner of the vehicle. The radar used in photo-radar
equipment operates on the same Doppler principle as the radar used
by the police.

Although photo-radar is a relatively new technology in the
United States, it is not the first speed detection device to use a
camera. In 1910, a device known as a photo speed recorder was used
in Massachusetts.30 The photo speed recorder consisted of a camera,
synchronized with a stopwatch, that took pictures of a speeding
vehicle at measured time intervals. The speed of the vehicle was
determined by a mathematical calculation based on the reduction in
size of the vehicle in the photograph as it moved farther away from
the camera. This photographic evidence was held admissible by the
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and the scientific
approach was judged more reliable than, eyewitness testimony
because it did not rely on the "fluctuations of human agencies.

However, in 1955, the unattended use of the photo-traffic
camera (FotoPatrol) was prohibited in New York because of the
difficulty in identifying the driver of the vehicle.32 The Foto-
Patrol device, a camera mounted on the side of the road

activated by an electronic impulse when passed by a vehicle
traveling in excess of a predetermined speed, took a picture of the
rear license plate only, making it impossible to identify the
driver. The court was unwilling to adopt the presumption that the
driver was the registered owner of the vehicle, absent any
corroborating evidence, and prohibited the use of Foto-Patrol
unless it was staffed by an attending officer available to stop and
identify the driver on the spot.33

The problem of driver identification was resolved by the Orbis
In (Orbis) system introduced in the late 1960's.34 Orbis operated
much like an advanced Prather speed device that employed a
camera.35 The contacts the vehicle ran over were 72 inches apart
and connected to a computer that triggered the camera, which was
set up to capture the vehicle's front license plate and the
driver's face if the vehicle's speed exceeded a preset limit.36
When Orbis was introduced, it encountered a unique form of
resistance. - 37 To avoid being recognized, people would speed by
the Orbis machine wearing a Halloween mask. 38- Such a tactic would
be illegal in Virginia, but not in Maryland, because of a statute
that prohibits those over 16 years of age from wearing a mask in
public.39 Orbis was abandoned for administrative reasons.40
Research did not identify any cases that successfully challenged
Orbis on legal grounds, and a study prepared for the U.S.
Department of Transportation indicated that the device was probably
constitutional.41

It is uncertain whether photo-radar will be accepted by the
public. Previous speed enforcement techniques usually gained
acceptance if the technology proved accurate and if they survived
the initial constitutional and evidentiary challenges. However,
even after a technology gains acceptance, drivers have often
undertaken efforts to thwart the technology's effectiveness. One
example of a popular form of resistance to speed detection
technology is the use of a radar detector. Radar detectors, which
are illegal in Virginia,42 sound a warning to the driver when they
detect the microwave signal emitted by the radar unit. Drivers have
also tried using other methods to avoid being caught speeding by
radar.43 These methods included using transmitters designed to
disrupt the radar signal, putting nuts and bolts in the hubcaps,
painting the fan blades with aluminum paint, and attaching hanging
chains to the undercarriage of the car.44 There is even a 160-page
book entitled Beating the Radar Rap.45 Photo-radar will no doubt
encounter many, if not all, of these methods of resistance.
However, if photo-radar is proven to be accurate, and if it is able
to withstand the initial legal challenges, then it should gain
acceptance as an effective tool in speed enforcement.

There is evidence that the public may support photo-radar use
in residential settings. In Pasadena, California, and Paradise
Valley, Arizona, where photo-radar has been used in residential
settings on local, noninterstate roadways, a majority of
respondents in public opinion polls have been in favor of photo-
radar use. However, one must interpret these findings in light of
the fact that more than 90 percent of those cited for speeding in
these two locations are nonresidents. This will not likely be the
case in Virginia and Maryland, especially if photo-radar is used on
the Beltway.

LEGAL ISSUES

Constitutional Issues

If there is one constant in speed enforcement, it is that
drivers will contest speeding citations. Because constitutional
attacks are easily fashioned to assert nearly any position, it can
be expected that implementation of photo-radar in a state will
generate constitutional challenges to its use. However, although
constitutional attacks are easily levied, they are not necessarily
successful. Current jurisprudence supports the constitutionality of
photo-radar despite potential challenges to its use.

Although an attack might be leveled against photo-radar on the
grounds that photographs produced by photo-radar violate the
automobile operator's zone of privacy, 46 such an assertion does
not reflect the scope of the zone of privacy. The first explicit
discussion of a right to privacy by the US. Supreme Court appeared
in Griswold v. Connecticut, 47 in which the appellants challenged a
Connecticut statute prohibiting the distribution of birth control
information to married persons.48 The Court held that the
Connecticut statute was unconstitutional, concluding that the
marital relationship was such that it belonged within a class of
fundamental rights deserving of special protection and that the
Connecticut statute unnecessarily intruded into the relationship.49

But the zone of privacy is narrowly construed. The rights
falling under the zone of privacy are "limited to those which are
'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."'60
The activities found by the Supreme Court to fall within the zone
of privacy include "matters relating to marriage, procreation,
contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and
education."" Placing a right within the zone of privacy limits the
state's regulatory power over the actiVity.,52 The operation of an
automobile simply does not fall within the category of fundamental
rights protected by the zone of privacy. To the contrary, the
Supreme Court considers a person's expectation of privacy in an
automobile to be quite limited, and automobile operation is
properly subject to significant state regulation.53

Another possible attack against photo-radar could be made
under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable
searches54 on the grounds that photo-radar photographs constitute a
Fourth Amendment search. Therefore, photo-radar use is subject to
the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and warrant requirements.
Under the Fourth Amendment, a person has a constitutional right to
freedom from unreasonable search and seizure in circumstances where
the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.55 This
constitutional right is protected through the requirement that a
police officer have probable cause and a warrant in order to engage
in certain types of searches.56

Unless a person exhibits a reasonable expectation of privacy
under the circumstances, the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable
cause requirements are not triggered.57 However, a person has a
lowered expectation of privacy in an automobile - Moreover, "what a
person knowingly exposes to the public" receives no

"Fourth Amendment protection. "59 For this reason, in United States
v. Knotts, the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless placement by
law enforcement officers of a beeper in an automobile to monitor
the vehicle's movements.60 According to the Supreme Court, a person
traveling in an automobile on public roads has no reasonable
expectation of privacy in his or her movements since this
information is knowingly exposed to all who care to look.61
Likewise, photo-radar merely photographs that which a person
knowingly exposes to the public while driving-the person's
likeness. Because of this, the use of photo-radar violates no
reasonable expectation of privacy and, therefore, is not subject to
the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements.

A further claim that might be raised against photo-radar is
that its use chills the freedom of association found by the Supreme
Court to be implied by the First Amendment.62 Such a claim asserts
that both drivers and passengers might avoid traveling in vehicles
with individuals with whom they would normally associate in order
to avoid being officially observed and photographed by photo-
radar.63 This argument misconstrues the scope of associational
rights. The Supreme Court has delineated two types of associational
rights: (1) freedom of expressive association, and (2) freedom of
intimate association.64 The freedom of expressive association
protects organization within groups for the exercise of First
Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech and region.65 The
freedom of intimate association is an outgrowth of the privacy
doctrine and protects an individual's right to engage in intimate
relationships without threat from excessive governmental
regulation.66

Speed enforcement through photo-radar technology does not
compromise freedom of expressive association for two reasons.
First, a claim that photo-radar use might prevent certain
individuals from traveling with persons with whom they would
normally associate will not support a claim for infringement of
freedom of expressive association. A showing "of specific present
objective harm or a threat of specific future harm" to
associational rights and First Amendment rights is necessary to
support a freedom of expressive association claim when government
regulations will only indirectly affect the exercise of First
Amendment rights.67 In Laird v. Tatum68 and Donohoe v. Duling,69
the activities of the plaintiffs' lawful political groups were un-
der surveillance. The Laird plaintiffs argued that surveillance by
U.S. Army observers of the activities of the political groups had a
chilling effect on their First Amendment right to free speech and
freedom of association.70 The plaintiffs in Donohoe claimed that
the taking of pictures by uniformed police officers of persons
involved in demonstrations violated the demonstrators' First
Amendment rights.71 The Supreme Court in Laird held that a claim of
a hypothetical chilling effect on First Amendment and associational
rights would not support a freedom of expressive association claim
if the government regulation did not directly prohibit First
Amendment activity.72 Thus, the Laird and Donohoe courts held that,
where government activity prevents exercise of First Amendment
rights indirectly, a freedom of expressive association claim
requires a specific showing of an objective present harm or
threatened future harm.73

Second, the freedom of expressive association claim against
photo-radar is far weaker than the claims presented in Laird and
Donohoe since photo-radar speed enforcement is not solely directed
at groups organized for the purpose of exercising First Amendment
rights. Freedom of expressive association protects association only
for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights.74 Successful
freedom of association claims involve government regulations
targeting the activities of particular groups organized
specifically to exercise First Amendment rights.75 The only group
targeted by photo-radar would be speeding drivers, who certainly do
not represent an organized group, much less a group organized for
First Amendment purposes.

Moreover, photo-radar use will not provide a basis for a
freedom of intimate association claim. Although the boundaries of
intimate association remain largely undefined, as an outgrowth of
the zone of privacy, it has been used to strike down regulations
that interfere with certain marital and familial relationships.76
Successful freedom of intimate association claims involve statutes
that directly interfere with marital and familial relationships.77
The connection between photo-radar use and association through
intimate relationships is attenuated at best. Photo-radar clearly
does not prevent individuals from engaging in intimate
relationships with family members, or any other person for that
matter, and, therefore, does not implicate the freedom of intimate
association.

An equal protection claim based on the fact that not all
speeders would be detected by photo-radar and cited for speeding 78
would also most likely fail. Because a photo-radar unit requires 1
second to reset itself after photographing a violator, not all
speeding drivers passing through the photo-radar field would be
detected. Thus, not all those violating the speed laws receive the
same treatment.

However, to launch a successful equal protection claim, the
plaintiff must prove that the standard used to select the claimant
for enforcement "was deliberately based on an unjustifiable
criterion such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classifica-
tion.79 The inability to prosecute all violators will not provide
the basis for an equal protection claim.80 Since the determination
of who is missed by photo-radar and who is caught is based on the
technical abilities of the system and not on an intentional
decision to discriminate based on a suspect classification, an
equal protection challenge to the use of photo-radar would almost
certainly fail.

Finally, because a citation for a speeding violation detected
by photo-radar must pass through a development process and is
issued through certified mail, there is a delay between the time of
the violation and the issuance of a citation that could undercut
efforts by a violator to prepare a legal defense. For this reason,
a ticketed driver could assert that photo-radar use constitutes a
denial of due process of law. Currently, the cities of Paradise
Valley, Arizona, and Pasadena, California, which employ photo-
radar, have circumvented due process claims by issuing citations
within a given time period following the offense and by deploying
signs providing considerable warning of approaching photo-radar
units. Still, photo-radar is subject to a due process claim on the
grounds that the element of delay hampers the ability to gather
witnesses and evidence and thus to prepare a proper defense.

However, the delay involved in citing an alleged violator
using the photoradar process is relatively short, reducing the
possibility that a defendant will lose

access to witnesses or evidence. Access to evidence with photo-
radar may, in fact, be better than with a conventional stop since
photo-radar creates a photographic record of the scene where the
speeding violation occurred. Further, in United States v.
Delario,81 the defendant argued that a pre-indictment delay of more
than 1 year constituted a denial of due process. The Court found
that the argument lacked merit and held that the defendant would
have to show that the delay was a deliberate attempt by the
government to n a tactical advantage and had resulted in actual and
substantial prejudice.82 Because the delay involved in issuing
photo-radar citations cannot reasonably be viewed as an attempt by
the government to gain a tactical advantage, case law suggests that
a due process claim against photo-radar is also likely to fail.

If constitutional attacks against photo-radar are
unsuccessful, a ticketed driver might pursue civil liability
against the state under the common law right of privacy. The common
law right of privacy is a tort action created by state courts83
permitting recovery of damages for an invasion of privacy as
defined by state law.

A state law action for invasion of privacy might be brought
against the use of photo-radar on the basis that the unauthorized
taking of a person's photograph constitutes an invasion of
privacy.84 A common law right of privacy claim against a local
government for the use of photo-radar is likely to fail in Virginia
and Maryland for several reasons.

First, courts have repeatedly held that an individual's
privacy must yield to the reasonable exercise of a state's police
power.85 Included within the state's police power is the authority
to photograph persons charged with a crime.86 Thus, in Downs v.
Swann, the Maryland Court of Appeals rejected a claim for invasion
of privacy against the Baltimore Police Department on the grounds
that photographing and fingerprinting a suspect charged with a
crime did not violate the suspect's right - 87 As long as the
police department neither published the pictures nor gave of
privacy. The pictures of suspects not yet convicted to a rogue's
gallery, the police department was not subject to the common law
right of privacy.88 Second, state courts outside Virginia and
Maryland have indicated that there is no invasion of privacy under
the common law right of privacy if the photographing of an
individual by a law enforcement agency does not violate a
reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.89
These opinions suggest that a law enforcement agency may photograph
whatever a person knowingly exposes to the public without violating
the common law right of privacy.

Finally, although no Virginia state court has spoken on the
issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated
that no common law right of privacy exists in Virginia.90 The
Fourth Circuit construes Virginia law as providing merely a
statutory right of privacy, preventing the use of photographs for
commercial purposes only.91 Under the federal court's
interpretation, Virginia law does not countenance a damages action
against a law enforcement agency for the use of photoradar
photographs in speed enforcement. For these reasons, Virginia and
Maryland courts would most likely permit use of photographs
produced by photo-radar in legitimate speed enforcement efforts
without threat of civil liability under the common law right of
privacy.

Evidentiary Issues

Photo-radar devices detect speeders by radar and then
photograph the front or rear license plate of the vehicle and, in
most cases, the driver. In Pasadena and Paradise Valley, police
officers are always present when the devices are in operation. If
the registered owner of the vehicle challenges the citation, the
attending officer testifies in the court proceeding as to the
accuracy of the background scene depicted in the photograph and
compares the likeness of the driver in the photograph to the reg-
istered owner. No appellate challenges regarding evidentiary issues
have occurred in either locality.

A photograph is usually admitted into evidence under the
pictorial testimony theory. Under this theory, photographic
evidence is "admissible only when a witness has testified that it
is a correct and accurate representation of relevant facts person-
ally observed by the witness. "92 However, it is not necessary that
the witness be the actual photographer.93 The witness is required
to know only about "the facts represented or the scene or objects
photographed, and once this knowledge is shown he 9794 can say
whether the photograph correctly and accurately portrays these
facts. Prosecutors in Pasadena and Paradise Valley have proceeded
under the pictorial testimony theory when introducing photo-radar
photographs into evidence. Because their photo-radar devices are
attended by police officers, the officers can testify in court that
the photographs are accurate representations.

For any proposed system for use on the Beltway, it is likely
that the device will be attended by a police officer. However, if
unattended use is anticipated, a different theory must be used in
order to admit the photographs into evidence. This newer theory of
admission is referred to as the "silent witness" theory.95 Under
this doctrine, photographs constitute "'substantive evidence' in
the sense that photographic evidence alone can support a finding by
the trier [of fact],96. Thus, under the silent witness doctrine,
"photographic evidence may draw its verification, not from any wit-
ness who has actually viewed the scene portrayed on the film, but
from the reliability of the process by which the representation was
produced."97 The silent witness theory, however, is not accepted in
all jurisdictions.98

Virginia

In Virginia, photographic evidence is admissible under both
the pictorial testimony theory and the silent witness theory.99 The
pictorial testimony theory remained the sole theoretical basis for
the admission of photographic evidence until the 1972 Virginia
Supreme Court ruling in Ferguson v. Commonwealth.100 The sole issue
in that case was whether photographs could be admitted under the
silent witness 101 theory.

In Ferguson, the defendant was convicted of forgery for
cashing a forged check at a drugstore equipped with a Regiscope
camera.102 The Regiscope camera photographed each check-cashing
transaction, with the photograph including the person presenting
the check, the identification presented by the person, and the
check itself.

This process was accomplished by the person placing the check
and the identification at the base of the camera while standing at
the cashier's window where the camera was installed. Each
transaction was assigned a number that was stamped on the check
prior to the time the photograph was taken. The check and the
transaction number were used to identify the transaction when a
photograph was requested from the Regiscope Company.

In the Ferguson case, the store manager who had loaded the
film also removed the film and sent it to the Regiscope Company to
be developed. Regiscope then delivered the photograph of the
defendant to an employee of the drugstore, who in turn delivered it
to the police. During the ensuing trial, "no witness testified that
the photograph depicted a scene or event as witnessed by him"103.
The Virginia Supreme Court determined that "the evidence was
sufficient to provide an adequate foundation assuring the accuracy
of the process" and thus that the photograph was properly admitted
into evidence under the silent witness theory.104

The Code of Virginia expressly provides for the admissibility
of photographs in particular kinds of cases under the silent
witness theory. For example, in larceny prosecutions, photographs
of the goods allegedly stolen may be introduced as evidence, rather
than the goods themselves. In Saunders v. Commonwealth,105 the Vir-
ginia Court of Appeals examined in detail this codification of the
silent witness theory The court concluded that each of the
statutory requirements must be met in order for the photograph to
be admissible. Since the statute required the arresting officer to
sign the photograph, his failure to do so resulted in the court
finding that the photograph could not stand as substantive evidence
under the silent witness 106 theory. However, the court ruled that
the photograph was admissible under the pictorial testimony theory
because the arresting officer testified that the photograph
accurately represented what he observed and photographed.107

Under Ferguson and Saunders, it appears that the silent
witness theory provides an acceptable basis for the admission of
photographic evidence in Virginia in certain contexts. In Ferguson,
the Virginia Supreme Court carefully examined the Regiscope process
before determining that it presented an "adequate foundation as-
suring the adequacy of the process."I-08 Although the silent
witness theory has been codified for limited circumstances,
Saunders demonstrated that such statutes are to be narrowly
construed. Under both holdings, the procedures used in obtaining
and bringing the photographs to trial are crucial in determining
their admissibility as evidence.

To determine whether photographs taken by an unattended photo-
radar system would be admissible under the silent witness theory,
the test that must be applied is "whether the evidence is
sufficient to provide an adequate foundation assuring the accuracy
of the process producing it."109 It is useful to compare the photo-
radar process to the Regiscope process to speculate whether photo-
radar photographs would meet this test. If the two processes are
sufficiently similar, it is likely that photo-radar photographs
would be admissible as evidence under the silent witness theory.

The photo-radar process appears to be substantially similar to
the Regiscope process. A police officer will load the film. When
the radar device detects a speeding vehicle, the camera will
photograph the vehicle, thereby recording the front license plate
and the face of the driver, or the rear license plate only. The
police officer will unload the film and send it either to the
photo-radar company or to a police photo-processing laboratory. A
citation will then be issued to the registered owner(s) of the
vehicle. As with the Regiscope system, if the photograph is
required for evidence in a trial, the photo-processing laboratory
can develop the film and send the police the photograph that will
be identified by the license plate number.

The Regiscope system and photo-radar system differ in that the
Regiscope appears to be manually operated, with the cashier
controlling the camera, and the photo-radar camera is automatically
activated when the radar detects a speeding vehicle. It is possible
that photo-radar equipment would be staffed in some cases. Whether
operated automatically or by police officers, evidence of the
technical accuracy of the activation device would have to be
presented to the court in order for a photo-radar photograph to be
admissible.

Another difference between the two systems that may bear on
the accuracy of the process is that the Regiscope system is set up
inside a store that presumably is constantly monitored by
employees. The photo-radar system would be set up outdoors, and
tampering with the system would be possible in un-monitored
locations. This difficulty could be remedied by producing evidence
that tampering does not affect the accuracy of the system or that
tampering did not occur in the situation in question.

One other accuracy problem may arise in connection with the
use of the photo-radar system. In some instances, more than one
vehicle may be shown in the same photograph, thereby creating
difficulty in determining which of the drivers was speeding.
Charles Oringer, Town Attorney for Paradise Valley, explained that
this difficulty is easily resolved. Older photo-radar cameras have
a 29-degree field angle; the newer models have a 22-degree field
angle. The radar equipment has a 5-degree field angle. On the
photograph taken by the photo-radar device, the portion of the
photograph containing the radar field can be distinguished. Thus,
the car in that portion of the photograph is the speeding vehicle
detected by the radar system. Some photo-radar systems use a
template, which is placed over the picture, to identify the
speeding vehicle when there is more than one vehicle in a
photograph.

Although the Virginia courts and the Virginia legislature have
not specifically addressed the admissibility of photo-radar
photographs under the silent witness theory, it appears that the
photo-radar process can meet the accuracy test laid down in
Ferguson. Thus, it is likely that photo-radar photographs may be
admissible even if no attending police officer can testify as to
the accuracy of the background scene.

