Red Light Cameras: Show Trial

A show trial is a trial where the outcome is widely known and predetermined. The "trial" itself is just for the benefit of the audience. It's like watching 24... No matter how much trouble Jack gets into you know that he'll make it out alive and save the world in the process. We told you here, about the pressure being put on hearing officers not to dismiss Red Light Camera citations. You see, Marty needs the Money and these red light money makers make a lot of it, over $6 MILLION so far.

Our Eyes on the inside are telling us that in order to fulfill the directive from the Almighty Marty, the city is playing fast and loose with the law itself. The city has an obligation to provide a hearing for everyone who decides to contest the citation. The hearing must be held within 90 days of the Effective Date. Due to the gerrymandering of this ordinance by it's sponsor Craig Loy, the Effective Date is either defined as:

§ 7-11-3 DEFINITIONS.
EFFECTIVE DATE. The date a STOP fine is mailed [emphasis added] to the recipient by the contractor as indicated on the face of the STOP Fine.

-Or-

§ 7-11-5 ENFORCEMENT.
(H) Fine. The date of a violation is the effective date. [emphasis added] If the registered owner or nominee requested a hearing and did not prevail, the date of the violation is the effective date. The fine for the first violation for running a red light is $100. The fine for a second violation for running a red light within two years from the date of the first violation is $250. The fine for a third or subsequent violation for running a red light within two years from the date of the first violation is $500.

According to the ordinance, the latest deadline for the city to hold a hearing is 90 days from the mailing of the citation. Our Eyes tell us that the city is "interpreting" the ordinance in a number of creative ways in order to give them a little more time to hold the mandated hearing due to their... well, popularity. In a recent hearing, Roberto Albertorio, the replacement hearing officer for Albert Chavez who resigned rather than be terminated for dismissing citations, ruled that the "effective date" is actually the date that the request for hearing was received.

Now... we're not a lawyer (and don't play one on TV), and the ordinance Chapter 7, Section 11 of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances gives two definitions for the Effective Date but unless our eyes are deceiving us, neither one of the definitions given have anything to do with the date that a request for hearing is received by the city. As an attorney, Mr. Albertorio should know this... unless he is being less than an impartial judge in the matter.

Call it crooked, call it corrupt, or call it what it is... a show trial.