Hey, it's Unconstitutional!

Bluff City has responded to the class action lawsuit against it. It sounds like, while the plaintiffs made many arguments, they did not address the constitutionality of the fines in Bluff City. As I stated before (in much greater detail here), I believe there is a good argument to be made that their fine structure was unconstitutional under the Tennessee constitution. Article VI Section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution plainly states that "No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this state that shall exceed $50, unless it is assessed by a jury of his peers." The original Bluff City ordinance charged a $40 administrative fee on top of a $50 fine and that administrative fee was nothing but a fine by a different name. GO GET 'EM!!

Why no one in Bluff City stood up to the camera clowns

Well, the Bluff City speed cameras are about to be turned back on, the speed limit will be reduced and the length of the speed trap will be extended. The city "leaders" continue to maintain the incredulous position that the extension of the speed trap is for "traffic calming." In any event, some of my non-local readers might be interested in knowing why no one in Bluff City would bother showing up at the Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting to complain. It's simple, really.

1. Very few people actually live in the speed trap. It's in a commercial area.


2. Very few people live in Bluff City to begin with and, those that do, benefit greatly from it because nearly 100% of the violaters are from outside of Bluff City. Bluff City has a population of under 1,700 people, but yet they pull in millions from these two speed cameras. You do the math. It allows the citizens of Bluff City to have a much larger government than they otherwise would and they don't have the burden of having to pay for it.


3. The area of the speed trap is essentially strip-annexed into Bluff City. The center of mass of the population of Bluff City is well outside of the speed trap. Depending on the direction of travel, many residents of the area that has been historically known as Bluff City can partially or entirely avoid the speed trap, particularly if they are traveling toward Elizabethton or Bristol.

In other words, why should the citizens of Bluff City care? You're paying for it! It's the new American way - get others to pay for stuff that you want. Whenever one group gets all the benefits and pays little of the costs, what do we expect will happen? It's the same thing that we see happening when over half of the citizens of this country pay no income tax....but that's an issue for another rant.

The Bluff City Rip Off

Not surprisingly, Bluff City is moving to extend their speed trap "north to the Charlie Worlie Bridge." This is probably over two miles from the speed camera. So they have used the camera law as an excuse to extend their speed trap for an additional two miles. For the uninitiated, the Charlie Worlie Bridge is at the bottom of a rather large hill. Look for the police to set up at the bottom of the hill or at the pull-off next to the flea market.

As I predicted, they are using a "traffic study" as justification for this, one that is likely rigged. "[Interim City Manager Judy] Dulaney said a recently completed traffic study of the area showed that most vehicles, northbound and southbound in all lanes of travel, pass through at an average of 66 mph." This is in a 55 mph zone on a 4-lane divided highway in a generally non-congested area. The flea market brings in a fair amount of traffic on the weekend, but commuter traffic is less on Saturday so the net effect is probably de minimus. My guess is that they put their speed trailer on the hill going to the Charlie Worlie Bridge on the northbound side and near the other side of the hill on the southbound side so they would get a higher speed reading.

You people who elect this pathetic group of misfits called the Board of Mayor and Aldermen need to get on the phone and cut this off at the legs. Before this becomes effective, they have to have a second reading that that is scheduled for October 13. Let your voice be heard. You are allowing a government to grow out of control. In no circumstances should so much of any government's revenue be dependent on extracting money from motorists in a speed trap.

Of course, Delaney claims that the speed camera "isn't the primary reason for extending the 45 mph speed limit to the bridge." If you believe that, please contact me about a bridge that I have for sale that is a real money making opportunity. That is such a complete and obvious lie that I cannot believe any bureaucrat is dumb enough to actually say it.

Bluff City's Next Attempt at a Traffic Camera Scam

Here's a warning to folks who travel 11-E. In light of the recent shut-down of the speed camera in the southbound lane, the "city" of Bluff City wants to expand the ridiculous 45 mph speed zone further up the highway so they can keep their traffic scamera alive. As part of this process, it appears that they may be doing a traffic study, using the little trailer that records people's speeds and shows their speed on a sign board as they pass. Traffic studies are required for all new speed cameras under the new Tennessee law and it may be that they are doing this as part of their plan to extend the speed trap and "reinstall" (or re-activate) the speed camera.