Maryland

The acceptability of the silent witness theory in Maryland is
not so clear as in Virginia. In Sisk v. State,110 the defendant
appealed the admission of Regiscope pho-

tographs in the retrial of his forgery case. In the first hearing,
the reviewing court determined that the Regiscope photograph had
not been sufficiently authenticated under either theory of
admission for photographic evidence. 111 During the retrial, two
types of authentication evidence were admitted: (1) testimony
regarding the accuracy of the Regiscope system, and (2) testimony
by a store employee identifying the 112 In its review of the
retrial, the Maryland Supreme Court background scene.stated that
"this seems to be the first time that we have been called upon to
consider, specifically, the [silent witness] rule." 113 Although
the court ruled that the Regiscope photograph had been sufficiently
authenticated, it discussed both theories and did not explicitly
state under which theory the photograph had been admitted. 114

It is possible that this case stands for the proposition that
the silent witness theory may be used for the admission of
photographic evidence in Maryland courts. Sisk differs from
Ferguson, however, in that no witness was required to testify as to
the accuracy of the photograph in the Virginia case. It is possible
that the Maryland court was fashioning a modified silent witness
theory, which imposes the additional requirement that a witness
testify as to the accuracy of the photograph. Under the facts of
Sisk, it appears that it is not necessary that the witness be
present at the time the photograph is taken in order to testify as
to its authenticity if other evidence ensuring the accuracy of the
process of identifying speeding vehicles and photographing them is
also admitted. In the case of photo-radar, this would mean that the
police officer who loaded the film would testify as to the accuracy
of the background scene. There have been many technological
advances in photography and radar in the 26 years since Sisk was
decided. It is possible that courts would now be less skeptical of
the accuracy of the process and therefore less likely to require a
witness to testify regarding its accuracy.

No other Maryland case addresses the acceptability of the
silent witness theory. Although the Maryland Supreme Court
discussed the silent witness theory in favorable terms and stated
that the issue before the court was admissible under the silent
witness theory, the holding in Sisk does not clearly state that the
theory is acceptable in Maryland. Given the lack of precedent for
this theory and the lack of clarity in the one case addressing the
issue, the acceptability of the silent witness theory in Maryland
is uncertain.

Requirements for Legal Service

Some of the photo-radar systems under consideration for
installation on the Beltway use a procedure whereby the company
providing the photo-radar service mails the speeding citation to
the residence of the alleged offender. This procedure would present
difficulties in both Maryland and Virginia because both mandate
personal service for the issuance of traffic citations. It is clear
that the method of service presently employed by photo-radar
providers is inconsistent with the statutory service requirements
of Maryland and is likely to be inconsistent with the statutory
service requirements of Virginia.

Virginia

"Personal service of a traffic citation" involves several
actions by the arresting officer. When a driver is detained by a
police officer for any violation of Title 46.2 that is "punishable
as a misdemeanor," Virginia law requires the driver to give a
written promise to appear for a hearing. 115 This requirement is
normally fulfilled by the signature of the driver at the time of
the issuance of the traffic citation. Because speeding is a
violation punishable as a misdemeanor,116 the offense is subject to
the requirements of Section 46.2-936, requiring a written promise
to appear from a driver detained by a police officer for a speeding
violation.

It is questionable whether the written promise requirement
would apply to the photo-radar method because the prerequisite to
the requirement is the detention or custody of the driver. 117 When
a driver is not detained, a written promise may not be necessary.
This would be the case where a citation is mailed to the residence:
no interaction between the driver and the police officer would be
involved. It is not possible to determine in advance whether
Virginia courts would accept this narrow construction of the
statute.

Maryland

Maryland state law requires that a driver charged with a
traffic violation acknowledge receipt of the citation by signing it
at the time of issuance. 118 An Attorney General's opinion issued
in 1979 confirmed this requirement. 119 That opinion stated that
the signature requirements of Section 26-203 of the Transportation
Code also applied to Section 26-201(a) of the same article.120
Section 26-201(a) contains a list of statutes for which police
officers are given authority to charge violators. 121 Included in
the list are all Maryland vehicle laws. 122 Speeding offenses,
codified at Section 21.801 et seq. of the Transportation Code, are
a part of Maryland's vehicle law and therefore are subject to the
signature requirements of Section 26-203.

It is clear that under Maryland law the mailing of citations
to the residence of the alleged offender would violate the service
requirements incorporated in the Maryland Transportation Code,
Section 26-203. Section 26-203 specifically requires at the time of
issuance the driver's signature as acknowledgment of receipt of a
traffic citation. Therefore, using photo-radar in Maryland would
require either statutory revision or personal issuance of the
citations by police officers.

Statutory Amendments

Legislative action in both Virginia and Maryland would assist
in the implementation of photo-radar as a viable speed detection
system. Specifically, the adoption of statutes that provide for
service of traffic citations by mail would facilitate
implementation, as would codification of the silent witness theory
of admissibility for photo-radar photographs. In Virginia,
violation of the provisions for use of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes does not require personal service of the citation. However,
in Virginia, although the HOV violation is a type of traffic
infraction, it is not a misdemeanor and is treated much as a
parking ticket. Thus, the HOV prece-

dent does not apply to the several requirements for the misdemeanor
speeding violation.

Film/Photograph Handling Issues

Both manned and unmanned photo-radar sites will require manual
camera loading and unloading, laboratory photo processing, and
storage of the resulting negatives and prints. In developing
operational procedures to carry out these functions, two additional
issues arise. The first involves how the film and photographs are
physically stored between the time of an alleged speeding violation
and the admission of the photo-radar photograph into evidence. The
procedures instituted for handling and developing the film must
ensure that the 'chain of custody" provides reasonable certainty
that physical tampering or alteration does not occur to either the
film or the photograph. The second issue involves individual
privacy rights. The privacy of individuals in Virginia and Maryland
is protected under both common law and statutory enactments. Thus,
it is necessary to ensure that the photographic handling and
storage procedures do not interfere with these privacy
entitlements. The following subsections examine Virginia and
Maryland law with regard to chain of custody requirements and
individual privacy rights and recommend operational film/photograph
handling procedures that conform to the provisions of the law in
both jurisdictions.

Chain of Custody Concerns

Due to the ease with which film and pictures can be altered,
photographs offered under the silent witness theory must be
authenticated. Thus, the film/ photograph handling procedures must
ensure that photographs used in cases involving a contested
speeding ticket are genuine. Authentication is accomplished by
establishing the chain of custody of photographs prior to their
introduction into evidence. This chain of custody is usually
established by eliciting testimony from each successive custodian
of the film/photograph to show that the original film was delivered
to the laboratory and developed without any tampering and that the
photograph introduced in court was reproduced from the original
film. In addition, chain of custody authentication typically
requires that the evidence be secure when not in use and that it is
made available only to those individuals directly involved in its
processing.

In Virginia, the general chain of custody rule (as stated in
Reedy v. Commonwealth of Virginia) is that "evidence of the
physical properties of an item ... requires proof of the chain of
custody to establish with reasonable certainty that the material
was not altered, substituted, or contaminated."123 Only one
decision, however, has discussed the operational procedures
required with respect to the handling and processing of film and
photographs. In Ferguson v. Commonwealth, a store used a Regiscope
camera to photograph every check-cashing transaction that took
place. The film was sent to the Regiscope Corporation for
processing and storing. Upon learning that a check had been forged,
the store owner requested a

photograph of a particular transaction from Regiscope. Regiscope
then sent a print from the negative to one of the store's
employees, who in turn took it to the police. The Ferguson court
held that evidence which established the reported sequence of
events was "sufficient to provide an adequate foundation assuring
the accuracy of the process producing [the picture]" and thus
admitted the photograph into evidence.

Another chain of custody decision, Robertson v. Commonwealth
of Virgina125 is also applicable to the photo-radar film handling
procedures. In Robertson, the court held that the mailing of a
sealed package containing evidence did not upset the chain of
custody since, in the absence of any evidence of tampering or mis-
handling, it will be presumed that the U.S. Postal Service has
properly discharged its duties.

In developing operational procedures that conform to the
Reedy-Ferguson Robertson chain of custody rules, it is helpful to
examine (1) the procedures the Virginia State Police use to ensure
the admissibility of photographic evidence in court, and (2) the
film-handling procedures required in other jurisdictions. According
to Lt. Col. C. M. Robinson, the Virginia State Police use the
following procedures for the handling and processing of photographs
admitted into court. The police officer who took the picture
delivers the film to the police photo laboratory, with a request
specifying the number and size of the prints required. The
laboratory logs in the film, develops it, makes prints, and returns
copies of the prints in a sealed package to the officer in charge
of the case by U.S. mail. The negatives are retained at the
laboratory. During this process, the film/photographs are stored in
limited access areas to prevent tampering prior to trial.

As to other jurisdictions, in State v. Young,126 a Maine
appellate court ruled that the following was sufficient to
establish the authenticity of photographs from a bank surveillance
camera: (1) testimony of the bank manager as to the installation
and field of view of the camera; (2) testimony of an employee of
the company that installed the camera as to the camera's operation
and periodic testing; (3) testimony of the person who removed the
exposed film; (4) testimony of each of the law enforcement officers
who had custody of the film from the time it was taken from the
camera until the time of the trial; and (5) testimony of the bank
teller as to the activation of the camera during the robbery.
Similarly, in Groves v. Indiana,127 the Supreme Court of Indiana
held that "in cases involving automatic cameras ... there should be
evidence as to how and when the camera was loaded, how frequently
the camera was activated, when the photographs were taken, and the
processing and chain of custody of the film after its removal from
the camera."128

Furthermore, some courts have approved even less stringent
chain of custody procedures when photographs are admitted into
evidence under the silent witness theory. For example, in Molina v.
State,129 an Alabama. appellate court held that "As long as
satisfactory evidence of the integrity of a film or videotape is
presented, stringent foundational requirements, such as proof of a
continuous chain of custody, are now almost universally rejected as
unnecessary."130 The court then further noted that "[an example of
a film or tape for which chain of custody might be one

appropriate way of establishing authenticity would be a film or
tape made with an automatic camera that recorded an event when no
human beings were present. But even in this situation, rather than
resorting to proof of chain of custody, it usually should be
possible to authenticate the film or tape in some other way, such
as by the testimony of a photographic expert who has determined
that it has not been altered in any wa and was not built up or
faked."131 Similarly, in Stark v. State of Indiana, 112 the Indiana
Supreme Court held that the admission 'into evidence of a
photograph taken by a Regiscope camera was proper even though the
"state provided neither evidence about the manner in which the
photograph was processed nor a complete chain of custody.'133

In Maryland, the common law chain of custody rule requires
that there be a "reasonable probability ... that no tampering
occurred while the evidence was in the state's possession and that
it is the same evidence linked to the defendant."134 Thus, the
general rule in Maryland is essentially identical with the standard
used in Virginia. Unfortunately, however, Maryland appellate courts
have yet to address chain of custody procedures specifically with
regard to photographic evidence or the related subject of chain of
custody requirements with regard to the transmittal of evidence
through the U.S. mail.

Although Maryland case law provides only limited guidance as
to the required film/photograph handling procedures, additional
insight is provided by a Maryland statute that establishes specific
chain of custody rules for controlled dangerous. substances. 135
Under these rules, the following procedures are followed to
establish that physical evidence constitutes a particular
controlled dangerous sub-stance:

A report signed by the chemist performing the test is
submitted in court that (1) confirms that the chemist is
certified as qualified to analyze controlled dangerous
substances, (2) states that he or she made the analysis under
the procedures approved by the department, and (3) states that
in his or her opinion the substance is or contains the
particular controlled dangerous substance specified.

A statement containing a sufficient description of the
material or its container to identify the material is signed
by each successive person in the chain of custody (defined as
the seizing officer, the packaging officer, the chemist, and
any other person who actually touched the substance when it
was not contained in a sealed package) stating that the person
delivered it to the other person indicated, on or about the
date indicated.

The report and these statements serve as prima facie evidence
that the material delivered to the chemist was properly tested
under the approved procedures, that these procedures are
legally reliable, that the material was delivered to him or
her by the person stated in the report, that the material was
or contained the substance therein reported, and that each
person had custody and made delivery as stated.

The chemist and the successive custodians need not appear in
court to create these prima facie presumptions.

Finally, the prosecution can demand (in writing, at least 5
days in advance) the presence of the chemist or any person in
the chain of custody as a prosecution witness at trial.

The statutory rules established for handling controlled
dangerous substances are helpful in determining the film/photograph
handling chain of custody rules since Maryland courts are likely to
follow them, at least to the extent that they agree with the
general common law rule. Thus, for example, it is likely that chain
of custody testimony will not be required by couriersl36 and that
signed statements will suffice (without a court appearance) for
creating a prima facie presumption that the evidence is genuine.

Additional insight is provided by examining the chain of
custody procedures Maryland police officers use to comply with
these rules. In Thompson v. State of Maryland, 137 the procedures
used by the City of Baltimore Police Department are given as
follows. The police officers immediately transport seized
controlled dangerous substances to the evidence control section at
police headquarters. The transporting officer executes a chain of
custody evidence submission form and a property slip detailing the
items submitted for analysis. A technician photographs the evidence
in the presence of the transporting officer, places the items in a
sealed container, and deposits the container in a depository safe
pending chemical analysis. The chemist analyzing the material
records the date he or she received the material, the results of
the analysis, and the date the material is returned to the property
control section. 138

One final indicator of the chain of custody requirements
Maryland courts are likely to impose is the procedure used by the
Maryland Department of State Police for the handling and processing
of photographs admitted into court. According to Lt. Vernon Betkey,
when a state trooper takes a photograph, he or she fills out a slip
that lists the date, time, and location at which the picture was
taken and identifies the photographer. This slip and the film are
then sent to the crime laboratory for processing. The pictures are
returned to the police officer who had them taken and are put in
the case file. Thus, normal chain of custody procedures (such as
evidence bags and custody sheets) are not employed with photographs
(although they are with videotapes) in Maryland.

Privacy Concerns

The film/photograph handling procedures must also ensure that
the privacy rights of individuals photographed while speeding are
not violated. In general,. an individual's right to privacy
originates from three distinct sources: the U.S. Constitution,
state statutory enactments, and state common law court decisions.
As discussed earlier, however, the constitutional right to privacy
applies only to fundamental rights that involve the family sphere,
such as marriage, procreation, and contraception use; it does not
encompass the use of photographs taken on public roads. Thus, any
privacy protection that affects photo-radar operational procedures
must originate from state statutes or case law.

In Virginia, the only statutory protection available to
individuals against governmental privacy invasion are the
restrictions imposed by the Privacy Protection

Act of 1976.139 Under this act, agencies and political subdivisions
of the Commonwealth that collect personal information must adhere
to the following guidelines140 to ensure that individual privacy is
safeguarded:

1. The existence of the information system cannot be secret.

2. The need for the information must be clearly established in
advance.

3. The information must be relevant to the purpose for which it
is collected.

4. The information cannot be collected by fraudulent or unfair
means.

5. Information can be collected only as explicitly or implicitly
authorized by law.

6. The information's reliability must be assured, and its misuse
prevented.

7. Clearly prescribed procedures must be in place to ensure that
the information is used only for the purpose for which it was
collected.

For the most part, these guidelines will have little impact on
photo-radar use or on the operational procedures developed for
film/photograph handling.

Examining each of these guidelines in turn, it is apparent
that, with the exception of guidelines 6 and 7, photo-radar use
should not be affected since:

1. The existence of photo-radar photograph files will not be
secret.

2. The need to retain photographs is clearly required given the
potential for court challenges of speeding citations.

3. The retention of photographs clearly meets the purpose of
defending speeding citation challenges in court.

4. Fraudulent or unfair means will not be used to obtain the
photographs.

5. Collection of the information is implicitly authorized by Va.
Code Ann. Section 15.1-138, which authorizes police
enforcement of Virginia's traffic laws, and would be
explicitly authorized by legislation necessary to establish
the photo-radar speed enforcement program.

Guidelines 6 and 7, however, will affect photo-radar
film/photograph handing procedures. Specifically, they will require
that (1) the chain of custody procedures ensure the accuracy and
reliability of the photographs and prevent their misuse, and (2)
that the procedures clearly enjoin use of the photographs for any
purposes other than identify violators and defending ticket
challenges.

Additional statutory privacy constraints are provided by Va.
Code Ann. Section 2.1-380. This section establishes strict
requirements on agencies maintaining information systems containing
personal information (such as photographs) to ensure that the
information is kept confidential. These requirements state that:

1. Only personal information permitted or required by law can be
collected, maintained, used, or disseminated.

2. Personal information is maintained consistent with
confidentiality requirements.

3. Information is not disseminated to other information systems
without the sender specific requirements for security and
usage thereof and without receiving reasonable reassurances
that those requirements will be met.

4. A list is maintained of all persons and organizations having
regular access to the information in the system.

5. A complete record including the identity and purpose of every
access to any personal information in the system (excluding
accesses by personnel of the agency that inputs the data) is
maintained for a period of 3 years or until such time as the
personal information is purged, whichever is shorter.

6. Appropriate safeguards are established to secure the system
from any reasonably foreseeable threat to its security.

Thus the procedures established for the handling of photo-
radar film and photographs must also ensure that these constraints
are met.

Privacy constraints arising through Virginia common law court
decisions must also be examined. A review of Virginia case law,
however, reveals that common law privacy rights are unlikely to
affect photo-radar film/photograph handling procedures. Although
Virginia courts have never specifically addressed the privacy
issues involved with governmental photographing of automobile
occupants on public roadways, they have established that (1) a
police officer has the right to look into the interior of an
automobile from any number of angles without compromising any
expectations of privacy that the driver could reasonably have
(since a private citizen could readily make the same
observations),14' and (2) a passenger in a stolen rental vehicle
has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.142
Although neither of these decisions is directly on point, they do
indicate a reluctance to find privacy rights with regard to
automobile contents that are in plain view. In addition, although
no Virginia state court has addressed the issue, the Fourth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that no common law right of
privacy exists in Virginia, only the statutory right of privacy
discussed previously. 143 Finally, state courts in other
jurisdictions that have addressed the automobile occupant privacy
issue, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, have been unanimous in
holding that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists when the
automobile is exposed to the public. 144 Given this, it is highly
unlikely that Virginia courts win find that privacy concerns
require special treatment of the film and photographs beyond that
required by statute.

In Maryland, even fewer privacy concerns will affect the
film/photograph handling procedures. The only Maryland statute
affording privacy protection is

Md. State Govt. Code Ann. Section 10-618(f), which allows
custodians of public records to deny public inspection of records
of investigations compiled for any law enforcement, judicial,
correctional, or prosecution purpose. Such a denial, however, can
be only to the extent that the inspection would (1) interfere with
a valid law enforcement proceeding, (2) deprive another person of
his or her right to a fair trial, (3) constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy, or (6) prejudice an investigation. It
is at least conceivable that a Maryland court could find disclosure
of photo-radar photographs to be an invasion of personal privacy,
and thus Maryland officials should not disclose them to the public
unless required to do so by a court order. However, this section
does not in any way restrict the state from taking such
photographs. Thus, as in Virginia, Maryland statutory law will not
require any significant privacy-induced constraints on the photo-
radar procedures.

Maryland common law privacy rights are also unlikely to pose
any constraints on the film handling procedures. Although Maryland
courts have never specifically addressed the privacy issues
involved with governmental photographing of automobile occupants on
public highways, several decisions come fairly close to addressing
this issue and make clear the common law rule in Maryland. In
Fowler v. State of Maryland, 145 a Maryland appellate court held
that "society does not consider the interior of an automobile
parked in a public place to be a place where a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy."146 Similarly, in Dept of Trans-
portation, Motor Vehicle Administration v. Armacost,147 another
Maryland appellate court held in an automobile context (involving
emission inspections) that 'an individual has no expectation of
privacy in items that he knowingly exposes to the public."48 These
decisions clearly indicate that Maryland courts are opposed to
finding privacy rights with the regard to automobile contents that
are in plain view.

Recommended Procedures

The discussion shows that Virginia and Maryland have similar,
but not identical, rules concerning chain of custody and privacy.
These rules are sufficiently similar so that a single set of
procedures is recommended for the handling of film and photographs
in both jurisdictions. These recommended procedures should satisfy
chain of custody and privacy requirements in both jurisdictions:

In contracts with the camera providers, there should be a
clause ensuring that company representatives will be available
to testify at photo-radar trials as to the installation and
triggering operation of the camera.

In the contract with the company that maintains the cameras,
there should be a clause that ensures that a company
representative will be available to testify at photo-radar
trials as to the periodic testing and maintenance of the
cameras.

Photo-radar cameras should be inaccessible to everyone except
the maintenance personnel and individuals who remove and
replace the film.

A custody sheet should be initiated with each roll of film at
the time the film is placed in the camera. The sheet should
record the dates and times

that custody of the film was transferred, as well as the identity
and signature of each transferee.

