Opinion ID: 2556660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Automated Enforcement Program (AEP)

Text: As part of its effort to enforce traffic laws, the County uses speed monitoring systems, which are device[s] with one or more motor vehicle sensors producing recorded images of motor vehicles traveling at speeds at least 10 miles per hour above the posted speed limit. Md.Code (1977, 2009 Repl.Vol.), § 21-809(a)(5) of the Transportation Article (TA). [3] The statute provides that anyone thus cited, or anyone to whom a citation is reissued, may [e]lect to stand trial in the District Court for the alleged violation. TA § 21-809(d)(5)(ii). At trial, the cited person may present evidence that they were not driving the vehicle, as well as [a]ny other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent. TA § 21-809(f)(1). The cited person may also argue that the State has failed to meet the numerous requirements of TA Section 21-809. [4] TA Section 21-809 also provides the procedures required in the District Court before the Department may reissue a citation to a non-owner. [5] During the District Court hearing, the owner of a cited vehicle may present evidence that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation[.] TA § 21-809(f)(ii). The owner must then provide the District Court with: . . . a letter, sworn to or affirmed by the person and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, that: (i) States that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; (ii) Provides the name, address, and, if possible, the driver's license identification number of the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and (iii) Includes any other corroborating evidence. TA § 21-809(f)(3). Then, [i]f the District Court finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence. . . identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the District Court must forward the file to the Department so that it may reissue the citation in the alleged driver's name. TA § 21-809(f)(4). Arguably, the formality of the District Court proceeding varies depending on who, or what, owns the vehicle. Where the owner of the vehicle is a person, that person must convince the District Court with credible evidence that she was not driving at the time of the citation. Where the owner, however, is an entity (such as the Police Department), which is physically incapable of operating a vehicle, the required procedure is less clear. Presumably the District Court will always find that the entity was not the vehicle's actual operator. Once the District Court has determined that the owner was not driving, the District Court's only remaining statutory tasks are to receive[ ] evidence of the identity of alleged driver, and to provide to the local police department a copy of any evidence substantiating who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation. TA § 21-809(f)(4)(i). When a police vehicle is captured speeding by the Automated Enforcement Program (the AEP), the Department uses an internal procedure, as opposed to this statutory procedure, to reissue a citation to the responsible officer. [6] According to the testimony of AEP's director, the AEP staff first determines whether the vehicle was using its emergency lights and/or sirens: [W]hen we see an event, or, which is an image, a picture of the, of a vehicle going through one of our cameras, and if that picture clearly shows that the vehicle in the picture, which is a, whether it be a Montgomery County Police Department vehicle or a Fire and Rescue vehicle, or some emergency vehicle, if there are lights and sirens, then we would then not issue that citation. If there is no corroborating physical evidence that this, that the vehicle was attending to an emergency situation, then the citation would be issued similar to every other citation that we issue. (Emphasis added). Without physical evidence that the officer was responding to the emergency, the AEP issues a citation to the Department, which is the owner of the vehicles. Upon receiving a citation, the Department further checks the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) reports to determine if the operating Officer was responding to an emergency at the time. If the CAD reports demonstrate that the Officer was responding to an emergency, the Department sends a written request to the AEP to void the citation. If, however, the Department . . . doesn't find on the CAD report an exact notation or incident that corresponds with the time of the ticket; for example, that there was a traffic stop, or that they were pursuing somebody, or they had their lights and flashers on, it was an emergency runif they don't see an exact denotation on the CAD report to match the time of the ticket, preliminarily, they say that it wasn't an authorized speed. And the officer was unauthorized in going fast because it's not on the CAD report. If neither the recording nor the CAD reports demonstrate that the Officer was responding to an emergency, the Department initiates a third layer of investigation, in which it interviews the Officer to determine if she had a justification for speeding. The Department summarizes the result of its investigation to the AEP in a memo, with a recommendation either to reissue the ticket to the Officer or to void the citation.