Here's the trick - they have located the trailer just a few yards inside of the current 45 mph speed zone, but are measuring speed outside of the 45 mph zone. They basically placed their trailer right behind the sign where the speed limit changes. The sign on the trailer shows 45 mph and it is "inside" of the speed zone, but is set to measure cars that are clearly outside of the speed zone. That way, they can say "we set up a traffic study in the 45 mph zone and most people were exceeding the speed limit." They won't bother telling anyone that they were actually measuring speed in a 55 mph zone. THESE PEOPLE WILL STOP AT NOTHING WHEN IT COMES TO STEALING YOUR MONEY!

I note that this speed measuring trailer was turned off yesterday, but look for a rigged traffic study to go along with the expanded speed limit. This should be illegal. If that camera is turned on, anyone who gets a ticket should challenge the validity of the traffic study that may be being prepared with this speed measuring radar trailer.

Better yet, Bluff City should be disbanded and have its charter revoked. It is a dysfunctional government that seems to exist primarily to keep jobs for a few bureaucrats and few policemen.

Bluff City Candidates' Positions on Speed Cameras

Tricities.com has a story today about the candidates for Bluff City's board of mayor and aldermen. Only one of the candidates, Melvin Carrier, has the guts to publicly oppose the speed cameras in Piney Flats / Bluff City. I would encourage the few people who actually live in Bluff City to support him in his election.

Bluff City is a town that's government is in complete disarray. I don't think it currently has a mayor and they have had consistent problems with the board of mayor and aldermen for quite some time. Why does this town even exist? The population is only 1559 people, but yet they put up a speed camera to rip off revenue from thousands of non-residents. It seems to me that the only reason the town exists is to provide a few guvmint jobs for the locals, rip off passersby and run a few police cars. What would it take to force Bluff City to surrender its charter of incorporation? I mean, really, do the 1559 Sullivan County residents who reside in Bluff City need another layer of government?

It is clear that the speed cameras there put a disproportionate burden on non-residents of Bluff City - people who have no voice in the election of the leaders there or those who make decisions. This is truly a unique situation and should not be allowed to continue. The entire Tri-Cities area must pay the price in lost tourism and money being sent out of our economy to an out-of-state traffic camera company. Literally millions of dollars are leaving the local economy and the state, just so a few tyrants in a tiny town will have some $$$ to blow on their pet projects. Enough!

State Troopers Guard Against Speed Cameras

An interesting thing happened this morning while driving through Piney Flats (Bluff City). I followed a Tennessee Highway patrol vehicle, a large SUV, through the speed camera area. It was one of those times where a video camera would have been great.

For perspective, these speed cameras are placed at the bottom of a hill in an area with an artificially low speed limit. It is a divided highway that is rather rural, but has a few low-traffic businesses on the side of the road.

As the officer approached the speed camera, he (or she) jabs his brakes, gets past the camera and then speeds back up to a normal and safe road speed that just happens to be in excess of the posted (and artifically low) speed limit. This is essentially what a majority of people do when they pass this area.

So, in summary, Piney Flats, Tennessee is a speed trap. Avoid it at all costs. Take your business elsewhere. Do not patronize the businesses there.

My ideas for challenging the Piney Flats / Bluff City speed camera tickets

While I am sure you can find plenty of information regarding challenging these tickets, most of them are loser arguments. Of course, I am not your lawyer so you should consider this approach with your lawyer. That said, the Piney Flats/Bluff City ordinance requires a payment of $50 and a payment of $40 for court costs. It charges this amount whether you go to court or not. Why should you pay court costs when you do not go to court? One might argue that this additional charge makes the entire ordinance unconstitutional under the Tennessee Constitution.

Article VI, Section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution provides as follows:

No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this state that shall exceed fifty dollars, unless it shall be assessed by a jury of his peers.

Calling the $40 a "court cost" is ridiculous when no court is involved in the matter unless the person challenges the ticket. It is simply calling a fine by another name in order to avoid calling it a fine and in order to avoid a jury trial (which these crooks desperately want to avoid because they know what "jury nullification" is). I would argue that this mandatory court cost is nothing more than a fine and the citizen is left with no recourse to challenge it, other than by coming to court and thereby being subject to the court cost. As such, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Your honor "what if they made the court costs $500 or $1,000? What is to stop them from doing that?" I would argue that, the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face because the fine is essentially $90 whether you go to court or not and therefore a jury trial is warranted and the ordinance makes no provision for a jury trial. [Update: I believe that Bluff City changed its ordinance in December 2010 to only assess this fee if you actually go to court, so this issue may now be irrelevant. I have not checked the ordinance to confirm this.]