The film should be either hand delivered or mailed to the
processing laboratory. If mailed, the film should be in a
sealed package. The laboratory technician should verify that
no tampering occurred during mailing.

After processing, prints developed from the film negatives
should be sent in a sealed package to the individuals who
process the citations. The individuals should verify that no
tampering occurred during mailing.

All persons who obtain possession of the film or photographs
should be available to testify at trial.

All persons taking possession of the film should sign and date
the custody sheet, and the film should be stored in a limited
access area when it is not in the physical possession of one
of the custodians to ensure there is no possibility of
tampering.

Negatives should be kept on file at the police photo
laboratory for 1 year so as to ensure their accessibility if
problems develop with the chain of custody of the photographs.

Use of the film or photographs for any purpose other than
identifying violators and defending ticket challenges should
be clearly prohibited.

Negatives and prints should be destroyed periodically after
citations are paid and they are no longer required.

FCC Policy on Photo-Radar

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promulgates
guidelines that manage and control radio-frequency use in the
United States. Thus, a potential concern with photo-radar is
whether or not its use is consistent with these guidelines.
Although the photo-radar emitter is essentially identical with FCC-
approved police radar units, concerns regarding photo-radar
compliance with FCC regulations have arisen.

In order to determine whether the use of photo-radar complies
with existing FCC guidelines, Mr. Eugene Thompson of the FCC's
Rules and Regulations Bureau was contacted on May 21, 1992.149 Mr.
Thompson confirmed that the use of photoradar units by law
enforcement agencies (in attended or unattended modes) was con-
sistent with FCC guidelines, and thus, special permission (or
policy waivers) would not be required prior to the implementation
of photo-radar programs.

METHODS

Since the use of photo-radar is a complex, multifaceted issue,
the feasibility of its use on the Beltway must be judged based on a
number of criteria, each involving a different aspect of the
technology or its interpretation by the courts. For these reasons,
the method used in this evaluation addressed the following issues:

1. the capabilities of the various models of photo-radar
equipment as noted by manufacturers' claims and demonstrations
at their factory

2. the accuracy of the equipment in determining speeds

3. the reliability of the speed measurements

4. the quality of the photo-radar photographs in terms of the
identification of vehicles and drivers according to legal
specifications

5. the likelihood of successfully detecting and photographing a
speeding vehicle given the obstructions inherent in high-
volume traffic and the difficulty in photographing high-speed
vehicles

6. the effect of photo-radar as used in this evaluation (without
citations) on speed characteristics (i.e., mean speed, 85th
percentile speed, and speed variance)

7. the characteristics of a facility that would affect the
successful use of photo-radar, such as number of lanes

8. the likelihood of detection by standard radar detectors

Site Visits and Manufacturers' Nonempirical Demonstrations

In order to connect information on the various manufacturers
and their photo-radar devices and peripherals, the study team made
two sets of site visits, one in the United States and the other in
Europe. The site visits to Pasadena, California, and Paradise
Valley, Arizona, took place between February 26 and March 5, 1990.
The site visits to Europe were conducted between May 20 and June 2,
1990 (see Table 1). The purposes for these site visits were:

1. To discuss the equipment on site with the manufacturers. The
individuals who know the most about photo-radar equipment are
the individuals who initially developed and now produce the
devices-the manufacturers themselves. However, in many cases,
the manufacturers, especially those located overseas, contract
with agents in the United States to market their products. In
many cases, these agents have very little technical training
)ut are, rat her, experts in sales and distribution. During
the demonstrations, inaccurate information concerning the
equipment was often received from agents who represented the
manufacturers and may not have had the

Click HERE for graphic.

technical expertise or familiarity to be able to provide
answers to technical questions. By dealing with manufacturers
directly, the study team was able to ascertain the
capabilities and idiosyncrasies of the equipment. In addition,
they were able to ensure that the manufacturers were fully
aware of the Virginia/Maryland demonstrations and the testing
criteria for those demonstrations.

2. To observe the photo-radar equipment in use at locations where
the manufacturer felt its use had been successful. The study
team believed that the manufacturer would be the best source
of information concerning "successful" use of their products.
In addition, by visiting the photo-radar sites, the team was
often able to discuss the equipment with the technicians
operating it and with police officers who worked the sites.

3. To evaluate the equipments' design and the manufacturers'
claims in relation to photo-radar use on high-density urban
expressways. Most of the locations at which photo-radar has
been used successfully are on city streets and in residential
areas, both of which are very different from a high-volume,
high-speed expressway like the Beltway. During the interviews,
the team members made notes of problems that might affect
Beltway use, such as "screening." (Screening occurs when a
vehicle blocks the radar signal returning from a speeding
vehicle or blocks the camera's view of the vehicle. In these
cases, photo-radar cannot be successfully used.) The study
team made note of this and other problems that might arise on
the Beltway so that the U.S. demonstration phase of the
project could be designed to test for these problems.

Field Demonstrations

During the summer of 1990, five manufacturers of photo-radar
equipment demonstrated their device on interstate highways in
Virginia and Maryland for 2 weeks each. A sixth, Multanova, was
invited to participate in the demonstrations, but declined. Many
steps were taken to ensure a fair and equitable analysis of each
company. During each 2-week study period, the manufacturers were
given the opportunity to take as many pictures as they wished,
using their choice of photographic equipment and film.
Manufacturers were also encouraged to take photographs using their
equipment in as many ways as possible so that each capability of
the equipment could be evaluated. Whenever possible, the film was
developed by a local commercial laboratory. However, when local
processing was unavailable for unusual film types or unusual
canister sizes, other arrangements were made.

All demonstrations were conducted with the manufacturers or
their agents operating the equipment under the constant supervision
of the research team, who collected the data for all tests.
Although the same tests were run for all pieces of equipment, there
were some differences in the manufacturers' experience in operating
their device. For the most part, these were based on the
manufacturers' schedules, their familiarity with the equipment, and
whether all of the equipment's functions were working at the time
of the demonstrations.

There were, however, some conditions under which all of the
manufacturers operated that may have affected the performance of
their device, such as the suitability of permanent loop stations
(and, thus, the study sites) for taking perfect photographs. In
these instances, since all manufacturers operated under the same
conditions, no one manufacturer had an advantage over the others.

The performance of each piece of equipment was evaluated after
several tests were conducted at the preselected sites. In order to
prevent biasing of the desired information, the same types of
demonstrations were performed for each type of equipment at the
same sites, on the same workdays, and at approximately the same
time of day.

Site Selection

A major objective of this study was to determine how the
prevailing traffic and geometric conditions at a given site affect
the accuracy of the speeds recorded and the clarity of the
resulting photographs. The ideal location for collecting the
information to evaluate this effectiveness would be where accurate
volume and speed data could be collected and where light conditions
are nearly ideal for photography. The only sites at which speed and
volume data could be collected were at sites where loop sensors
were permanently installed. Unfortunately, these locations were not
necessarily the best for photography. Since the photographs could
be taken at the loop sensor locations, and since it would be
virtually impossible to collect speeds and volumes accurately at
high-volume locations without loops, it was decided that the first
criterion for selecting a site would be the availability of loop
sensors at the site. The next requirement was that the site provide
safe conditions for manufacturers, their agents, and those involved
in collecting the data. The final criterion was that the site be a
two-, three-, or four-lane interstate highway with suitable
vertical and horizontal -alignments. Factors taken into
consideration in evaluating how safe a particular location was
included the availability of adequate site distance and adequate
space away from the edge of the pavement for vehicles and
equipment.

In addition, the conditions at several of the sites
necessitated that equipment be set up in concentrations that may
not have been ideal for photo-radar operation. In Northern
Virginia, for instance, each piece of equipment had to be set
rather far back from the roadway in order to ensure the safety of
the public and the study team, due to the high volumes and high
speeds at these sites. This added an approximate width of one lane
to the distance between the equipment and the target vehicles.
Also, at the I-495 site in Virginia, there was a significant drop
from the roadway to the shoulder that resulted in vehicle-mounted
equipment being tilted by up to 5 degrees. Thus, at this site,
vehicle-mounted units may in some cases have been projecting the
radar beam over compact cars and shooting photographs at an angle.
These operational requirements, although not ideal for the use of
photo-radar, were equivalent for all manufacturers, thereby giving
none an advantage over the others.

The sites selected were therefore not necessarily the most
ideal locations for photo-radar equipment with respect to the
quality of the photographs taken but were the most suitable if all
selection criteria were considered. Thus, it is quite likely that
the photographs taken did not represent the best quality that could
be obtained by the equipment; however, they served as a good means
of comparing the photographic capability between brands of
equipment. Because of the safety criterion used for locating the
study sites, it was not necessary to use any special traffic
control. The traffic pattern was therefore not affected at any of
the study sites.

Site Description

After considerable field evaluation of different sites with
loop detectors, six sites were selected based on the enumerated
criteria. Table 2 shows the locations of the test sites and the
traffic and geometric characteristics at each site. Unfortunately,
the ambient lighting conditions were not perfect for photography
throughout the day at each site. For example, according to the
field notes taken by the supervising technician, because of the
angle of the sun, Site 1 was not ideal for photography during the
morning hours but seemed to be much better in the afternoon, and
the lighting conditions at Site 2 were not perfect for photography
in the afternoon. Similarly, the lighting conditions at Sites 4 and
6 seemed better in the morning than in the afternoon, whereas
conditions seemed better in the afternoon at Sites 3 and 5. These
were, however, subjective judgments made at study sites, rather
than empirically based findings.

Photographic Quality and Utility

In order for a photo-radar program to run successfully, the
equipment must be used in such a manner as to produce clear
pictures of speeding vehicles and, if necessary, their driver. To
determine which manufacturers produce the highest quality and most
usable photographs, an analysis of each photograph produced during
the 2-week field demonstration period was conducted.

Due to the large number of photographs taken during each test
period (more than 7,600 total) and the careful scrutiny given each
photograph, the full evaluation of the photographs took about 5
weeks. Detailed information concerning each photograph taken was
entered into a computerized data set as the photograph was being
viewed. The specific variables used in the evaluation of each
photograph were:

1. manufacturer's name

2. roll identification number

3. date the film was exposed

4. time the film was exposed

5. location where the film was exposed

6. conditions under which the film was exposed (i.e., no
problems, problems with equipment itself, problems with setup
of equipment, problems with equipment itself and setup of
equipment, or problems with computer information strip on
picture)

7. direction of traffic photographed (oncoming vs. receding)

8. mode (stationary vs. mobile)

9. weather conditions when film was exposed (i.e., bright sun,
hazy sun, overcast, nighttime, or raining)

Click HERE for graphic.

10. whether prints or negatives were evaluated

11. number of vehicles in the frame

12. type of vehicle (i.e., passenger car, van/small truck, large
truck or bus)

13. lane in which the vehicle was traveling

14. location of the vehicle in the picture (i.e., no vehicle in
frame, out of range left, in left third of frame, in center of
frame, in right third of frame, or out of range right)

15. whether the license plate could be read

16. reason the vehicle's license plate(s) could not be read (i.e.,
rain, glare, out of frame, too far away, view obstructed, no
plate, reflectorization, or poor film exposure)

17. whether the driver was identifiable as compared to a standard
photograph

18. reason the driver could not be identified (i.e., rain, glare,
out of frame, too far away, view obstructed, receding traffic,
or poor film exposure)

19. whether it was possible to determine which vehicle was
speeding (In cases where two or more vehicles were
photographed, a method was needed to determine which vehicle
had triggered the photo-radar photograph. If a method was
specified and it identified a vehicle in the photograph, this
variable was coded as a "yes.")

Information from each vehicle photographed was then analyzed
to determine what percentage of a manufacturer's pictures could be
used in court, based on possible criteria for photo-radar cases.
These criteria included (1) whether the license plate and the state
of issue were readable, (2) whether the driver could be identified,
(3) whether the vehicle's speed was clearly stated, and (4) whether
the speeding vehicle could be identified in multi-vehicle
photographs. In order to determine which vehicle in a multi-vehicle
photograph was speeding, several manufacturers provided a template.
This clear plastic overlay outlined where in the photograph the
radar beam fell. The vehicle over which the template's radar beam
falls is the speeding vehicle. An additional manufacturer stated
that each template must be drawn based on the speed data for the
particular site. Thus, each site would have its own template. In
cases where there were two or more vehicles in the beam, some
manufacturers claimed that their unit would not take a picture.
Other manufacturers stated that their unit would take a picture but
that such a picture would obviously not be used in a prosecution.

The effect of such factors as weather and distance from the
camera on photographic quality was also evaluated. In addition, at
the start of the evaluation, photographic standards for overall
utility of the photographs were set, against which each
manufacturer's photographs were compared. These standard
photographs appear in Appendix A. Several of the photographs were
enlarged to determine whether

higher-quality photographs could be produced for use in court. Two
types of film were evaluated: prints and negatives. The prints were
viewed without any enhancements except magnification. The negatives
were evaluated by use of a viewer capable of changing a negative to
a positive image. The FOTOVEK U, a video-based viewing system,
allowed for the adjustment of contrast and focus and enabled the
analyst to magnify specific portions of the negative.

Accuracy of Recorded Speeds

The objectives of this test were to determine the relative
accuracy of the speeds recorded by each piece of equipment and
determine whether the accuracy was significantly affected by the
prevailing traffic and geometric conditions. The tests were carried
out at Sites 1, 2, and 3. No attempt was made to conduct these
tests on the Beltway because it required isolation of the test
vehicles from other vehicles, a practice that is difficult and
could be unsafe in high-volume, high-speed traffic.

Three test vehicles, a Chevrolet Cavalier, a Plymouth Minivan,
and a larger Ford Aerostar Van, were used in this test. The
speedometer of each vehicle was calibrated prior to testing. A
driver was then selected for each vehicle and specifically trained
to drive that vehicle at the required constant speed as the vehicle
traversed the loops at a given site. The training required that
numerous runs be made by each driver until he or she could isolate
the target vehicle from other traffic and could attain the required
velocity at a location about 150 feet from the loops, maintaining
the constant speed as the vehicle traversed the loops. Each driver
comfortably demonstrated his or her ability to meet the test
requirements.

The next stage was to ascertain whether the speeds recorded by
the loops were accurate. This was achieved by having each test
driver isolate his or her vehicle from other vehicles on the
highway and then drive the test vehicle at a given speed across the
loops while being monitored by standard police radar. This
facilitated the clear-cut identification of the speed of the
vehicle as computed by a Streeter-Amet counter connected to the
loops and comparison with police radar. Prior to each test, at
least five runs were made on each lane by each vehicle for speeds
of 40, 50, 55, and 65 mph. (It was not feasible to perform this
test at speeds higher than 65 mph because of the existing maximum
speed limit.) For each run, the speed of the test vehicle was
recorded using standard police radar and was compared to the speed
computed by the Streeter-Amet counter. The lane in which the test
vehicle was driven was also recorded. In a few cases, loop speeds
for several of the 20 or more runs were off by more than 1 mph and
were recalibrated by VDOT personnel. Having ascertained that the
vehicle's speed as measured by police radar and that computed by a
Streeter-Amet counter were within 1 mph of each other, the test to
determine the accuracy of the photo-radar equipment in recording
the speed of an individual vehicle was conducted.

The relative accuracy of the photo-radar equipment was
determined by comparing loop speeds to photo-radar speeds. The
threshold speed of the photo-radar was set at 30 mph so that the
speed of each vehicle passing through its beam could be recorded
and its photograph taken. Each test vehicle was then driven at a
constant

speed through the test site, isolating it from the other vehicles.
The test was run for speeds of 40, 50, 55, and 65 mph for each lane
and for each vehicle. For every run, the type of test vehicle, the
speed at which the test vehicle was driven, the speed recorded by
the Streeter-Amet counter, and the speed computed by the photo-
radar equipment were recorded. The lane in which the test vehicle
was driven was also recorded. The speed recorded by each piece of
equipment was then compared with the actual vehicle speed as
obtained at the loops by the Streeter-Axnet counter. The accuracy
of the photo-radar equipment was determined from the variation
between speed recordings produced by the loops and those produced
by the photo-radar equipment.

The testing was carried out under speed test conditions
as specified in the federal minimum performance specifications for
testing equipment accuracy with respect to temperature and supply
voltage (NHTSA, Model Minimum Performance Specifications for Police
Traffic Radar Devices, Technical Report No. DOT HS 807-415,
Washington, D.C., May 1989). However, rather than the researcher
using a stopwatch to determine the average speed of the vehicle
over a stipulated distance, a nearly instantaneous speed reading
was recorded by both the Streeter-Amet counter located at the loops
and the photo-radar equipment being evaluated. Thus, the speeds
recorded by both the counter and the photo-radar equipment were
obtained at the same location and at the same time and, thus, were
instantaneous (or nearly instantaneous) measurements. This is a
much preferred and more accurate method than comparing the
instantaneous speeds measured by the photo-radar equipment with
"average" speeds calculated by timing the vehicles over the
measured distance since the vehicle's speed would vary over the
distance preceding the photo-radar equipment.

Effect of Vehicle Clustering on Accuracy of Speed Measurements

The objective of this test was to determine the accuracy of
the speed recorded by the photo-radar equipment when vehicles were
being driven in tandem across the loops. This test was, therefore,
a repeat of the speed accuracy test but with the test vehicles in a
paired configuration. This required careful driving on the part of
the study team. In this test, the test vehicles were driven in
different lanes, with either the front of the vehicles being on an
approximately straight line when traversing the loops or with each
succeeding vehicle slightly offset behind the preceding vehicle.
The speeds identified at the loops and by the photo-radar equipment
were then recorded and compared. The results of this test indicate
to what extent the arrival of two or more vehicles within the radar
beam of a piece of photo-radar equipment affects the accuracy of
the speed recorded.

Percentage of Usable Photographs of
Vehicles Exceeding Threshold Speed

This test was conducted at all sites when accuracy testing was
not underway. At each site, the photo-radar equipment being tested
was properly positioned and set at a threshold speed that ensured
that all speeding vehicles traveling on the interstate were
counted. The thresholds were also set so that photographs of
speeding vehicles could be taken continuously for at least 3
minutes before the roll of film had to

be changed. The photo-radar operation was then initiated and
allowed to continue for a given time period, ranging from 3 to 15
minutes, depending on the threshold speed, vehicle operating
speeds, traffic flow, and number of exposures available in the film
canister. At sites with a high volume and high operating speed
(e.g., I-495), 5-minute intervals were generally used since it took
about 5 minutes to generate 36 photographs (standard film canister
size) without interruption. The test interval was increased to 10
or 15 minutes when a larger number of exposures was available or
when volume was low. This variation in the test interval was
necessary so that an adequate number of speed violators could be
photographed by the photo-radar equipment. Concurrent speed data
were also collected at the loops using the Streeter Amet counter,
from which the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit for the
same test period was determined. Two figures were then computed:
(1) the number of photographs in which a vehicle's license plate
number and recorded speed could be clearly identified (as a
percentage of the total number of vehicles exceeding the threshold
speed), and (2) the number of photographs in which a vehicle's
license plate number, the recorded speed, and the driver's face
could be clearly identified (as a percentage of the total number of
vehicles exceeding the threshold speed).

Misalignment Flexibility (Cosine Effect)

The objective of this test was to determine the extent to
which misalignment of the photo-radar equipment affected the speed
recorded by the equipment. It was anticipated that equipment might
be unintentionally misaligned by untrained police officers. Each
piece of equipment was, therefore, set up in the operational mode
but intentionally misaligned from the manufacturer's recommendation
by 2, 4, 6, and 8 degrees. The speed accuracy test was then
repeated. The speeds obtained at the loop sensors by the Streeter-
Amet counter were then compared with those recorded by the photo-
radar devices.

Ease of Detection by Radar Detectors

This test determined the maximum distance at which a
commercially available radar detector could detect the presence of
the photo-radar equipment being tested. The radar detector used
was a Cobra Trapshooter, Model RD2100, manufactured by Dynascan
Corporation, Chicago, Illinois. After the equipment was installed
at the test site, a test vehicle with the radar detector installed
was driven slowly toward the equipment until the microwave
radiation from the equipment being tested was detectable. The
location was marked, and the distance from the equipment was mea-
sured. Each test run was repeated at least five times, and the
maximum detectable range for each manufacturer's photo-radar
recorded.

There are two possible effects a radar detector could have on
the effectiveness of photo-radar use. First, by knowing where
photo-radar devices are located, drivers may avoid citation by
slowing down at the photo-radar site and then speeding up once they
have passed the site. Thus, radar detectors could reduce the
effectiveness of photo-radar in reducing speeds on other sections
of the roadway. On the other hand, radar detection of photo-radar
equipment would, in itself, reduce speeds at the site, one of the
objectives of its use.

Effect of Photo-Radar on Speed Characteristics

Speed data were collected at each site at least 1 month before
the field demonstration and again during the demonstration. No
citations or warnings were given during the test period, but the
minimal media attention given as a result of the Tuesday press
conferences may have alerted drivers to the presence of the
equipment for testing. This publicity took the form of newspaper
articles and television and radio interviews in which the principle
of photo-radar was described and the reasons for conducting the
demonstration were explained. It was, however, made quite clear to
the public that no citations would be given based on speeds
observed and recorded during the demonstration. As an additional
confounding factor, police consistently worked radar during the
demonstration at Site 6 in Maryland. Since this was their standard
procedure, it was decided that they should continue so the units
could be evaluated under real-world conditions. However, the use of
standard radar during the testing may have affected the speed
characteristics at that site.

The researchers are of the opinion that the true impact of
photo-radar on speed characteristics could not be ascertained from
these results. Then citations and warning letters are given, it is
likely that the impact of photo-radar on speed characteristics,
such as the mean and 85th percentile speeds, will be different from
that reported in this study.

Public Acceptance

In order to assess the potential level of acceptance for
photo-radar use on the Beltway, a telephone survey was conducted.
Core questions for this household-based survey were drawn from
those developed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for
its surveys in Pasadena, California, and Paradise Valley, Arizona
(Freedman, M., Williams, A. E, and Lund, A. K, 1990, "Public
Opinion Regarding Photo-Radar," Transportation Research Record
1270, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.). Obviously,
only those questions that apply to potential use of the equipment,
rather than actual use, were included in the questionnaire (see
Appendix B).

The survey population consisted of all households with a valid
telephone number in the Washington metropolitan area. Random-digit
dialing techniques were used, and all interviews were computer
assisted. The sample was stratified by sex and location such that
(1) 55 percent of the respondents were male and 45 percent female,
and (2) 45 percent of the sample was drawn from Northern Virginia,
45 percent from Southern Maryland, and 10 percent from Washington,
D.C. This was done to avoid the standard sex bias that often occurs
in telephone surveys (since females answer the telephone more often
than males) and reflect the characteristics of drivers on the
Beltway. A simple random sample was drawn from the various strata.

Telephone interviews were conducted between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; between noon and 5 p.m. or between 5 p.m.
and 9 p.m. on Saturdays; and between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. or between 4
p.m. and 8 p.m. on Sundays. All interviewing was conducted between
November 15 and December 4, 1990.

Initially, the researchers were concerned that sampling only
households with a telephone might create bias. With regard to
possible bias due to the lack of a telephone in poorer households,
several studies have noted that sampling bias resulting from the
use of telephone techniques results in very small levels of error
(Freeman, H. E., Keecolt, K J., Nicholls, W L., and Shanks, J. L.,
1982, "Telephone Sampling Bias in Surveying Disability," Public
Opinion Quarterly, (4)3; Kuiz, R J., 1982, "Random Digit Dialing
and Sampling Bias," Public Opinion Quarterly, (42)4). From a
combination of National Opinion Research Center surveys involving
more than 7,500 respondents, tests showed that less than 2 percent
of the responses on any given item asked on telephone surveys
excluding households without telephones would differ from
equivalent responses from a sample of the total population (Wolfe,
L. M., 1979, "Characteristics of Persons With and Without Home
Telephones," Journal of Marketing Research, (16)3). This study is
somewhat dated, but there is no reason to believe that the number
of households without telephones has significantly increased in the
interim. Since there is no reason to believe that more households
without telephones exist in the Washington metropolitan area
(including Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland) than elsewhere,
the researchers anticipated that the sampling bias resulting from
the use of telephone interviewing would be small.

RESULTS

The first step in this evaluation was to prepare descriptions
of the various pieces of photo-radar equipment. All of the
equipment, regardless of manufacturer, shares certain
characteristics. For instance, all use some form of speed detection
capability to identify vehicles that are traveling over a threshold
speed. Electronic controls in combination with various aspects of
the radar beam or cable placement then trigger the camera to take a
picture of the vehicle. However, the equipment differs dramatically
with regard to the characteristics and capabilities of the
components used and the type of speed detection equipment and speed
algorithm used. The equipment also differs in terms of the options
available and the peripheral imaging/ computer equipment used.

In an attempt to summarize the similarities and differences
among the six manufacturers' photo-radar devices, the tables in
Appendix C were prepared. These tables were assembled based on.
documentation by and interviews with the manufacturers themselves
and their agents in the United States.

Site Visits

This section summarizes the findings of the site visits to
Arizona, California, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and
Sweden. These summaries cover only the major findings. Full site
visit reports are available from the authors.

Paradise Valley, Arizona

Paradise Valley, a town of 14,000, receives about 1.5 million
visitors annually because of its pleasant climate. The town is also
on the route used by commuters to travel between Scottsdale and
Phoenix. As a result of the high percentage of speeding commuter
traffic, photo-radar is popular among the townspeople. Moreover,
photo-radar use has resulted in 19 times more citations than mobile
patrols would have produced because of the small police force and
favorable town ordinances facilitating prosecution.

Traffic Monitoring Technologies (TMT) equipment is used in
Paradise Valley. (TMT is the only manufacturer of photo-radar
equipment in the United States.) Police set up the unit; record
information regarding the time, weather conditions, and speed limit
at the location chosen; and conduct a calibration. They also record
the threshold speed-the speed at or above which vehicles will be
photographed. (In general, officers in both Pasadena, California,
and Paradise Valley initially set units at 16 mph over the speed
limit on local corridors. Over time, as vehicles slowed on these
corridors, thresholds were set lower, at 11 mph over the posted
limit. In Paradise Valley school zones, the threshold is set at 3
mph over the limit, and in residential areas, it is set at 8 mph
over.) Even though warning signs noting that photo-radar is in
operation are posted, individuals still violate the speed laws. A
digital display operates just beyond the photo-radar device and
informs violators of their speed. A TMT representative removes the
Mm and has it processed in Houston, and TMT returns the photographs
to Paradise Valley within 2 days. Nearly 75 percent of the
photographs are usable. A town employee searches DMV records to
obtain information on the vehicle owner, who is then issued a
citation by TMT. Citations are mailed within 2 weeks of the
offense. About 60 percent of those cited do not request to see the
photograph. If the offender challenges the citation, a photograph
is developed for trial. At that time, only officers of the court
and the driver receiving the citation may view it. If the driver
photographed is not the owner, the owner is asked under oath to
identify the driver. If the owner cannot or will not cooperate, the
court may hold the owner in contempt of court, but this option has
not been pursued. If the owner does identify a driver, a citation
is issued within 30 days of the offense to satisfy due process
requirements.

In Paradise Valley, a summons may be issued immediately to
those who fail to pay or appear. If the summons is ignored, the
owner's license is suspended indefinitely. The figure for ignored
photo-radar summons, 10 percent, is about the same as for regular
speed-related summons.

Under its contract with TMT, Paradise Valley pays no monthly
minimum and is obligated to pay $20 per citation only if the
citation proceeds to final disposition. Finally, the total fines
assessed in Paradise Valley exceed program costs since Paradise
Valley has a fine schedule that exceeds $20 and does not share its
fine monies with the state.

Photo-radar has proved advantageous to Paradise Valley in
other ways as well. It has freed more police time for DLU
enforcement. Further, speeds on most roads have markedly decreased.
Beyond the financial and safety advantages of photo-radar,

community, judicial, and media support of the enforcement technique
has contributed to its success. Both police officers and court
officials stress that properly orchestrating the establishment of
the photo-radar program is crucial to its success and integrating
the public into the process before the program begins is essential.

Town Attorney Charles Ollinger is satisfied that the use of
photo-radar can withstand legal challenges and noted that it has
already survived a constitutional challenge and several state law
challenges.

Pasadena, California

Pasadena, a city of 130,000, began testing the use of photo-
radar in 1987 in response to heavy commuter traffic in its
residential neighborhoods. In a 30-day trial, approximately 22,000
vehicles were monitored, with 15.2 percent of them speeding. Of the
speeders, almost 75 percent were nonresidents. Speed data collected
during the 30-day trial period indicated a noticeable reduction in
speed. Further, the favorable response on questionnaires completed
by the violators indicated a positive public perception.

After the testing, Pasadena and TMT negotiated a photo-radar
contract, and full-scale operations began in 1988. In Pasadena,
photo-radar was used on highways with no more than three lanes
since the police reported that photographs of far-lane vehicles
were unusable in most cases. Their experience indicated that only
one type of radar detector was effective against the photo-radar
device since the radar beam is aimed across the road rather than
down the road.

In Pasadena, about 45 percent of ticketed drivers pay the fine
without going to court. Nearly 32 percent automatically opt for
traffic school, and about 16 percent ignore the ticket.
Approximately 7 percent of the cases are dismissed. Based on their
contract, the city paid TMT $20 (or as much of the fine as was
collected) for each fine paid. In exchange, TMT provided the
equipment, a vehicle, an on-site technician to oversee the
operation, and training for officers and judges. In addition, TMT
process and examined all pictures, oversaw the search of DMV files,
prepared all citations, and provided pictures for court.

The city collected about $39,500 during the first 7 months of
operation. Unlike Paradise Valley, Pasadena was required to pay TMT
$10,000 monthly (minimum) for the 4th through 7th months ($40,000).
Pasadena's monthly payments for the next 2 years were held in
trust, and if an Arizona city other than Paradise Valley (the other
major TMT photo-radar site) adopted TMT's product, the full
$240,000 would be refunded. In an effort to make the program break
even, the city has increased hours of enforcement.

Enforcement officials and judges identify the handling of the
cases of those who ignore photo-radar citations as the greatest
threat to the program. Warrants cannot be immediately issued for
those drivers ignoring the citations because a signature is
required before a summons can be issued. Since enforcement for an
ignored citation requires that the driver's license photograph be
pulled, an expensive process,

those who ignore citations suffer no consequences. The police fear
that widespread knowledge of this lack of consequences could
undermine the effectiveness of the program.

Commissioner Warren Haas, a sitting municipal court judge,
believes that almost all legal issues regarding the use of photo-
radar have been litigated, with Pasadena prevailing. Commissioner
Haas noted that acceptance of the program is low among the police,
who feel as though they are granting enforcement discretion to a
profit-motivated private company. Although personnel at the
Department of Finance saw the best potential to produce revenues in
adopting a policy of 100 percent enforcement, Commissioner Haas saw
the need for improvement in the initial screening of photographs to
ensure that every prosecution is successful.

City Attorney Courtland Crabtree reported that recent staff
expansion was required because prosecutions increase 25 percent
annually. Although Crabtree noted no accident reduction, he
reported that crashes inside the city are not often categorized as
being speed related. He saw a major public relations advantage in
using photo-radar since units can be sent to areas where residents
report problems.

Personnel in the Department of Finance noted that financial
incentives in the TMT contract work to the benefit of the city in
regard to TMT service and maintenance. They pointed out, however,
that the minimum monthly payment to TMT could be seen as a quota,
which would be publicly unpopular. They identified increased public
interest in the traffic school option as the primary reason for the
city's failure to break even since traffic school participants pay
lower fines.

Europe

Site visits were made to four European photo-radar
manufacturers:
Gatsometer, Multanova, Traffipax, and Trafikanalys. (AWA Defence
Industries, the Australian manufacturer participating in this
evaluation, was not included in the site visits since a trip to
Australia was considered impractical.)

Gatsometer

Gatsometer, in The Netherlands, began producing speed
measurement equipment in 1959 and began photo-speed and photo -red
light production in 1966. Unlike some other photo-radar devices,
the Gatsometer equipment uses a slotted wave guide antenna,
developed by the company's engineers, rather than the standard par-
abolic antenna. The equipment can distinguish between speeding cars
and trucks. Although the equipment can be used in the mobile mode
for receding traffic, the manufacturer does not recommend that its
photo-radar equipment be used in the mobile mode to detect speeding
vehicles in oncoming traffic. Further, Thomas G. Gatsonides, Co-
Director of Gatsometer, indicated that the device performs better
in two-lane monitoring than in four-lane monitoring. The company
recommends a complete overhaul of the equipment every 3 years,
which, like critical repairs, may require return of the equipment
to the factory.

AU state police and half of the municipal police in The
Netherlands use photo-radar and have noted speed reductions, for
which photo-radar is credited.

Seeking speed reductions on particularly hazardous stretches of
roadway, the police have experimented with different configurations
of photo-radar devices and with placebo devices (cabinets without
photo-radar devices designed to give the public the impression that
photo-radar is present and operating). They found that differences
in configurations and placebo placement affect speed deterrence.
Road safety research supports the official position that photo-
radar has had a demonstrable impact on highway safety. Decreases of
up to 20 percent in mean speed and up to 60 percent in the
percentage of speeding drivers have been documented.

Multanova

Multanova, in Switzerland, first produced radar devices in
1956. After being bought by a larger company, Multanova was able to
undertake more research and development work. Like the other brands
of photo-radar equipment examined, the Multanova equipment differs
from the Gatsometer device in that a parabolic antenna is used.
According to Multanova representatives, the use of their equipment
in the mobile mode is more limited than with Gatsometer's device
because quick accelerations inside the radar beam and a 3 percent
road curvature generate unreliable speed readings and photographs.
However, unlike Gatsometer equipment, Multanova equipment is
recommended for use in the mobile mode for oncoming traffic. Still,
it is possible that these conditions similarly affect the devices
of all the manufacturers. According to company representatives, the
Multanova device performs better in two-lane monitoring than in
four-lane monitoring.

Because the Multanova devices in Switzerland have been subject
to vandalism, their design includes considerable engineering to
make the equipment vandal proof The device also features
turntables, allowing for quick directional change. Additionally,
Multanova offers video enhancement equipment that permits greater
clarity and content control in the photographs.

As in The Netherlands, the police in Switzerland have noted
improved highway safety as a result of photo-radar use, with
accident reductions reaching 50 percent. For the most hazardous
stretches of roadway, accident rates and violations have decreased.

Traffipax

Traffipax, a subsidiary of an established German camera
manufacturer, produced its first photo-radar device in 1970.
Gatsometer and Traffipax are under agreement to purchase each
other's products. Thus, the Traffipax device uses the same radar
equipment as the Gatsometer device, and the Gatsometer device uses
the same camera as the Traffipax device.

The Traffipax equipment differs from the Gatsometer device in
that it can detect speeding vehicles in oncoming traffic in the
mobile mode. It also differs from the devices of other
manufacturers in that identifying information cannot obscure the
photograph because the information appears in the film margin
rather than on the photograph itself.' Like some other devices, the
Traffipax device can distinguish between cars and trucks on
stretches of roadway where car and truck speed limits differ.

Traffipax shares some of the advantages and disadvantages of
other photoradar equipment. The Traffipax personnel indicated that
photo invalidation for erroneous readings does not always operate
automatically in any photo-radar device and that manual
invalidation is sometimes required. Traffipax personnel also
reported that the parking angle of a photo-radar vehicle may affect
the device's accuracy.

Trafikanalys

Trafikanalys, in Sweden, is a relatively new company that
views its use of statistics and sampling theory in the development
of its device as its primary distinction. The Trafikanalys device
features a film viewer from which a hard copy of photographs can be
obtained. Further, data are entered in the computer directly,
rather than being stored on memory cards, as with other European
equipment. Although the standard Trafikanalys device is
comparatively bulky, it has the unique advantage of multi-car
detection. Its radar algorithm works much like air traffic control
radar in that it can identify a vehicle even after the vehicle has
been obscured by another vehicle in the radar beam. Further, the
device can be used in very cold or stormy weather.

Because photo-radar has only recently been introduced in
Sweden, the police are still adjusting to its use. The bulk and
lack of mobility of the Trafikanalys device appear responsible in
part for the less than enthusiastic response of the Swedish police.
However, the Swedish police also dislike the fact that the choice
of speeding incidents to enforce is not controlled by the officer.
To remedy the physical shortcomings, Trafikanalys is developing a
smaller, mobile device, the prototype of which is virtually
complete. During the demonstrations held in Virginia and Maryland,
Trafikanalys used a much-improved version of their equipment,
though not the prototype.

Field Demonstrations

Photographic Results for Each Manufacturer

After site visit data had been analyzed, field demonstrations
to test the equipment were held. Five pieces of photo-radar
equipment were evaluated: AWA, Gatsometer, TMT, Traffipax, and
Trafikanalys participated in the demonstration. Multanova did not.

Manufacturers were encouraged to produce as many pictures as
they wished under as many conditions as they wished (see Table 3).
They were also given the option of producing prints or negatives.
Manufacturers were further encouraged to develop their film at a
local laboratory instead of sending it to their headquarters, where
special developing techniques not available locally could be used
to improve picture quality. In only one case was film returned to
the headquarters. Local developing of TMT's TMAX film was deemed
inadequate, and since no other commercial laboratory could develop
such an unusual film type, film was developed at TMT The resulting
negatives were similar in quality to those developed locally.

Table 3

NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FOR ANALYSIS
BY EACH MANUFACTURER

Number of Number of Number of
Equipment Negatives Prints Photographs

AWA 219 948 1,167
Gatsometer 1,467 661 2,128
TMT 764 0 764*
Traffipax 0 1,910 1,910
Trafikanalys 1,667 0 1,667

*Total is significantly lower due to the short test period
requested by the manufacturer.

AWA

The test period for AWA ran from June 11 through June 22,
1990. Warren Baker was the representative sent to demonstrate the
equipments stationary model, VSR Model 449. This unit was not
equipped for mobile surveillance, and at the discretion of the
manufacturer, night demonstrations were not conducted.

The beginning of the AWA test period was hindered by several
problems that were eventually corrected. The VSR Model 449 requires
an alignment of a 25 degree angle to the roadway. The
manufacturer's representative was unaware of how critical this
angle was. After the first set of processed photographs were
received, it was discovered that the radar unit was not properly
aligned. As soon as the problem was identified, the researchers
developed a protocol for proper alignment. In addition, the AWA
timer/clock did not function correctly. Baker examined the
equipment and had parts sent from New York. The unit was repaired
and was working properly before the conclusion of the first week of
tests.

Further, Baker had been given the wrong cables for the hookup
of the laptop computer. Unfortunately, even after purchasing the
proper adapters, neither Baker nor any member of the study team
could get the AWA analysis software to interface with either the
AWA or VTRC computer.

The manufacturer had a slight problem in preparing the 100-
frame bulk-film cassettes that were used. Loading the cassette was
a problem due to the inability (or unwillingness) of local camera
shops to load the film. As a result, Baker loaded the film in the
bathroom of his hotel room, and some of the film was exposed during
loading. Also, Baker had difficulty finding 100-frame color film
with an ASA rating high enough to be used with the equipment.

A total of 1,167 photographs were taken during the 2-week
period. The majority of the film used consisted of 36-exposure
color or black and white film with a speed of 200 ASA or 400 ASA,
sold by Kodak, Fuji, or K-Mart. All film was processed and printed
at a local camera shop near VTRC. Several large rolls of black and
white Tri-X pan 400 ASA film, loaded in 100-frame canisters, were
also used during testing

in Northern Virginia. These were processed in a camera shop near
the test sites in Northern Virginia and were left as negatives for
evaluation.

Gatsometer

The test period for Gatsometer ran from September 4 to
September 13. Tom Gatsonides, director of the company, and several
of his staff members accompanied the equipment. On the first day of
testing, the VDOT traffic technician assigned to read the loops for
the study team did not report for work. About half way through the
day's testing, the loop readings began to diverge from the
Gatsometer readings and the speedometer readings in the test
vehicles. The technician recalibrated the loops later. Also on the
first day, the primary engineer for Gatsometer forgot to flip the
switch that allows the aperture of the camera to adjust for light
conditions. After the first set of film was processed, this
adjustment was made.

The American agents for Gatsometer were originally under the
impression that the researchers were interested only in receding
traffic (i.e., only reading license plates, rather than identifying
drivers). For this reason, the van they provided was rigged to take
pictures from the rear only. The tripod-mounted version, however,
operated with approaching traffic, and this was provided for all
testing.

A total of 2,128 photographs were taken during the 2-week test
period. All photographs were taken with Kodak color negative 400
ASA film. Approximately 20 rolls of 36-exposure color film were
processed into prints locally. The 2 rolls of bulk black and white
film were processed at a commercial laboratory near the agent's of-
fices in Delaware.

TMT

The test period for TMT ran from July 11 through July 19,
1990. At the request of the manufacturer, TMT was tested for only
7.5 of the 10 possible days of testing. Manuel Fuestes, President
of TMT, was the representative who demonstrated the PhotoCop photo-
radar unit. The device was mounted in a vehicle, facing the rear of
the vehicle, to photograph oncoming traffic. The unit was not set
up to run in the mobile mode and operated entirely in a stationary
mode during the demonstration.