Further, the legislature knows this is an issue. The House just approved legislation that does the following:

Limit[s] fines to $50 per violation and declaring that add-on late payment fees also cannot exceed $50 per ticket, starting July 1, 2011. The provision also says that court costs cannot be assessed unless the violator actually goes to court. McCord said some cities are now adding court costs to the basic $50 ticket when it is first mailed to the violator.

There are plenty of other good arguments out there and to my knowledge, the Bluff City ordinance has not been challenged yet. Just because some cities are adding these costs do not mean they are constitutionally permissible (even without final approval of the legislation above).

I might also want to show up with some of these photoshopped pictures of Barack Obama and others. Maybe King Barry and Sarah Palin would do the trick. I might inquire as to whether these photos were real. After all, photographs never lie, right? [Updated to add: Who knew that Elvis met Darth Vader?] A really talented person might endeavor to provide photoshopped photos of various well-known city officials in Bluff City. I wouldn't recommend photoshopping the judge; the point would be well-made, but you might end up in jail if the judge were, say, making love to a goat or something. It might be interesting to provide a photoshopped version of the the photo of your own car (from the ticket cam's website) with one of the official's tag numbers photoshopped onto it. A good photoshopper would likely be able to do this with minimal effort. "Is this my car or is it councilman _____'s car? This photo has his tag number on it." Since you cannot confront your accuser, how are "we the people" supposed to know if these things are even real? Are we supposed to just trust the government's prosecutors? Last I checked, the government is supposed to prove its case. Photos are so easily faked that they are flimsy evidence at best.

Ask the government agent how the cameras work. Ask the officer how the cameras work. Ask when they were last calibrated. Who trained them to operate the cameras? How much training did they have? Ask plenty of questions to show they are idiots and that they are just trusting a piece of machinery and software.

Again, these are just some ideas. If you really want to fight "based on the principle," pay a few bucks and hire a lawyer. You're probably going to lose anyway, but you never know.

Bristol Herald Courier Comments on Bluff City Speed Cameras

The editorial board of the Bristol Herald Courier has commented that drivers may simply avoid Bluff City due to their speed cameras. They also point out that the speed limit is artifically low there. This is a 4 lane highway with a 45 mph speed zone that is now enforced by cameras that sit at bottom of a trough between two hills.

Last week, City Manager Fredrick Weaver stressed the safety benefits. “If enforcing our speed camera program saves one life or keeps one person from being paralyzed in an accident, it’s more than worth us doing it,” he said. “The No. 1 thing for us is saving lives.”

Yeah, right. This is the same town that has another 45 mph speed zone on the Elizabethton Highway on a 4 lane that has very few businesses or interesections to speak of and is nothing but a speed trap. Realistically, one could safely travel 60-65 mph in that area and most people probably do. That is probably where they will put the next round of speed cameras.

I can tell you happens when I go through the area where the speed camera is located. Whenever I drive down the road, I try to be conscious of vehicles on side roads. I watch to make sure they stop and watch to see if they are going to drive onto the highway, watch to see if I could change lanes if necessary, etc. In the speed camera area, this is no longer the case. I fear that I no longer notice cars that pull up to the highway from the car wash or Poplar Ridge Road. I focus on my speedometer and the cars in front of me who are slamming on their brakes at the speed cameras. I suspect other drivers do the same thing and the end result will likely be that someone will pull out from the car wash or Poplar Ridge Road and the oncoming traffic will not even slow down or swerve to avoid a collision because they are not watching for pullouts from those areas as they are too busy watching their speed and watching for brakers in front of them. Then, someone will get killed or paralized while Bluff City cashes its checks.

Distribute Camera Enforcement Revenue to Residents

That's a good idea if there ever was one. I still don't like the idea of having the cameras, but at least one can say that the primary purpose would be to improve safety rather than fill the local coffers. When revenue goes to the municipalities, it creates a perverse incentive to increase fines, increase "guilt," lower speed limits, cut yellow times and otherwise game the system.

For example, in Bluff City/Piney Flats, the new speed cameras are strategically placed in an area that is in a natural trough. In other words, the cameras are at the bottom of a hill, regardless of which direction you are travelling. They are also in an area that has an artifically low speed limit to begin with. There is very little congestion in the area where the cameras are placed, particularly compared with 1/4 mile further on the road where the shopping center is located. On top of that, if you dare challenge the ticket and lose, it transforms from a non-moving violation to a moving violation. That is the part of the ordinance that is most open to challenge under Tennessee law, in my opinion.

If it were truly about safety, the money would not fill the coffers of politicians to spend however they like.