The PhotoCop unit requires an alignment of 22.5 degrees to the
roadway, and the unit is equipped with a device to ensure proper
alignment. Throughout the test runs, the motor in the vehicle in
which the equipment was mounted had to be running because the
PhotoCop unit did not have battery backup. In addition, the Losier
Speed Display, a large display panel notifying the drivers passing
the site of their speed, was not in operation during the
demonstrations. The only other initial problem involved the TMT
analysis software, which had to be amended to operate under the MS-
DOS format used by VTRC.

The tests were carried out with relatively few problems. One
incident, however, did affect the total number of photographs that
were evaluated. On July 17, at the I-95 northbound site in Northern
Virginia, Fuestes neglected to load the film into the cassette.
Therefore, there were no photographs available for evaluation that
day.

A total of 764 black and white photographs were taken during
the 7.5 days of testing. The films used by TMT consisted of four
rolls of TMAX film (3200 ASA) and five rolls of YP-1 film (400
ASA). Because the film is an unusual type, it was difficult to find
a local photography laboratory to develop it. One roll of the TMAX
film was processed by the Army Foreign Science and Technology
Center in Charlottesville, Virginia, and since the resulting
negatives were too dark, the remaining TMAX film was processed by
TMT in their laboratory (negatives were still very dark; according
to Fuestes, this was due to a developing error). The rolls of XP-l
film were sent to the Central Office of VDOT for processing. AR of
the TMAX and XP-1 photographs were left in negative form.

Traffipax

The representatives from Trafflpax arrived on July 30, 1990,
to begin their 2-week test period that ended on August 9, 1990. The
Trafflpax equipment demonstrated was not the most current model.
Instead of demonstrating the Speedophot unit, which had been
observed in Europe and which can operate in the mobile mode, the
older Micro Speed 09, Type 5, with an older antenna assembly was
used. The company's agent, Bemd Rindt, was on site for
approximately 1 day during the 2 weeks of testing. Various
personnel from Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) set up and
ran the equipment the rest of the time (EDS is the service company
for Traffipax in the United States in charge of processing film and
producing citations). EDS personnel were not familiar with setting
up and operating the equipment.

There were a number of problems that impeded the evaluation of
the effectiveness of the Traffipax unit. Unfortunately, it was not
possible to assess the unit's ability to take identifiable
photographs of the driver because the unit was positioned in the
vehicle in a manner that allowed photographs of only the vehicle's
rear. In addition, mobile operation was not demonstrated.

On the first day of testing, the clock on the photo-radar unit
was not set properly. The clock was set at zero, thus no times were
available for that day, but this problem was corrected for the
remainder of the test period. This problem did not affect the tests
or the acquisition of data. On July 7, the motor had to be kept
running in order to operate the equipment since the backup
batteries had not been recharged.

Photographic quality was a problem that lingered throughout
the entire demonstration period. Initially, all pictures taken by
EDS personnel were overexposed. A new Robot camera was sent from
New York to be used for the second week of the test period, but
there was a problem with light leaking into the camera. This
resulted in partial or full exposure of a significant amount of
film. A member of the study team spoke to the agent, explained that
there was a problem, and asked if he wished to repeat some of the
testing. The agent declined, citing lack of personnel as the
reason.

There were other complications throughout the course of the
testing in Northern Virginia and Maryland. On the night of August
5, a heavy rain flooded the inside lane of I-95 North in Virginia.
Thus, on August 6, only three lanes were scanned for testing.
Blocking the inside lane slowed the traffic to lower than normal
speeds, which may have affected the performance of the equipment.

Originally, the Traffipax crew stated that they could not
demonstrate night photography because, after 5 years of use, their
flash unit was broken and could not be repaired in time to be
included in the demonstrations. However, on August 8, a flash unit
was delivered from New York. The study team proceeded with the
tests that night. The threshold speeds for the night demonstration
were set at 56 mph for trucks and 61 mph for cars since accuracy
tests were not being conducted because of safety risks. As a result
of the high volume of traffic, the fuses for the flash unit were
blown several times. In order to give the unit enough recovery
time, the speeds at which the unit was operating were set higher.

A total of 1,910 photographs were taken during the 2-week test
period. All photographs were taken using 36-exposure Kodak color
negative 200 ABA or 400 ASA film. Also, since all photographs were
shot in the receding mode, no pictures of drivers of oncoming
vehicles were available for anal-sis. All film was developed and
printed locally.

Trafikanalys

The demonstration period for Trafikanalys began August 20
and was completed on August 31, 1990. The equipment demonstrated
was not the version demonstrated in Europe. At the time of the
European site visits, the only model available was the Astro 110.
The Trafikanalys engineers felt that the Astro 220, the next gen-
eration, would not be available, even as a prototype, until
December 1990. Thus, the RC 110, an earlier unit, was demonstrated,
but with significant modifications. This unit was vehicle mounted
and capable of operating in the mobile mode, characteristics that
previous Trafikanalys equipment did not have. Also, this unit used
a Robot camera rather than the Hasselblad used in Sweden. It was
operated by manually setting the aperture, although it is possible
to set the equipment in the automatic mode. The unit also operated
with an 800-frame cassette, a feature also not available when the
study team was in Sweden.

There was a slight software problem during the first week when
the unit was being used for mobile surveillance. However, new
software sent from Sweden arrived in time for the Northern Virginia
demonstration. In addition, the clock on the equipment, although
accurate to the minute and second, could not be reset to Eastern
Standard Time, thus creating a 6-hour difference in times recorded.

During the demonstration period, there was a disproportionate
number of rainy days, and since the level of light seems to play a
significant role in enhancing or obscuring the driver's face in the
photograph for certain equipment, Trafikanalys equipment may have
operated under different conditions than the other equipment.

A total of 1,667 photographs were taken during the 2-week test
period. Two types of black and white film were used: Kodak Tri-X
pan (400 ASA) and Ilford HP5 (400 ASA). Three rolls were processed
locally, and the remaining bulk film was processed by Trafikanalys
personnel in their hotel rooms, since that was their preference.
All the film was left in negative form.

Comparisons Among Manufacturers on Photographic Quality

Tables 4 through 12 summarize the conditions under which
photo-radar photographs were taken. In an attempt to rate each
manufacturer with regard to photographic quality itself, the
results for oncoming traffic and for receding traffic were analyzed
separately. This was done because not all equipment operated in
both the oncoming and receding modes and because the quality
criteria would be different for each direction. For instance, for
oncoming traffic, possible legal criteria could include
identification of the driver, an objective that would be impossible
when photographing receding traffic. Traffipax did not photograph
vehicles in the oncoming direction. TMT and Trafikanalys did not
photograph vehicles in the receding mode.

The comparative results for the various manufacturers that
took photographs of receding vehicles are shown in Table 13. The
three possible legal requirements that could be applied to
manufacturers photographing receding traffic are (1) that the
license plate number and state of issue be readable, (2) that the
travel speed of the speeding vehicle be clearly indicated, and (3)
that the speeding vehicle in multivehicle photographs be
identifiable.

The comparative results for the various manufacturers that
took photographs of oncoming vehicles are shown in Table 14. There
are several performance criteria that the courts could apply to
pictures of oncoming traffic: (1) that the license plate and state
of issue be readable, (2) that the driver's face be identifiable,
(3) that the

Table 4

LOCATIONS OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN (%)

INTERSTATES
Manufacturer
64 VA 81 VA 295 VA 95 VA 95 MD 495 VA

AWA 9.1 15.7 11.1 37.0 9.4 17.7
n = 1,167

GATSOMETER
20.7 5.8 4.5 24.9 17.3 26.8
n = 2,128

TMT 12.3 14.1 10.5 11.8 28.1 23.2
n = 764

TRAFFEPAX 15.2 17.0 17.4 20.9 11.9 17.5
n = 1,910

ALYS 15.4 18.1 3.0 22.0 13.9 27.7
n = 1,667

Click HERE for graphic.

travel speed of the speeding vehicle be clearly indicated, and (4)
that the speeding vehicle be identifiable.

In addition to the differences among manufacturers on the
quality of the photographs, the reasons the photographs could not
be used also differed. Table 15 lists the results with regard to
readable license plates. Table 16 lists the results with regard to
the reason the driver's face was not identifiable.

The types of conditions under which each manufacturer
performed best are given in Appendix D. In these tables, the
percentage of total photographs taken under each condition is
compared to the percentage of pictures meeting the most stringent
requirements. In the case of receding traffic, this means that the
license plate and the speeding vehicle were identifiable. In the
case of oncoming traffic, it means that the license plate, the
driver's face, and the speeding vehicle were identifiable. A score
of more than 1.00 indicated that "usable" pictures were over-
represented in the condition and, thus, that the manufacturer
performed unusually well in the condition. Of all participants in
the demonstrations, Trafikanalys equipment was the only piece of
equipment to perform best in high-volume conditions.

In an attempt to determine the effect of each of the
environmental and highway variables, a regression model was
constructed for oncoming and receding traffic. For photography of
receding traffic, the dependent variable used was whether the li-
cense plate number and state of the first vehicle in the photograph
could be read. For oncoming traffic, the dependent variable used
was whether the license plate number and state of the first vehicle
in the photograph could be read and the driver's face identified.
The results of these analyses appear in Tables 17 and 18. In each
analysis, each categorical variable (such as weather) was converted
into a number of dichotomous variables, each representing one
condition. In order to avoid colinearity problems inherent in
including all categories, the dichotomous variable in each category
with the lowest relationship to the dependent variable was omitted
from the actual analysis and, thus, was used as a standard.

There were insufficient numbers of cases to include several of
the environmental and highway factors. For the analysis of receding
traffic, the weather conditions of "dark sky" and "nighttime" did
not occur often enough for each manufacturer to be included. For
oncoming traffic, the Interstate 64 and Interstate 81 locations
were not photographed enough and the weather conditions of "dark
sky," "rain," overcast, and "nighttime" were not included.

For receding traffic, the best conditions for reading the rear
license plate ' occurred on Interstate 295; the worst occurred on
Interstate 495. Passenger vehicles and small trucks photographed
better than large trucks, and photographs taken in hazy sunshine
were better in terms of reading the license plate than those taken
in bright sun. Vehicles in nearby lanes photographed better than
those in lanes further away; the number of vehicles in a photograph
had no significant effect on readability. Finally, there was a
small but positive relationship between traffic volume and photo-
graphic quality.

For oncoming traffic, the best conditions for reading the
license plate and identifying the driver's face occurred on
Interstate 95 in Maryland; these conditions were

Click HERE for graphic.

True Speed (mph)

Loop Reading

(ñ mph)

59 - 60 - 61

Photo-Radar/Police Radar Criteria

(+1 mph and -2 mph)

58-59-60-61

Acceptable Range

(Loop +2 mph and Loop -3 mph)

57-68-59-60-61-62

Worst Case Acceptable Range

(Loop +2 mph and Loop -3 mph)

56-57-59-60-61-62-63

Figure 2. Allowable Differences Between Photo-Radar and Loop
Readings

Table 19
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LOOP AND PHOTO-RADAR SPEED READINGS

AWA Gatsometer TMT Traffipax Trafikanalys

Mean difference 0.29 0.63 -0.90 -0.37 -0.81

Percentage within 83.7 93.8 87.2 96.3 86.7
+2 mph and -3 mph

Primary direction Higher Higher Lower Lower Lower
of the error

driver's speed incorrectly and, thus, come down on the side of the
driver than to overestimate the speed incorrectly and, thus, be
biased against the driver. Both AWA and Gatsometer tend to
overestimate the driver's speed, and TMT, Traffipax, and
Trafikanalys tend to underestimate the speed.

A detailed examination of the data did not indicate that the
vehicle type or the lane in which the vehicle was driven influenced
the accuracy of the data. However, the accuracy of the equipment
was found to be dependent on the test site at which the accuracy
data were collected. Overall, tests conducted on Interstate 64
produced the most accurate readings (average difference = 0.06),
followed by Interstate 295 (average difference = 0.13), and
Interstate 81 (average difference = -0.53). These findings are
significant at the .05 level.. More interesting, however, was that
the accuracy of the individual pieces of equipment was different
for each of the test sections (F = 7.60, df = 12, p < .01). This
would indicate that the geometric and perhaps the environmental
characteristics of the various sections affected each piece of
equipment differently.

Effect of Vehicle Clustering on Accuracy of Speeds/Measurement

As stated earlier, analysis of the data collected during this test
did not reveal any consistent significant effect on the error of
the speeds recorded due to the lane in which the test vehicle was
being driven or the pairing of test vehicles. A detailed analysis
of the data was, therefore, not undertaken.

Percentage of Usable Photographs of Vehicles Exceeding Threshold
Speed

Tables 20 and 21 summarize the number of speeding vehicles
photographed by each piece of equipment. Table 20 shows the results
for oncoming traffic, and Table 21 shows those for receding
traffic.

The results for oncoming traffic indicate that where identification
of the license plate and identification of the speeding vehicle in
multivehicle photographs are the minimum conditions that may be
required by the courts, the percentage of speeding vehicles
identified varied from about 1 percent to a maximum of about 44
per-

Table 20
HIT RATE FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC

Traffic Average NO. of Expected No.
Photographic Flow Viol./Hr. Recorded Hit of Usable
Criterion (vph) by Loop Sensors Rate* Photographs/Hr.

AWA
License <1000 - - -
plate & 1000-3000 - - -
speed 3001-5000 452 4.60 21

License plate <1000 - - -
speed, 1001-3000 - - -
& driver 3001-5000 452 2.04 9

GATSOMETER

License <1000 396 31.82 126
plate & 1000-3000 324 35.19 114
speed 3001-5000 - - -

License <1000 396 1.52 6
plate & 1000-3000 324 1.85 6
speed 3001-5000 - - -

TMT

License <1000 - - -
plate & 1000-3000 504 11.90 60
speed 3001-5000 697 1.12 8

License <1000 - - -
plate & 1000-3000 504 3.97 20
speed 697 0.52 4

TRAFIKANALYS

License <1000 492 43.90 216
plate & 1000-3000 594 7.07 42
speed 3001-5000 1,641 4.05 66

License <1000 492 4.88 24
plate & 1000-3000 594 1.01 6
speed 3001-5000 1,641 2.11 35

*The hit rate is the number of photographs meeting the criterion
divided by the number of available speeding vehicles.

Table 21

HIT RATE FOR RECEDING TRAFFIC

Traffic Average No. of Expected No.
Photographic Flow Vol/Hr Recorded Hit of Usable
Criterion (vph) by Loop Sensors Rate* Photographs
/Hr.

AWA

License < 1000 --- --- ---
plate & 1000-3000 --- --- ---
speed 3001-5000 907 0.58 5
>5000 --- --- ---

GATSOMETER

License < 1000 --- --- ---
plate & 1000-3000 745 2.15 16
speed 3001-5000 719 0.63 5
> 5000 1,640 0.73 12

TRAFIKANALYS

License < 1000 --- --- ---
plate & 1000-3000 507 12.58 64
speed 3001-5000 494 10.83 54
> 5000 362 7.73 28

* The hit rate is the number of photographs meeting the criterion
divided by the number of available speeding vehicles.

cent, depending on traffic volume. For receding traffic, this
percentage varied from a minimum of 0.6 percent to a maximum of
about 13 percent.

The results also indicate that, in general, the higher the traffic
volume, the lower the percentage of speeding vehicles properly
photographed. This is an expected result: not only are vehicles
more closely aligned in high-volume situations, but each piece of
equipment has a maximum rate at which photographs can be taken.

When the conditions required the license plate, speeding vehicle,
and driver to be identified in the photograph, there was a
significant drop in the number of usable photographs that were
taken by each type of equipment (this can be done only for oncoming
vehicles).

At first glance, the percentages may seem rather low, giving the
impression that photo-radar is not efficient. - A further
examination of Tables 20 and 21, however, shows that, even with
these low percentages, the estimated number of speeding vehicles
that can be properly photographed is at least several times higher
than the number of speeding tickets the average police officer can
write in 1 hour. Taking into consideration that the test locations
were not necessarily the best for photography, the results suggest
that when the police are trained to select locations where clear,
usable pictures are likely to be taken, an even higher percentage
of speeders could be apprehended and convicted.

After the original analyses had been completed and critiqued,
additional analyses concerning lane location and high-speed
operation were requested. The first additional analysis was carried
out to determine the lane distribution of the usable photographs
taken. This analysis took into consideration only photographs taken
by AWA and Traffipax. The viewer capable of changing negative to
positive images was no longer available to the researchers at the
time this analysis was done. The photographs for TMT, Trafikanalys,
and Gatsometer were mainly in negative form. The percentage
distribution of photographs by the lane in which the vehicle was
traveling is given in Table 22. This table shows that there was a
reasonable spread across all lanes of the usable photographs apart
from the AWA photographs taken at I-95 in Maryland, in which no
photographs were taken of vehicles traveling in lanes 3 or 4.

Additional analysis was carried out to determine the distribution
of speeds for those speeding vehicles photographed. Again, since
only the AWA and Traffipax photographs could be prescreened, only
these two manufacturers were considered. Table 23 shows the speed
distributions of the speeding vehicles photographed by the
manufacturers. The table does not indicate that the percentage of
usable photographs taken was consistently influenced by the speed
of the speeding vehicles.

Table 22

LANE DISTRIBUTION OF USABLE PHOTOGRAPHS (%)

AWA Traffipax
Traffic (Oncoming and Receding) (Receding Only)
Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane
Test Site 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
I-495 38 38 12 12 20 30 50 0
I-95 (MD) 40 60 0 0 10 20 20 0
I-95 (VA) 29 21 43 0 -- 28 56 16

*Lane was closed during demonstration period for this equipment.

Table 23

HIT RATES BY DISTRIBUTION OF SPEEDS
OF SPEEDING VEHICLES PHOTOGRAPHED

AWA Traffipax
Traffic (Oncoming and Receding) (Receding Only)
Speeds of Number of %Speeding Number of %Speeding
Threshold Speeding Speeding Vehicles Speeding Vehicles
(mph) Vehicles Vehicles Photogaphed Vehicles Photographed

66 66-70 538 1.86 580 7.76
71-75 309 0.32 153 3.27
76-80 - - 18 5.56

71 71-75 187 6.95 101 11.88
76-80 43 6.98 18 0.00
81-85 16 6.25 6 16.67

76 76-80 53 7.55 - -
81-85 16 6.25 - -

Table 24

MAXIMUM ERROR IN RECORDED SPEED
FOR MISALIGNMENTS UP TO 8 DEGREES
(Cosine Effect)

Equipment Maximum Error (mph)

AWA +9
Gatsometer +3
TMT +3
Traffipax +3
Trafikanalys +3

Misalignment Flexibility (Cosine Effect)

The maximum error of the recorded speeds for all misalignment
angles up to 8 degrees is shown in Table 24. These results show
maximum errors of 3 mph for all equipment except AWA, which had a
maximum error of 9 mph. These results suggest that correct
alignment of the equipment is critical in obtaining accurate speed
readings. Therefore, manufacturers should clearly indicate the
operating angle of the radar antenna and how that angle should be
obtained. Further, police officers should be trained in proper
alignment of the equipment.

Ease of Detection by Radar Detectors

Table 25 shows the distance at which the photo-radar equipment was
first detected by a radar detector. The TMT equipment was not
detected by the radar detector since the Trapshooter, the model of
detector used during these tests, could not detect the Ka band.

Table 25
RADAR DETECTION DISTANCE FOR EACH PIECE OF EQUIPMENT

AWA Gatsometer TMT Traffipax Trafikanalys

Operating 24.15 24.125 34.6 24.125 10.530
frequency
GHz

Detection 2,250 1,056 Not 1,056 2,250
distance (ft) detected

Effect of Photo-Radar on Speed Characteristics

Table 26 shows the speed characteristics for I-64, I-81, I-495, and
I-95 in Virginia and Maryland both before and during the test
period for each piece of equipment. There is consistency in the
results with respect to the mean and 85th percentile speeds, but
some inconsistency in the speed variance measured. In almost all
cases, there was a reduction in the mean speed when the equipment
was in opera-Table 26

COMPARISON OF SPEED CHARACTERISTICS AT STUDY SITES

Mean Speed 85th Percentile Speed Variance
(mph) (mph) (mph)2

Site Before During Before During Before During

AWA

I-495 61.53 60.66 73 68 47.01 55.63
I-95 (VA) 63.15 63.57 73 73 48.37 43-93
I-95 (MD) 62.30 58.53 73 73 58.38 39.71

GATSOMETER

I-81 64.80 63.19 73 73 53.19 55.50
I-495 60.15 57.13 68 68 50.19 57.39
I-95 (VA) 64.29 63.54 73 73 45.36 47.85
I-95 (MD) 63.05 63.53 73 73 52.22 51.07
I-64 68.40 68.01 78 78 35.39 47.80

TMT

I-495 60.20 59.20 73 73 50.19 45.40
I-95 (VA) 63.07 59.82 73 68 57.30 49.31
I-95 (MD) 62.40 60.45 73 68 57.38 49.30
I-64 65.82 64.98 73 73 40.17 58.78
I-81 64.40 65.66 73 73 42.95 59.52

I-81 63.74 65.83 73 73 62.76 45.62
I-495 60.65 59.48 68 68 44.34 50.38
I-95 (VA) 63.55 55.50 73 73 46.46 71.45
I-95 (NM) 62.72 56.80 73 73 50.26 51.48

TRAFIKANALYS

I-81 63.90 63.29 78 78 48.81 48.03
I-495 58.67 57.24 68 68 56.49 50.34
I-95 (VA) 63.54 57.90 73 73 54.00 36.74
I-95 (MD) 62.93 59.16 73 73 58.15 33.71

tion, although the reductions were not statistically significant.
Also, in almost all cases, the operation of the equipment did not
affect the 85th percentile speed. The changes in speed variance
differed from one piece of equipment to the other, and in some
cases, from one site to the other. A review of the operational and
site conditions was carried out to identify any factors that might
have led to the inconsistency in the effect of photo-radar use on
speed variance. Unfortunately, no such factors were identified.

It should be emphasized that it was not possible to determine the
full impact of photo-radar on speed characteristics because most
motorists were not aware of photo-radar use, and among those who
knew about the equipment, many may have known that they could not
be given a speeding citation. The full impact can be ascertained
only if (1) motorists can be sent a citation for speeding and can
be required to pay a fine and/or have negative points included in
their driving record, and (2) a widespread public information
campaign is successful in increasing motorists' awareness of photo-
radar and its operation.

Public Acceptance Survey

A total of 366 interviews were conducted as part of the public
acceptance survey. Given the accepted levels of confidence ((x =
.95); p = .80), the survey results are accurate within ñ 4
percentage points (see Appendix E for sample size calculations).
The sample drawn during this survey was stratified only by sex and
location of residence. The final sample consisted of 45.5 percent
Maryland residents, 44.9 percent Virginia residents, and 9.6
percent residents of Washington, D.C. With regard to gender, 54.5
percent were men and 45.5 percent were women. These figures were
within the limits set in the sampling plan. (The response rate
overall was 79.8 percent. The response rate for men alone was 76.4
percent. The response rates for Virginia, Maryland, and
Washington, D.C., were roughly equivalent to the response rate for
the full sample. More telephone calls were made to the District
since the proportion of residences is lower within the city than in
the surrounding suburbs.) About 93 percent were drivers, of whom 19
percent drove on the Beltway every day and 61 percent drove on the
Beltway at least once a week.

With regard to their awareness of photo-radar as an enforcement
tool, less than 2 percent were able to name photo-radar as a tool
for enforcing speed limits without having it suggested as an
option. However, once mentioned, 78 percent said that they had
heard of the technique. Slightly over 4 percent were sure that they
had seen photo-radar in operation, and another 8 percent thought
they might have seen the equipment on the roadside.

As seen in Table 27, about 60 percent of those questioned approved
or strongly approved of the potential use of photo-radar as an
enforcement tool on the Beltway only. Approximately 35 percent
disapproved or strongly disapproved. Only 6 percent had no opinion.

As noted in Table 28, the differences between the opinions of
drivers and non-drivers, between Beltway drivers and non-Beltway
drivers, and among residents of

Table 27
OPINIONS CONCERNING POTENTIAL USE OF PHOTO-RADAR ON BELTWAY

Response Number of Respondents

Strongly approve 56 (16.7)
Approve 143 (42.6)
Disapprove 67 (19.9)
Strongly disapprove 51 (15.2)
No opinion 19 (5.7)

Total 366

Table 28
OPINIONS ON PHOTO-RADAR USE BY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Chi Square
Characteristic Approve Disapprove (df)

Drivers 61.3 38.7 2.6 (1)
Non drivers 81.1 18.2

Beltway drivers 53.0 47.0 2.9 (1)
Non-Beltway drivers 75.4 24.5

Males 54.3 45.7 12.1 (1)*
Females 73.2 26.7

Virginia residents 62.7 37.3 0.4 (2)
Maryland residents 61.8 38.2
D.C. residents 67.7 32.3

*Significant at the .05 level.

Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland were not statistically
significant. However, the difference between the opinions of males
and females toward photo-radar were statistically significant.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Background

Photo-radar technology has been used in Europe for more than
30 years to apprehend speeders. Although most of the European
manufacturers of photo-radar equipment are well established,
at least one is less than 5 years old.

In the United States, photo-radar has been in use for several
years in Pasadena, California, and Paradise Valley, Arizona.
Photo-radar has traditionally been used in residential areas
in cities in the path of commuter traffic. In these instances,
most of those speeders cited are nonresidents.

The use of photo-radar technology appears to satisfy
constitutional standards. Special evidentiary requirements may
have to be met for successful prosecution of speeding cases.

Additional legislation may be required to provide for the
service of traffic citations by mail to the registered owner
of the speeding vehicle.

Photographic Quality

Three manufacturers took pictures of receding traffic as part
of the demonstration, with two of these also taking pictures
of approaching traffic. Of these three companies, the license
plate number could be determined from the photograph in 58.6
percent, 39.6 percent, and 8.5 percent, respectively. With the
additional requirement that the speeding vehicle be
identifiable in multivehicle pictures, these percentages
dropped to 51.9 percent, 24.1 percent, and 7.4 percent,
respectively.

Four manufacturers took pictures of oncoming traffic as part
of the demonstration. In these pictures, both the license
plate and the driver's face were required to be identifiable.
For these four firms, 23.1 percent, 13.1 percent, 9.1 percent,
and 8.6 percent, respectively, of the pictures met this
requirement. When the requirement that the speeding vehicle be
identifiable in a multivehicle photograph was added, the
percentages for the four firms dropped to 13.3 percent, 7.5
percent, 8.4 percent, and 4.2 percent, respectively.

Accuracy of Recorded Speeds

When all test speeds were considered, the speeds recorded by
the various units fell within the standards for police radar
between 96.3 percent of the time and 83.7 percent of the time,
respectively.

Speed readings recorded by three of the units tended to be
lower than those recorded by loops, thus favoring the driver
in a prosecution. The readings made by the other two tended to
be higher.

The accuracy of the recorded speed was not significantly
affected by the lane in which the vehicle was traveling or by
the clustering of the vehicles.

Efficiency of Photo-Radar

The estimated number of speeding vehicles per hour that could
be photographed with the results suitable for citation
purposes (i.e., under operational conditions with the license
plate and the speed of the vehicle clearly shown) varied from
about 5 per hour to 216 per hour, depending on the brand of
equipment, number of speeding vehicles, traffic volume, and
threshold speed. These photographic rates are based on the
actual number of speeding vehicles recorded during the periods
of data collection.

For oncoming traffic only, the estimated number of speeding
vehicles that could be photographed with the license plate,
speed of the vehicle, and driver's face clearly shown varied
from 4 per hour to 35 per hour, depending on the type of
equipment and number of speeding vehicles.

Misalignment Flexibility (Cosine Effect)

Mis-aligning the equipment to a maximum of 8 degrees had a
significant effect on the error of the speed recorded by the
equipment. Four units had a maximum error of up to 3 mph, and
one unit had a maximum error of up to 9 mph.

Radar Detection

Two of the units tested were detected by radar detectors at
2,250 feet. Two units were detected at 1,056 feet. One unit
was not detected by the radar detector used in the test since
the model of radar detector used could not detect the Ka band.

Public Acceptance

Approximately 60 percent of the residents of the Washington
metropolitan area polled approved of the potential use of
photo-radar on the Beltway.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In interpreting the results of this study, it must be realized
that the demonstration could not be conducted in the pristine
conditions of a laboratory. Rather, the objective of this project
was to determine the feasibility of using photo-radar technology on
high-volume, high-speed expressways, such as the Beltway. It was
concluded that:

1. It is operationally feasible to use photo-radar technology to
detect and photograph speed violators on high-speed, high-
volume roads, such as the Beltway. The costs of running such a
program are unknown.

2. Photo-radar technology can produce clear photographs that can
be used to prosecute speeding drivers in court. Since the
testing was conducted in the field under less than ideal
conditions, it is likely that photo-radar equipment used as
part of an actual speed enforcement program will produce a
larger percentage of usable photographs, as experienced in
Paradise Valley, Arizona, and Pasadena, California.

3. All equipment tested is capable of detecting and properly
photographing a much higher percentage of speed violators than
can the average police officer in a patrol car.

4. There is an intimation that the use of photo-radar as an
enhancement to speed enforcement efforts may reduce the mean
speed on the Beltway. However, the extent of this reduction
could not be determined in this study because no citations
were given and no public information campaign was conducted.

5. It is feasible to propose legislation for the use of photo-
radar technology that could safeguard individual rights, meet
constitutional requirements, and enhance the litigation of
speed violations. Proposed legislation for Maryland and
Virginia was developed and is presented in Appendix F The
legislation is designed to safeguard individual rights while
establishing lawful procedures for implementing automated
speed enforcement in both states.

LESSONS LEARNED

Based on information gathered from the operational site visits and
field demonstrations, it appears that the use of photo-radar on
high-volume, high-speed roadways is feasible in terms of the
equipment's ability to detect and photograph speeders. (This study,
however, did not deal with the funding and staffing needs of photo-
radar programs or whether such programs would be cost-effective.)

A number of additional inferences can be drawn from the findings of
this study and, in particular, the results of the site visits to
manufacturers of photo-radar overseas and to users of photo-radar
in the United States. Photo-radar should be used as a part of an
agency's overall speed enforcement program to help reduce speed-
related crashes, fatalities, and injuries at those locations
identified as having traffic safety and enforcement problems. In
addition, photo-radar equipment should be chosen to meet the
particular needs of the police agency and the community. The number
of sites using photo-radar, and other sites using different types
of equipment, should be alternated to create a general deterrent
effect except in cases where "spot"

deterrence is required. This will also minimize the impact of radar
detectors. A speed enforcement program utilizing photo-radar, as
with other new enforcement initiatives, should be preceded by
efforts to inform judges and prosecutors of the details of the
program and should be accompanied by a well-focused and coordinated
public information and education program. Operational procedures
for a photo-radar program should include the following:

providing equipment-specific training programs for police
officers to ensure the equipment is properly operated

providing for the availability of properly trained technical
support personnel to ensure the continuing accuracy of the
equipment

selecting operational sites and times to deal with identified
traffic safety and enforcement problems and ensure optimum use
of the equipment (accounting for angle of the sun, weather,
etc.)

setting speed thresholds that are realistically determined and
are consistent with the agency's overall speed enforcement
goals (the thresholds should first be set for excessive speeds
that present the greatest potential danger)

establishing specific procedures for the handling of film and
photographs to maintain proper chain of custody and ensure
that individual rights and privacy are safeguarded.

Preparation of the procurement for equipment should include the
following:

an understanding of where the U.S. distributor has technical
support available and what the process and time requirements
are to replace or add equipment

use of specifications allowing demonstration of alternate
equipment (e.g., lenses, strobes, films)

specifications in the purchase requirement that the operating
angle for the radar antenna is set and clearly marked on the
equipment so that it may be easily seen in day or at night
(this ensures that there is proper alignment of the camera and
radar antenna each time the equipment is used).

There are a number of other "common sense" issues to be considered
when police agencies establish a photo-radar program or purchase
photo-radar equipment. The agency should first determine if a
speed-related accident problem exists in its locality or if there
are locations where the use of standard speed enforcement tech-
niques is unsafe or impractical. In addition, periodic reporting on
the operations of the program as well as speed- and/or crash-
reduction statistics should be instituted for local governments and
the public. This information could also be used to adjust plans for
a speed enforcement program and deployment of equipment.

With regard to the equipment itself, common sense dictates that
enforcement officials be aware of what the photo-radar equipment
will and will not do. Arrangements should be made for the
development of film, particularly in cases where an odd film type
or size is used. Also, police agencies should not be afraid to ask
manufacturers to deviate from standard lenses and filters to meet
the photographic needs of

the area more adequately. Finally, the police agency should insist
that the equipment be warranted and that there is easy and quick
access to repair and maintenance facilities, especially in cases
where continuous photo-radar use is required.

NOTES

1. Big Brother Is Driving 28 Time (November 23, 1953).

2. E. C. Fisher, Legal Aspects of Speed Measurement Devices 19
(1967).

3. Id. at 1.

4. Id. at 2.

5. D. K. Witheford, Speed Enforcement Policies and Practice 36
(1970).

6. Id.

7. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 6.

8. Id. (citing City of Webster Groves v. Quick, 323 S.W2d 386,
388-389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959)).

9. 7A Am. Jur. 2d Automobile Highway Traffic 373 (1980).

10. D. K. Witheford, supra note 5, at 37.

11. W S. Smith & C. S. LeCraw, Jr., Traffic Speed Enforcement
Policies 26 (1948).

12. D. K. Witheford, supra note 5, at 37.

13. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 54; Cal. Veh. Code 40801-804;
Wash. Rev. Code 46.61-470.

14. D. K. Witheford, supra note 5, at 34.

15. Smith & LeCraw, supra note 11, at 21.

16. D. K. Witheford, supra note 5, at 34.

17. Id. at 35; 7A Am. Jur. 2d supra note 9, at 371.

18. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 9.

19. State v. Dantonio, 18 N.J. 570, 574, 115 A.2d 35, 37 (1955).

20. People v. Martindale, 6 Misc. 2d 85, 162 N.YS.2d 806 (195 7).

21. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 24.

22. Dooley v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 32, 35, 92 S.E.2d 348, 350
(1956).

23. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 19.

24. Id. at 45.

25. Id.

26. Id.

27. Commonwealth v. Gideon, 28 Pa. D. & C.2d 157 (1962).

28. Id.

29. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 19.

30. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 4.

31. Commonwealth v. Buxton, 205 Mass. 49, 91 N.E. 128 (1910).

32. People v. Hildebrandt, 308 N.Y 397, 401, 126 N.E.2d 377, 379,
revg, 204 Misc. 1116, 129 N.YS.2d 48 (1954).

33. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 8; 7A Am. Jur. 2d, supra note
9, at 373, 374.

34. Traffic Monitoring Technologies, Legal Information Package.
Photocop PhotoRadar (1990).

35. S. C. Smith, Giving Big Brother the Birdie 103 Car and Driver
(August 1989).

36. Id.

37. Id.

38. Id.

39. Va. Code Ann. Sect. 18.2-422 (1990).

40. S. C. Smith, supra note 35.

41. Glater, Legal Issues Raised by Orbis, A Motor Vehicle Speed
Detection Device Taking Photos of Speeders 1 (1973).

42. Va. Code Ann. 46.2-1079 (1989).

43. E. C. Fisher, supra note 2, at 14.

44. Id. at 15.

45. Lankard, Book Review, 12 Autoweek (September 17, 1990)
(reviewing D. Smith and J. Tomerlin, Beating the Radar Rap
(1990)).

46. Glater, supra note 41, at 7.

47. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

48. Id. at 480.

49. Id. at 485-486.

50. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976), req denied, 425 U.S.
985 (1976); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973), req denied,
410 U.S. 959 (1973).

51. Paul, 424 U.S. at 713; Roe, 410 U.S. at 152-153.

52. Paul, 424 U.S. at 713.

53. New York v. Class, 106 S. Ct. 960, 965 (1986).

54. Glater, supra note 41, at 12.

55. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967); United States
v. Knotts, 103 S. Ct. 1081, 1084 - 1085 (1983).

56. Katz, 389 U.S. at 357.

57. Knotts, 103 S. Ct. at 1084-1085.

58. Id. at 1085.

59. Katz, 389 U.S. at 351.

60. Knotts, 103 S. Ct. at 1084-1085.

61. Id. at 1085.

62. Glater, supra note 41, at 14.

63. Id. at 14-15.

64. McKenna, Freedom of association or Gender Discrimination? New
York State Club Association v. City of New York, 38 Axn. U.L.
Rev. 1061, 1064 - 1065 (1989); Note, State Power and
Discrimination by Private Clubs: First Amendment Protection
for Nonexpressive Associations, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1835, 1842.
(1991).

65. McKenna, supra note 63, at 1065; Roberts v. United States
Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984); NAACP v. Alabama, 78 S. Ct.
1163, 117 (1958); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 97 S. Ct.
1932, 1954 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting).

66. McKenna, supra note 63, at 1067.

67. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 - 14 (1972), rehg denied, 409
U.S. 901 (1972).

68. Id.

69. Donohoe v. Duling, 465 E2d 196 (4th Cir. 1972).

70. Laird, 408 U.S. at 2-3.

71. Donohoe, 465 F2d at 197.

72. Laird, 408 U.S. at 13-14.

73. Id.; Donohoe, 465 F2d at 204.

74. McKenna, supra note 63, at 1065; Harvard, supra note 63, at
1843.

75. See NAACP v. Alabama, 78 S. Ct. 1163 (1958) (Action by the
Alabama Attorney General to obtain the membership lists of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
[NAACP] held violative of the freedom of expressive
association); NAACP v. Button, 83 S. Ct. 328 (1963) (Virginia
Chapter 33, which prevents solicitation of legal business by
an attorney, is Violative of the freedom of expressive
association when applied to the NAACP); Kusper v. Pontikes, 94
S. Ct. 303 (1973) (Illinois law, which prevented a person who
has voted in a primary election of a particular party from
voting in a primary election of another party for 23 months,
violates the freedom of expressive association).

76. McKenna, supra note 63, at 1067.

77. See Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977)
(Invalidating a city ordinance that prohibited family members
who were not members of the nuclear family from inhabiting the
same residence on the basis of freedom of intimate
association); compare Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416
U.S. 1 (1974) (affirming the validity of a zoning ordinance
preventing unrelated adults from living in the same residence
from a freedom of intimate association challenge). Note that
in Roberts, the Supreme Court indicated that the right of
intimate association could extend to regulations interfering
with intimate relationships outside the family context,
Roberts, 468 U.S. at 620, although successful freedom of
intimate association claims have thus far involved only
impediments to familial relationships.

78. Glater, supra note 41, at 22-28.

79. Id. at 25 (citing Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962)).

80. See Sims v. Cunningham, 203 Va. 347,354-355, 124 S.E.2d
221,225-226 (1962).

81. United States v. Delario, 912 E2d 766 (5th Cir. 1990).

82. Id. at 769 (citing United States v. Carlock, 806 F2d 535 (5th
Cir. 1986)).

83. 62A Am. Jur. 2d Privacy 31 (1990).

84. Letter from Crawford C. Martin, Att'y Gen. of Tex., to Hon. A.
Ross Rommel (Sept. 14, 1970) (opinion on legality of Orbis IE
use); Letter from Frank J. Kelly, Att'y Gen. of Mich., to Noel
C. Bufe (Sept. 8, 1971) (opinion on legality of Orbis III
use); Glater, supra note 41, at 18.

85. 62A Am.Jur.2d Privacy 205(1990); Downs v.Swann, lllMd.53, 60,
73A. 653, 655 (1909).

86. 62A Am. Jur. 2d Privacy 205 (1990); Walker v. Lamb, 254 A.2d
265, 266 (Del. Ch. 1969), affd, 259 A.2d 663 (Del. 1969);
Downs, 111 Md. at 60, 73 A. at 655-6.

87. Id.

88. Id. at 64, 73 A. at 656.

89. Jeffers v. City of Seattle, 23 Wash. App. 301, 315-316, 597
P2d 899, 907 (1979).

90. Brown v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 704 E2d 1296, 1302 -
1303 (4th Cir. 1983).

91. Id. at 1302.

92. C. McCormick, McCormick on Evidence 214 (1984).

93. G. Lilly, An Introduction to the Law of Evidence 13.3 (1987).

94. C. McCormick, supra note 65, at 671.

95. Id. at 672; G. Lilly, supra note 66, at 520.

96. G. Lilly, supra note 66, at 520.

97. C. McCormick, supra note 65, at 672.

98. Id.

99. 14B Michie's Jurisprudence of Virginia and West Virginia, 5
(1988).

100. Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 745, 187 S.E.2d 189 (1972),
cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 (1972), rehg. denied, 409 U.S. 1050
(1972).

101. Id.

102. Id. at 747, 187 S.E.2d at 190.

103. Id. at 746, 187 S.E.2d at 190.

104. Id.

105. Saunders v. Commonwealth, 1 Va. App. 396, 339 S.E.2d 550
(1986).

106. Id. at 397-399, 339 S.E.2d at 551-552.

107. Id.

108. Ferguson, 212 Va. at 747, 187 S.E.2d at 191.

109. Id.

110. Sisk v. State, 236 Md. 589, 204 A.2d 684 (1964).

111. Id. at 592, 204 A.2d at 685.

112. Id. at 593-596, 204 A.2d at 686-687.

113. Id. at 592, 204 A.2d at 685.

114. Id. at 596, 204 A.2d at 688.

115. Va. Code Ann. 46.2-936 (1989).

116. Va. Code Ann. 46.2-870 et seq. and 46.2-937.

117. Va. Code Ann. 46.2-936 (1989).

118. Md. Transp. Code Ann. 26-203 (1987).

119. 64 Op. Att'y Gen. 314 (1979).

120. Id.

121. Md. Transp. Code Ann. 26-201(a) (1987).

122. Id.

123. Reedy v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 9 Va. App. 386, 387, 388
S.E.2d 650-651 (1990), citing Washington v. Commonwealth of
Virginia, 228 Va. 535, 550, 323 S.E.2d 577, 587 (1984).

124. Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 745, 745, 187 S.E.2d 189,
190 (1972).

125. Robertson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 12 Va. App. 854, 856-
857, 406 S.E.2d 417,418-419 (1991).

126. State of Maine v. Young, 303 A.2d 113, 116 (1973). See also
State of New Jersey v. Bunting, 455 A.2d 531, 532-533 (1983).

127. Groves v. State of Indiana, 456 N.E.2d 720 (1983).

128. Id. at 721.

129. 553 So.2d 701 (1988).

130. Id. at 711.

131. Id. quoting C. Scott, 3 Photographic Evidence 1297 at 95 (2d
ed. 1969 and Supp.1987).

132. 489 N.E.2d 43 (1986).

133. Id. at 48.

134. Parker v. State of Maryland, 531 A.2d 1035', 1038 (1987). See
also Hawkins v. State of Maryland, 550 A.2d 416, 420 (1988);
Van Meter v. State of Maryland, A.2d 850, 855 (1976).

135. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. Sections 10-1001 et seq.
(1991).

136. See also Wilkinson v. State of Maryland, 554 A.2d 1280 (1989)
(holding that couriers are not part of the chain of custody in
the controlled dangerous substance context).

137. 566 A.2d 126, 127 (1989).

138. Id. at 127.

139. Va. Code Ann. 2.1-377 et seq. (Mchie 1987). In addition, Va.
Code Ann. 8.01-40 prohibits the unauthorized use of an
individual's picture for the purposes of advertising or trade.
This section is not relevant in the photo-radar context,
however, since no commercial use is planned for the
photographs taken by photo-radar devices.

140. Several other guidelines, which are not applicable to photo-
radar use, are not discussed here.

141. Carson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 12 Va. App. 497, 500, 404
S.E.2d 919, 920, 924. See also Shirley v. Commonwealth of
Virginia, 218 Va. 49, 53, 235 S.E.2d 432, 434 (1977) (stating
"an automobile['s] ... exterior and much of its interior are
within plain view of the casual or purposeful onlooker, and
thus are not protected by the Fourth Amendment from searching
eyes").

142. Josephs v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 10 Va. App. 87, 98, 390
S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990).

143. Brown v. American Broadcasting Co., 704 F2d 1296, 1302-1303
(4th Cir. 1983).

144. See, e.g., Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 591 (1974). See
also Arsenson v. American Broadcasting Co., 269 Ca.Rptr 379
(1990) (no invasion of privacy occurred when plaintiff was
videotaped wailing to his car since the cameraman did not
encroach on the plaintiff s property); State v. Louis, 672 P2d
708 (Or. 1983) (holding that photographing a defendant with a
135 mm lens was not an illegal search or invasion of privacy
since the camera provided only minimal enhancement to what
could be observed with the unaided eye); State of Wisconsin v.
Owen, 350 N.W2d 741 (holding that taking a picture of a car in
a driveway did not violate any reasonable expectations of
privacy that the owner could have); State of Michigan v. Ward,
308 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. 1981) (holding that no reasonable
expectation of privacy existed with regard to telephoto
photography of an individual's car from a neighbor's house
across the street); State of Utah v. Wettstein, 501 P2d 1084
(Utah 1972) (holding that photographing of a vehicle in an
apartment building parking space did not constitute an illegal
search or seizure); State of New York v. Christman, 307
N.YS.2d 545 (holding that no reasonable expectation of privacy
existed with automobile parked in plain and open view since
the conduct of putting it there explicitly disclaimed any
privacy rights).

145. 558 A.2d 446 (Md. 1989).

146. Id. 450 (quoting Scales v. State of Maryland, 284 A.2d 45 (Md.
1971)).

147. 474 A.2d 191 (Md. 1984).

148. Id. at 198 (quoting Venner v. State of Maryland, 367 A.2d 949
(Md. 1977)). See also Conner v. State of Maryland, 366 A.2d
385 (Md. 1976) (holding that a citizen had no privacy right in
a serial number that was clearly visible on his motorcycle);
McDonald v. State of Maryland, 487 A.2d 306 (Md. 1984)
(holding that a visual inspection of the exterior of a car did
not violate the owner's Fourth Amendment privacy interest).

149. As to unmanned- operation, Mr. Thompson stated that the FCC
has not promulgated any guidelines that turned on this
distinction, and thus the mode of operation was irrelevant
from an FCC compliance viewpoint. With regard to drone radar,
Mr. Thompson noted that photo-radar is not classified as drone
radar since the return radar signal is used by the unit and
thus previous policies restricting drone radar use did not
apply to photo-radar. In addition, Mr. Thompson noted that the
FCC policy on drone-radar use that had raised these concerns
had recently been modified to allow drone-radar units that
comply with the -provisions of NHTSA!s Police Traffic Services
Division, thus further mitigating any concerns about photo-
radar's compliance with FCC guidelines (see "Drone Radar
Operational Guidelines," DOT Publication No. HS-807-753).

APPENDIX A

Standard Criterion Photographs

(The photographs contained in this appendix are half-tone
reproductions of the photographs used to make legibility and
visibility decisions. Because they are half-tones, these
reproductions are not as clear and readable as the original photo-
graphs.)

Click HERE for graphic.

Photo-Radar Telephone Survey

November 1990

Good afternoon (evening). My name is
I'm conducting a brief survey for the Virginia Transportation
Research Council at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
May I speak with someone in your household who is 16 years of age
or older?

[CONFIRM AGE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING]

I'd like to ask you a few questions concerning the enforcement of
speed limits in your area. Your answers will be very valuable and
will remain strictly confidential. (GO RIGHT TO THE FIRST QUESTION)

1. First, do you drive?

1....Yes
2....No----------------------SKIP TO QUESTION 3
3....Don't know/Can't remember

2. In a typical week, how often do you drive on the Capital
Beltway? Would you say you drive the Beltway ... [READ
RESPONSES)

1....Every day
2....3 to 6 times per week
3....Once or twice a week, or
4....Not at all during the typical week
5....Don't know/Can't remember

3. In a typical week, how often do you ride as a passenger on the
Beltway? [READ RESPONSES]

1....Every day
2....3 to 6 times per week
3....Once or twice a week, or
4....Not at all during the typical week
5....Don't know/Can't remember

4. What kinds of technologies do the police use to enforce speed
limits where you drive? [PROBE FOR THREE ANSWERS OR UNTIL
PERSON SAYS HE OR SHE HAD NO MORE ANSWERS]

1....Mobile patrols
2....Stationary speed traps
3....Constant radar signals
4....Photo-radar
5....Something like photo-radar
88...Other
99...Don't know/Can't remember

5. The police in your area are considering using an enforcement
tool known as photo-radar to help enforce the speed limit on
the Capital Beltway only. Photo-radar automatically
photographs the license plate and the driver of only those
vehicles traveling significantly faster than the speed limit.
Have you heard of this type of speed enforcement technology?

1....Yes
2....No
3....Don't know/Can't remember

6. Have you ever seen or driven by a photo-radar unit being used
on the Capital Beltway?

1....Yes
2....Maybe
3....No
4....Don't know/Can't remember

7. Do you approve or disapprove of the use of the photo-radar on
the Beltway ONLY? Would you say you...

[READ RESPONSES]

2....Approve [NOTE CODING]
1....Strongly approve
3....Disapprove,or
4....Strongly disapprove
9....Don't know/Can't remember____________SKIP TO QUESTION 8

8. Why do you approve (disapprove) of photo-radar on the Capital
Beltway ONLY? [PROBE FOR THREE REASONS OR UNTIL PERSON SAYS HE
OR SHE HAS NO MORE REASONS]

8a. APPROVE:

1....Need to reduce speeds on the Beltway
2....Will reduce speeds
3....Not entrapment, illegal, unconstitutional, violates
privacy, personal freedom
4....Will reduce accidents on the Beltway
5....Will reduce congestion on the Beltway
88...Other (Specify)

8b. DISAPPROVE:

1....Wrong person could get ticket
2....Gives the police an unfair advantage (sneaky)
3....Entrapment, illegal, unconstitutional, violates
privacy, personal freedom
4....Big Brotherism/too much government
5....Waste of taxpayers' money
6....Person can't tell his or her side of story (personal
contact)

7....Will not reduce speeding
88...Other (Specify)
99...Don't know/Can't remember

This survey was sponsored by the Virginia and Maryland Departments
of State Police. I would like to thank you for your time and
cooperation.

Sex: 1....Male Number
2....Female

State

APPENDIX C

Description of Photo-Radar Equipment

EQUIPMENT COMPARISON

Company: AWA Defence Industries

PART ONE: BASED ON EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN SITE VISITS

1. MODEL

system:Vehicle Speed Radar
radar: (Ka band)
camera: Canon

2. PRODUCER OF:

radar: AWA
camera: Canon F-1
electronics: AWA
lenses: Canon
flash: Unknown

3. FCC APPROVAL

experimental: Yes
standard waiver: No

4. RADAR

antenna type (parabolic, slotted wave guide, etc): Parabolic
frequencies: 24.15 Ghz
published accuracy: ñ1% or ñl kph, whichever is greater
self-calibration (internal): Yes, at factory
external calibration (tuning fork, etc): No
independent testing (standards): Yes, by Australia 2898.1-Z
(1986)
standard radio frequency interference: None

5.PHOTOGRAPHY

standard shutter speed: 1/1000 sec
optional shutter speed: Can be varied aperture priority: No,
set for F4 F-stop (preset with a low light indicator)
shutter priority: No, set for F4 F-stop (preset with a low
light indicator)
standard lenses: 85 mm
optional lenses: No
system recycle time w/flash: < 0.5 sec
system recycle time w/o flash: 0.2 sec
daytime flash standard: No, but available
slave camera available: No

103

6. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: No

7. MOBILE MODE: No

8. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: No

9. OPTIONS

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: No, but available
remote control: No
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes
comes with computer for traffic data collection: No
software available: Yes
video available: No

PART TWO: BASED ON THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATIONS

1. MODEL DEMONSTRATED

system:Vehicle Speed Radar
radar: (Ka band)
camera: Canon

2. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: No
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: No

3. MOBILE MODE: No

4. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: No

5. OPTIONS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED

night operation: No (is available)
day operation with flash standard: No (is available)
remote control: No manual override: Yes

104

software available: Yes
video available: No

EQUIPMENT COMPARISON
Company: Gatsometer

PART ONE: BASED ON EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN SITE VISITS
1. MODEL
system:Gatsometer Type 24
radar:Gatsometer Type 24 Microradar
camera:Robot Motor Recorder 36CE

2. PRODUCER OF:

radar:Gatsometer
camera:Robot Foto & Electronic
electronics:Gatsometer
lenses:Schneider-Tele-Xenar
flash:Gatsometer with HeHa lens

3. FCC APPROVAL

standard waiver: Yes-type acceptance

4. RADAR

antenna type (parabolic, slotted wave guide, etc): Slotted
wave guide
frequencies: 24.125 Ghz, 13.5 Ghz
published accuracy: +2 kph up to 100 kph, +2% above 100 kph
self-calibration (internal): Yes
external calibration (tuning fork, etc): Yes
independent testing (standards): Yes, by W. German and Dutch
governments
radio frequency interference: None enclosed in nickel-plated
sheeting

5. PHOTOGRAPHY

standard shutter speed: 1/1000 fixed (flash synchronized)
automatic
optional shutter speed: Yes
aperture priority: Yes shutter priority: No
standard lenses: 90 mm Schneider-Tele-Xenar
optional lenses: 75 mm, 150 mm
system recycle time w/flash: 0.5 sec
system recycle time w/o flash: 0.001 sec
daytime flash standard: Yes, if necessary

105

slave camera available: Yes
flash triggered: Yes
radar triggered: No

6. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: Yes

7. MOBILE MODE: Yes

oncoming only: No
receding only: Yes
both directions: No
both simultaneously: No

8. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: Yes

separate measurements for cars and trucks: Yes
simultaneous measurements of each: Yes

9. OPTIONS

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes
remote control: Yes
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes, memory card
comes with computer for traffic data collection: No
software available: Yes
video available: Yes

PART TWO: BASED ON THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATIONS

1. MODEL DEMONSTRATED

system: Gatsometer
radar:Gatsometer Type 24
camera: Robot Motor Recorder 36CE

2. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: No

106

3. MOBILE MODE: Yes

oncoming only: No
receding only: Yes
both directions: No
both simultaneously: No

4. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: Yes

separate measurements for cars and trucks: Yes
simultaneous measurements of each: Yes

5. OPTIONS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes
remote control: No
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes
memory card comes with computer for traffic data collection:
No
software available: Yes
video available: Yes

EQUIPMENT COMPARISON

Company: Multanova

PART ONE: BASED ON EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN SITE VISITS

1. MODEL
system: Multanova 6F Photo-radar
radar: Multanova
camera: Jacknau Automated Recording Camera

2. PRODUCER OF:

radar: Multanova
camera: Jacknau
electronics: Multanova
lenses: Nikon
flash: Multanova

3. FCC APPROVAL: Yes

standard waiver: Yes-type acceptance

4. RADAR

antenna type (parabolic, slotted wave guide, etc.): Parabolic
antenna frequencies:34.3 Ghz, 24 Ghz

107

published accuracy: ñl kph up to 100 kph, ñ1% over 100 kph
self-calibration (internal): Yes
external calibration (tuning fork, etc): Yes
independent testing (standards): Yes, by W. German and Swiss
governments frequency interference: None, enclosed in sheeting

5. PHOTOGRAPHY

standard shutter speed: 1/500 sec
optional shutter speed: No
aperture priority: Yes, can have automated or manual shutter
priority: Can't change standard lenses: Nikon 85 mm optional
lenses: None
system recycle time w/ flash: 0.5 sec system recycle time w/o
flash: 0.5 sec daytime flash standard: Yes slave camera
available: Yes
flash triggered: Yes
radar triggered: No

6. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: Yes

7. MOBILE MODE: Yes

oncoming only: No
receding only: Yes
both directions: No
both simultaneously: No

8. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: Yes

separate measurements for cars and trucks: Yes
simultaneous measurements of each: Yes

9. OPTIONS

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes, if necessary
remote control: Yes
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes to PC or to card recorder
comes with computer for traffic data collection: Yes
software available: Yes
video available: Yes

108

PART TWO: BASED ON THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATIONS

Declined to participate.

EQUIPMENT COMPARISON

Company: Traffic Monitoring Technologies (TMT)

PART ONE: BASED ON EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN SITE VISITS

1. MODEL

system: PhotoCop
radar:Macom Radarhorn
camera: Hasselblad 70 mm

2. PRODUCER OF:

radar: Macom
camera: Hasselblad
electronics: TMT
lenses: Zeiss
flash:Lumadyne or Norman

3. FCC APPROVAL

standard waiver: Yes-type acceptance

4. RADAR

antenna type (parabolic, slotted wave guide, etc): Parabolic
frequencies: 34.6 Ghz + 20 Mhz
published accuracy: ñl mph @ 20-100 mph ñ1% over 100 mph
self-calibration (internal): Yes
external calibration (tuning fork, etc): Can check with tuning
fork
independent testing (standards): FCC testing done by private
company
radio frequency interference: None, enclosed in sheeting

5. PHOTOGRAPHY

standard shutter speed: -1/650 sec
optional shutter speed: No
aperture priority: Yes
shutter priority: No
standard lenses: 70 mm
optional lenses: 150 mm
system recycle time w/ flash: 2 sec
system recycle time w/o flash: 2 sec, but can run faster if
needed
daytime flash standard: Yes
slave camera available: Yes

109

flash triggered: No
radar triggered: No computer triggered: Yes
tripod mounted: No
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: No

6. MOBILE MODE: No

7. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: No

8. OPTIONS

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes
remote control: Yes
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes
comes with computer for traffic data collection: Yes
software available: Yes
video available: Yes

PART TWO: BASED ON THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATIONS

1. MODEL DEMONSTRATED

system: PhotoCop
radar: (Ka band)
camera: Hasselblad 70 mm

2. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: No
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: No

3. MOBILE MODE: No

4. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: No

5. OPTIONS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes
remote control: No

110

manual override: No
computer interface: Yes
comes with computer for traffic data collection: Yes
software available: Yes video available: Yes

EQUIPMENT COMPARISON

Company: Traffipax

PART ONE: BASED ON EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN SITE VISITS

1. MODEL
system: Speedophot
radar:Gatsometer Type 24 Microradar
camera: Robot Motor Recorder 36 DFT

2. PRODUCER OF:

radar:Gatsometer
camera: Robot Foto and Electronic
electronics: Traffipax
lenses: Schneider-Tele-Xenar
flash: Bosch

3. FCC APPROVAL

standard waiver: Yes
type acceptance FCC #F3T4MA Radar Type 5

4. RADAR

antenna type (parabolic, slotted wave guide, etc): Slotted
aerial
frequencies: 24.125 Ghz, 13.5 Ghz
published accuracy: +9 kph up to 100 kph, +2% above 100 kph
self-calibration (internal): Yes
external calibration (tuning fork, etc): No
independent testing (standards): Yes, by German Postal Service
and FCC
radio frequency interference: None-enclosed in metal sheeting

5. PHOTOGRAPHY

standard shutter speed: 1/1000 sec
optional shutter speed: 1/500 sec
aperture priority: Yes
shutter priority: No
standard lenses: 75 mm Schneider-Tele-Xenar optional lenses:
90 mm, 150 mm system recycle time w/ flash: 0.5 sec system
recycle time w/o flash: 0. 1 sec

111

daytime flash standard: Yes-auto exposure control
slave camera available: Yes-but not necessary
flash triggered: No
radar triggered: Yes

6. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: Yes

7. MOBILE MODE: Yes

oncoming only: Yes
receding only: Yes
both directions: Yes
both simultaneously: Yes

8. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: Yes

separate measurements for cars and trucks: Yes
simultaneous measurements of each: Yes

9. OPTIONS

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes
remote control: Yes
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes, memory card comes with computer for
traffic data collection: No
software available: Yes
video available: Yes

PART TWO: BASED ON THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATIONS

1. MODEL DEMONSTRATED

system: LeMarquis Microspeed
radar:Gatsometer
camera: Robot

2. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: No
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: No

3. MOBILE MODE: No

112

4. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: Yes

separate measurements for cars and trucks: Yes
simultaneous measurements of each: Yes

5. OPTIONS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes
remote control: No
manual override: Yes
computer interface: No
comes with computer for traffic data collection: No
software available: No
video available: No

EQUIPMENT COMPARISON

Company: Trafikanalys

PART ONE: BASED ON EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN SITE VISITS

1. MODEL

system: Astro 110
radar: RC110
camera:Hasselblad

2. PRODUCER OF:

radar:Sensys Traffic
camera: Hasselblad
electronics:Gatsometer
lenses: Zeiss (Planar CF 75 mm)
flash:Sensys Traffic

3. FCC APPROVAL:

experimental: Yes
standard waiver: No

4. RADAR

antenna type (parabolic, slotted wave guide, etc): Parabolic
frequencies: 10.530 GHz + 1-20 GHZ
published accuracy: ñl kph up to 250 kph, ñ1% between 100-250
kph self-calibration (internal): Yes, every 15 min
external calibration (tuning fork, etc): No
independent testing (standards); Yes, by various governments
radio frequency interference: No

113

5. PHOTOGRAPHY

standard shutter speed: 1/1000 sec
optional shutter speed: Yes
aperture priority: Yes
shutter priority: No
standard lenses: Zeiss Planar CF 75 mm optional lenses: No,
but available on request system recycle time w/ flash: 1 sec
system recycle time w/o flash: .001 sec
daytime flash standard: Optional slave camera available: Yes
flash triggered: No
radar triggered: Yes

6. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: Yes
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: Yes

7. MOBILE MODE: No

8. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: Yes

separate measurements for cars and trucks: Yes
simultaneous measurements of each: Yes

9. OPTIONS

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Optional
remote control: Yes
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes
comes with computer for traffic data collection: Yes
software available: Yes
video available: Yes

PART TWO: BASED ON THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATIONS

1. MODEL DEMONSTRATED

system: RC 110 (prototype created for this demonstration)
radar: RC 110
camera: Robot

2. STATIONARY MODE: Yes

114

tripod mounted: Yes
vehicle mounted: No
one direction at a time: Yes
both directions simultaneously: No

3. MOBILE MODE (INCOMPLETE DEMONSTRATION)

oncoming only: No
receding only: Yes
both directions: No
both simultaneously: No

4. DIFFERENT SPEED LIMITS FOR CARS AND TRUCKS: No

5. OPTIONS ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED

night operation: Yes
day operation with flash standard: Yes
remote control: No
manual override: Yes
computer interface: Yes
comes with computer for traffic data collection: Yes
software available: Yes
video available: No

115

APPENDIX D

Conditions Under Which Manufacturers' Photographs
Were of Highest Quality

Table D-1

INFLUENCE OF LOCATION ON
PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

I-64 I-81 I-295 I-95 I-95 I-495
Manufacturer Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Maryland Maryland

AWA --- 1.98 2.21 0.43 0.13 ---

GATSOMETER 4.30 --- --- 0.57 0.33 0.12

TMT* --- --- --- --- --- ---

TRAFFIPAX 1.65 1.71 1.54 0..41 0.50 0.25

TRAFIKANALYS* --- --- --- --- --- ---

Representation ratio = % usable photographs in category
-----------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

* No pictures of receding traffic produced.

Table D-2

INFLUENCE OF WEATHER ON
PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Bright Hazy
Manufacturer Sun Sun Overcast Nighttime Rain

AWA 0.54 1.81 2.22 --- ---

GATSOMETER 1.54 0.65 0.29 0.65 0.42

TMT* --- --- --- --- ---

TRAFFIPAX 1.28 0.85 0.83 0.17 0.43

TRAFIKANALYS* --- --- --- --- ---

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

119

Table D-3

INFLUENCE OF MODE OF OPERATION
ON PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Manufacturer Stationary Mobile

AWA 1.00 ---

GATSOMETER 0.86 8.00

TMT* --- ---

TRAFFIPAX --- 1.00

TRAFIKANALYS* --- ---

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

Table D-4

INFLUENCE OF FILM FORMAT
ON PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Manufacturer *Prints Negatives

AWA 1.00 ---

GATSOMETER 4.30 0.34

TMT* --- ---

TRAFFIPAX 1.00 ---

TRAFIKANALYS* --- ---

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

120

Table D-5

INFLUENCE OF TIME ON PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Mid Late Early Late
Manufacturer Night Morning Morning Lunch Afternoon Afternoon

AWA --- 0.43 0.13 --- 2.16 1.88

GATSOMETER 0.65 0.67 1.23 4.93 --- ---

TMT* --- --- --- --- --- ---

TRAFFIPAX 0.17 0.72 1.31 1.34 0.61 1.37

TRAFIKANALYS* --- --- --- --- --- ---

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

Table D-6

INFLUENCE OF NUMBER OF VEHICLES
ON PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Manufacturer One Two Three 4 or more

AWA 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00

GATSOMETER 2.06 0.78 0.34 0.08

TMT* --- --- --- ---

TRAFFIPAX 1.80 0.46 0.10 0.01

TRAFIKANALYS* --- --- --- ---

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

121

Table D-7

INFLUENCE OF LOCATION ON
ON PICTURE QUALITY: ON-COMING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

I-64 I-81 I-295 I-95 I-95 I-495
Manufacturer Virginia Virginia Virginia Virginia Maryland Maryland

AWA 2.30 2.68 0.19 0.67 --- 0.39

GATSOMETER 0.51 0.26 2.69 --- --- ---

TMT 3.49 1.01 2.10 0.33 0.28 0.39

TRAFFIPAX* --- --- --- --- --- ---

TRAFIKANALYS* 0.26 0.38 0.00 0.88 1.29 1.87

Representation ratio = % usable photographs in category
-----------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

* No pictures of receding traffic produced.

Table D-8

INFLUENCE OF WEATHER ON
ON PICTURE QUALITY: ON-COMING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Bright Hazy Dark
Manufacturer Sun Sun Overcast Sky Nighttime Rain

AWA 1.29 0.00 1.96 --- --- ---

GATSOMETER 2.61 0.42 --- --- 0.43 ---

TMT 0.49 --- 1.17 --- 2.31 3.47

TRAFFIPAX* --- --- --- --- --- ---

TRAFIKANALYS 1.52 0.75 0.44 0.18 0.47 0.00

Representation ratio = % usable photographs in category
-----------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

* No pictures of receding traffic produced.

122

Table D-9

INFLUENCE OF MODE OF OPERATION
ON PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Manufacturer Stationary Mobile

AWA 1.00 ---

GATSOMETER 1.00 ---

TMT 1.00 ---

TRAFFIPAX* --- ---

TRAFIKANALYS* 0.66 3.49

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

Table D-10

INFLUENCE OF FILM FORMAT
ON PICTURE QUALITY: ON-COMING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Manufacturer Prints Negatives

AWA 1.01 0.96

GATSOMETER 1.00 ---

TMT* --- 1.00

TRAFFIPAX --- ---

TRAFIKANALYS* --- 1.00

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

123

Table D-11

INFLUENCE OF TIME ON PICTURE QUALITY: RECEDING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the speeding vehicle identified)

Click HERE for graphic.

124

TABLE D-12

INFLUENCE ON NUMBER OF VEHICLES
ON PICTURE QUALITY: ON-COMING TRAFFIC
(Can the license plate be read and the driver and speeding vehicle
identified)

Manufacturer One Two Three 4 or more

AWA 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00

GATSOMETER 1.15 0.20 0.00 ---

TMT 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00

TRAFFIPAX* --- --- --- ---

TRAFIKANALYS 1.36 0.09 0.00 0.00

Representation Ratio = % usable photographs in category
--------------------------------
% of all photographs in category

*No pictures of receding traffic produced.

125

APPENDIX E

Calculations of Sample Accuracy for the Public Acceptance Poll

Click HERE for graphic.

APPENDIX F

Model Photo-Radar Statutes for Maryland and Virginia

INTRODUCTION

Maryland

The enabling legislation for photo-radar proposed for the
state of Maryland was drafted with two important objectives in
mind. First, the legislation establishing photo-radar use should
be limited until use of photo-radar gains acceptance by the courts
and the motoring public. Second, the legislation must address the
myriad constitutional and evidentiary issues posed by the
introduction of photo-radar. By embodying these principles in the
enabling legislation, a statute is produced that not only ensures
fair application of the technology but also provides guidance for
law enforcement officers and state courts in interpreting the law.

Proposed Maryland Code Section 26-201(n)(i) restricts the use
of photo-radar to Beltway speed enforcement by the State Police and
limits its duration with a sunset clause that expires in 1994.
Limiting the scope, duration, and control of photoradar increases
its attractiveness to the legislature by emphasizing that this
legislation is intended to address the specific problem created by
speeding drivers on the Beltway.

Sections 26-201(h)(3) and (4) of the Maryland legislation
adopt guidelines for admissibility of photo-radar evidence. The
statutory requirement that the photograph be of sufficient quality
to identify the driver will aid implementation of the statute in
two ways. First, it will signal to the legislature that the
purpose of the statute is to target those drivers who are speeding
on the Beltway, not to impose strict liability on the registered
owners and lessees of photographed vehicles. Second, by providing
a guideline for law enforcement officers as to the quality of
picture required for admission of photo-radar evidence, the statute
will minimize the charging of individuals with violations a court
might dismiss. Requiring the police officer who activated the
photo-radar equipment to testify about the camera placement and
accuracy of the scene depicted satisfies the rule of evidence that
someone must testify that the photograph is an accurate
representation of the scene portrayed. However, if the State of
Maryland decides that it will use un-staffed photo-radar, then the
Maryland legislature should also codify the silent witness theory.

Sections 26-201(h)(5) and (6) accomplish the same objective as
a rebuttable presumption that the registered owner or lessee is the
driver of the photographed vehicle while avoiding the ruling under
Sandstrom v. Montana (442 U.S. 510 (1979)) that use of a rebuttable
presumption on an element of a criminal offense is unconsti-
tutional, since it shifts the burden of proof from the state to the
defendants. Section (5) under the Maryland statute imposes
liability on the registered owner or lessee of the photographed
vehicle for violation of the statute, but Section (6) provides an
affirmative defense to a registered owner or lessee who identifies
the driver at the time of the violation.

The provisions under Section 26-201(h)(7) in the Maryland
statute create a mechanism for targeting the actual driver of the
photographed vehicle once the regis-

133

tered owner or lessee identifies the driver. This will also aid
passage by indicating to the legislature that the only individuals
who will be charged with violation of this statute are speeding
drivers and recalcitrant owners and lessees. Section 26-201(h) will
also aid the passage of this legislation by providing lesser
sanctions for those violators detected by photo-radar as compared
with those sanctions imposed for speed violations detected by
police officers. This emphasizes that the goal of this legislation
is the reduction of Beltway speeds, not the creation of
technologically advanced speed traps.

Section 26-201(h)(8)(I) outlines the procedures for citation of
registered owners, lessees, and drivers. In providing the
additional procedures for the citation of identified drivers, this
section enhances the process for ticketing speeding drivers,
furthering the objective of speed reduction on the Beltway. More
important, this section's provision that citations be sent by
certified mail preempts a potential Constitutional challenge by
ensuring that the alleged violator is given adequate notice of any
violation.

As written, this legislation presents a coherent policy for the
implementation of photo-radar equipment on the Beltway. It
confronts the variety of legal issues arising from the introduction
of such an innovative technology but roots itself in the language
and sanctions of the codes of Maryland. Further, it does so by
providing significant constitutional and evidentiary protection to
alleged violators as well as guidance to the legal system on the
adjudication of violations detected by photoradar.

VIRGINIA

The enabling legislation for photo-radar for Virginia proposed by
the Virginia Department of State Police does not address the
aforementioned constitutional and legal issues. It does not have a
sunset provision or any provision for limiting its use to the
Beltway and to the State Police, and it does not actually mention
photo-radar. The State Police believe that photo-radar is not a new
technology but is instead only the continuation of two known
technologies, photography and radar. No new admissibility standards
are necessary under this view. For the same reason, no additional
testing or calibration standards are required.

Proposed Section 46.2-882.l(A) establishes a rebuttable presumption
that the registered owner, unless a rental or leasing company, is
guilty of the violation charged. Both reckless driving (with which
the driver is charged if he or she is traveling 20 mph or more over
the speed limit), a class 1 misdemeanor, and speeding are subject
to this presumption. In support of the use of rebuttable
presumption, the State Police cite the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
statute, although violation of that statute is a noncriminal
offense.

Proposed Section 46.2 -882. 1 (B) provides for service on the owner
to be executed by first-class mail. This, too, tracks the HOV
statute, although the due process challenge appears far stronger
given the potential for incarceration. If the

134

summoned person fails to appear, that person will be served notice
by the Sheriff. However, if successful, photo-radar use is likely
to increase significantly the number of speeding tickets written on
the Beltway. This is likely to place considerable burden on the
Sheriffs Office. There are to be no contempt charges or arrests for
failure to appear in response to the initial summons. Thus, as
written, the proposed Virginia legislation is open to a number of
constitutional and evidentiary challenges that the proposed
Maryland legislation would not face.

PROPOSED MARYLAND STATUTE

A BILL ENTITLED

AN ACT concerning

Vehicle Laws-Photo-Radar Devices-Speeding Citations

For the purpose of requiring a police officer who, based on
evidence obtained by means of a photo-radar device, has probable
cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle has exceeded the
posted speed limit, to mail a citation to the registered owner of
the vehicle and to keep a copy of the citation; charging the
registered owner, lessee, or identified driver of the vehicle with
violation of this Act; providing that certain requirements relating
to the signing of a citation by the person charged do not apply to
a citation issued under this Act; defining a certain term; making
stylistic changes; and generally relating to the issuance of
citations for speeding based on evidence obtained by photo-radar
devices.

By repealing and reenacting, without amendments,

Article-Transportation
Section 21-807
Annotated Code of Maryland
(1987 Replacement Volume and 1989 Supplement)
By repealing and reenacting, with amendments,

Article-Transportation
Section 26-201 and 26-203
Annotated Code of Maryland
(1987 Replacement Volume and 1989 Supplement)

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That
the Laws of Maryland read as follows:

135

Article-Transportation

21-807.

In each charge of a violation of any speed regulation under
the Maryland Vehicle Law, the charging document shall specify:

(1) The speed at which the defendant is alleged to have
driven;

(2) If the charge is for exceeding a maximum lawful
speed, the maxi-mum speed limit applicable at the location; and

(3) If the charge is for driving below a minimum lawful
speed, the minimum speed limit applicable at the location.

26-201.

(a) A police officer may charge a person with a violation of
any of the following, if the officer has probable cause to believe
that the person has committed or is committing the violation:

(1)The Maryland Vehicle Law, including any rule or
regulation adopted under any of its provisions;

(2)A traffic law or ordinance of any local authority;

(3)Title 9, Subtitle 2 of the Tax-General Article;

(4)Title 9, Subtitle 3 of the Tax-General Article;

(5)Article 56, Sect. 148 of the Code.

(b) A police officer who charges a person under this section,
except for a violation of Title 21, Subtitle 8 of this article
detected by a "photo-radar device," shall issue a written traffic
citation to the person charged. A written traffic citation shall be
issued by the police officer or authorized representative of any
other state agency or contractor designated by the State for any
violation of Title 21, Subtitle 8 of this article detected by a
"photo-radar device" as described in this section.

(c)A traffic citation issued to a person under this section
shall contain:

(1)A notice to appear in court;

(2)The name and address of the person;

(3)The number of the person's license to drive, if
applicable;

(4)The State registration number of the vehicle, if
applicable;

(5)The violation charged;

136

(6)Unless otherwise to be determined by the court, the
time when and place where the person is required to appear in
court;

(7)A statement acknowledging receipt of the citation, to
be signed by the person;

(8)On the side of the citation to be signed by the
person, a clear and conspicuous statement that:

(i)The signing of the citation by the person does
not constitute an admission of guilt; and

(ii)The failure to sign may subject the person to
arrest; and

(9)Any other necessary information.

(d)Unless the person charged demands an earlier hearing, a
time specified in the notice to appear shall be at least 5 days
after the alleged violation.

(e)A place specified in the notice to appear shall be before a
judge of the District Court, as specified in Sect. 26-401 of this
title.

(f)An officer who discovers a vehicle stopped, standing, or
parked in violation of Sect. 21-1003 of this article shall:

(1)Deliver a citation to the driver or, if the vehicle is
unattended, attach a citation to the vehicle in a conspicuous
place; and

(2)Keep a copy of the citation, bearing [his] the
officer's certification under penalty of perjury that the facts
stated in the citation are true.

(g) (1) A law enforcement officer who discovers a motor
vehicle parked in violation of Sect. 13-402 of this article shall:

(i) Deliver a citation to the driver or, if the
motor vehicle is unattended, attach a citation to the motor vehicle
in a conspicuous place; and

(ii) Keep a copy of the citation, bearing the law
enforcement officer's certification under penalty of perjury that
the facts stated in the citation are true.

(2) In the absence of the driver, the owner of the motor
vehicle is presumed to be the person receiving the citation or
warning.

(h) (1) The Maryland State Police are authorized to use
"photo-radar" technology on the Maryland portion of the Capital
Beltway (I-495) and I-95 for the purpose of detecting speeding
violations. This authorization will expire July 1, 1994, unless re-
enacted prior to that date.

(2)In this subsection, "Photo-Radar Device" means a
device that:

(I)Uses radio-micro waves to measure and indicate
the speed of a moving object; and

137

(II) Photographs the moving object for which speed
is measured

(3)Photographs by a photo-radar device must be of the
vehicle's registration plate and of the driver of the vehicle and
must be of sufficient quality to identify the driver of the
vehicle.

(4)Such photographs shall be accepted as prima facie
evidence of the speed of the motor vehicle in any court or legal
proceeding under this section where the speed of the motor vehicle
is at issue provided that the police officer or authorized rep-
resentative of any other state agency or contractor designated by
the State who activated the equipment shall testify as to the
placement of the camera and the accuracy of the scene depicted.

(5)A person is in violation of Title 21, Subtitle 8 of
this article if the person is the registered owner or the lessee of
the vehicle driven in excess of the posted speed limit. In the case
of leased or rented vehicles, the companies holding title to such
vehicles shall inform the police, under authority of Sect. 18-
103(d), as to the identity of the lessee.

(6)It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of
Title 21, Subtitle 8 of this article by the registered owner or
lessee of the photographed vehicle that the registered owner or
lessee of the photographed vehicle identifies another person who
drove the vehicle at the time of the violation or that the vehicle
was stolen or used by an unauthorized person at the time of the
violation.

(7)In the event that the registered owner or lessee of
the photographed vehicle identifies the person who drove the
vehicle at the time of the violation, the person so identified will
be charged with violation of Title 21, Subtitle 8 of this article
for driving the vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit.

(8)If a police officer or authorized representative of or
any other state agency or contractor designated by the State, based
on photographic evidence obtained by means of a Photo-Radar Device,
has probable cause to believe that a vehicle has been driven in
violation of Title 21, Subtitle 8 of this article by being driven
in excess of the posted speed limit, the police officer or any
other state agency or contractor designated by the State shall:

(I)Promptly send a citation by certified mail to the
registered owner or lessee of the vehicle charging the registered
owner or lessee with the violation or promptly send a citation by
certified mail to the identified driver of the vehicle charging the
identified driver with the violation in the event that the
registered owner or lessee of the vehicle identifies the person who
was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation; and

(II)Keep a copy of the citation, bearing the police
officer's certification under penalty of perjury that the facts
stated in the citation are true.

(9)A person charged with violation of this section who does
not elect to contest the charge must sign the citation and return
it along with any fines that the

138

State assesses for violation of Title 21, Subtitle 8 of this
article. If a person wishes to contest a charge for violation of
Title 21, Subtitle 8 of this article, that person must sign the
citation and appear in court at the time and place designated in
the citation.

(10)Signs to indicate the use of photo-radar devices for
measuring speed shall be clearly posted along the Capital Beltway
at locations selected by the Department of Transportation
Commissioner.

(11)The penalties for violations under this section shall be
as prescribed under the Schedule of Pre-set Fines and or Penalty
Deposits set out in Sect. 21, Subsect. 801.1. 26-203.

(a)This section applies to all traffic citations issued
under this subtitle unless:

(1)The person otherwise is being arrested under
Sect. 26-202(a)(1), (2),(3), or (4) of this subtitle;

(2)The person is incapacitated or otherwise unable
to comply with the provisions of this section;

(3)The citation is being issued to an unattended
vehicle in violation of Sect. 21-1003 of this article;

(4)The citation is being issued to an unattended
motor vehicle in violation of Sect. 13-402 of this article; or

(5)The citation is being issued by certified mail to
the registered owner, lessee, or identified driver of a vehicle in
accordance with Sect. 26-201(h) of this subtitle.

(b)On issuing a traffic citation, except a traffic
citation issued b certified mail to the registered owner, lessor,
or identified driver of a vehicle in accordance with Sect. 26-201
(h) of this subtitle, the police officer shall request the person
to sign the statement on the citation acknowledging its receipt. If
the person refuses to sign, the police officer shall advise the
person that failure to sign may lead to the person's arrest.

(c)On being advised that failure to sign may lead to his
arrest, the person may not refuse to sign. If the person continues
to refuse to sign, the police officer may arrest the person for
violation of this section or, as provided in Sect. 26202(a)(5) of
this subtitle, for the original charge, or both.

(d)If a person acknowledging receipt of a citation
through certified mail refuses to sign the citation, the issuing
authority shall advise the person that failure to sign may lead to
the person's arrest. On being advised that failure to sign may lead
to his arrest, the person may not refuse to sign. If the person
continues to refuse to sign, the police officer may arrest the
person for violation of this section, as provided in Sect. 26-
202(a)(5) of this subtitle, for the original charge, or both.

139

PROPOSED VIRGINIA STATUTE

46.2-882.1 Presumption that registered owner is driver; summons
by mail. -A. In the prosecution of an offense of exceeding the
posted speed limit, or of reckless driving in violation of 46.2-
862, proof that the vehicle described in the summons was operated
in excess of the posted speed limit, together with proof that the
defendant was at the time of such violation the registered owner of
the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption
that such registered owner of the vehicle was the person who
committed the violation. Such rebuttable presumption shall not
arise when, the registered owner of the vehicle is a rental or
leasing company.

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of 19.2-76, whenever a summons
for operating a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit,
or for reckless driving in violation of 46.2-862, is served in
any county, city, or town, it may be executed by mailing by first-
class mail a copy thereof to the address of the owner of the
vehicle as shown on the records of the Department of Motor
Vehicles. If summoned person fails to appear on the date of return
set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons
shall be executed in the manner set out in 19.2-76.3. No
proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing
shall be instituted for his failure to appear on the return date of
the summons.

140

(ase.html)