Welcome to the home of nascop.com

MISSION: Convince the City of San Jose, CA to terminate the NASCOP program currently in operation due to numerous legal problems. The web site also seeks to inform the residents of San Jose on the legal issues concerning the NASCOP program.

VIOLATED STATE LAWS
Below is a list of state laws believed to be in violation by the City of San Jose's use of photo radar:

1. CVC40800. Every traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 or 11 of this code shall wear a full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while so on duty uses a motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color specified by the commissioner. This section does not apply to an officer assigned exclusively to the duty of investigating and securing evidence in reference to any theft of a vehicle or failure of a person to stop in the event of an accident or violation of Section 23109 or in reference to any felony charge, or to any officer engaged in serving any warrant when the officer is not engaged in patrolling the highways for the purpose of enforcing the traffic laws.

- The city uses white mini-vans to house the cameras and radar equipment. The only markings on it are of a seal of the city. Not exactly the same as what the official police car markings and colors are. Also, no one that is issued a citation under the NASCOP program ever sees the technician that operates the photo radar nor see his/her name. I can only assume they do not wear a "full distinctive uniform". At this point, I assume this also means that each and every NASCOP technician is impersonating a peace officer. Therefore, I would also assume that each and every technician if found guilty of such a crime could possibly sue the city for putting them into such a position and thereby wasting more valuable taxpayer money. Pictures of the vans can be seen in the city's brochure.

2. CVC40801. No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.

- In the case that personally involved myself, a Superior Court judged agreed with me by declaring the engineering and traffic survey for Minnesotave Avenue does not justify the posted speed limit and there constitutes as a speed trap.

CVC40802(a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

- In the case I was personally involved in, Minnesota Avenue is not considered to be a local street or road nor a school zone at the particular portion of the avenue in which I was photographed. Use the HPMS Functional Classification Look-up Tool to discover if a particular street is considered to be a local road or local street. Read the tool's classification codes carefully. I believe Minnesota Avenue is considered to be a "Minor Arterial". I have reason to believe that NASCOP only operates on streets that have artificially low speed limits (speed limits that are not justified by a current engineering and traffic survey) because of the fact that NASCOP only operates on streets with a posted speed limit of 25-30 m.p.h. And if that is the case, then each time they issue a speeding citation they are violating the state speed trap law, putting the residents of the city at risk, and wasting our courts' valuable time.

3. CVC40803.   (a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.

-NASCOP uses radar speed measurements as evidence against alleged violators that are then later deemed inadmissible because the evidence is based on the use of speed traps which is illegal and a waste of everyone's time and money including the courts'.

4. CVC1808.21. (a) Any residence address in any record of the department is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law enforcement agency, or other government agency, or as authorized in Section 1808.22 or 1808.23.

- Neither Section 1808.22 or 1808.23 exempt Redflex from obtaining addresses of licenses drivers or owners of motor vehicles. And the Redflex is indeed in violation of this law, then I would assume that the City has aided them in breaking this law. The penalty for breaking 1808.21 is outlined in the following law:

CVC1808.45. The willful, unauthorized disclosure of information from any department record to any person, or the use of any false representation to obtain information from a department record or any use of information obtained from any department record for a purpose other than the one stated in the request or the sale or other distribution of the information to a person or organization for purposes not disclosed in the request is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment.

CVC1808.46. No person or agent shall directly or indirectly obtain information from the department files using false representations or distribute restricted or confidential information to any person or use the information for a reason not authorized or specified in a requester code application. Any person who violates this section, in addition to any other penalty provided in this code, is liable to the department for civil penalties up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) and shall have its requester code privileges suspended for a period of up to five years, or revoked. The regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over any licensed person receiving information pursuant to this chapter shall implement procedures to review the procedures of any licensee which receives information to ensure compliance with the limitations on the use of information as part of the agency's regular oversight of the licensees. The agency shall report noncompliance to the department.

5. CVC40500. (a) Whenever a person is arrested for any violation of this code not declared to be a felony, or for a violation of an ordinance of a city or county relating to traffic offenses and he or she is not immediately taken before a magistrate, as provided in this chapter, the arresting officer shall prepare in triplicate a written notice to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, containing the name and address of the person, the license number of his or her vehicle, if any, the name and address, when available, of the registered owner or lessee of the vehicle, the offense charged and the time and place when and where he or she shall appear. If the arrestee does not have a driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of identity in his or her possession, the officer may require the arrestee to place a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear. Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the arrestee, no person or entity may sell, give away, allow the distribution of, include in a database, or create a database with, this print .

CVC40504.   (a) The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person and the arrested person in order to secure release must give his or her written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail by signing two copies of the notice which shall be retained by the officer, and the officer may require the arrested person, if this person has no satisfactory identification, to place a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear.Thereupon, the arresting officer shall forthwith release the person arrested from custody. Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the arrestee, no person or entity may sell, give away, allow the distribution of, include in a database, or create a database with, this print.

-The above two laws basically detail how the delivery of notice occurs, details of the delivery, and the notice itself. Also note the first law states the arrested person must sign the notice. In the case of every issued citation issued due to the involvement of NASCOP, none are actually delivered my the arresting officer to the person it is addressed to. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that any of the recipients actually received them than to wait for their response of the letters.

There is another law that details how the notice is delivered if the violation was recorded using an automated enforcement system ( CVC40518 ). However, I believe that law does not apply because CVC21455.6(c) clearly states "the authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction".

6. As of February 24, 2007 there is no law that allows for the use of photo radar. However, there is a law that states that the use of automated enforcement systems does not include the use of photo radar for the use of speed enforcement purposes as stated by CVC21455.6(c).

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:
1. Does NASCOP only operate on streets that have artificially low speed limits?

2. How much training do the technicians that operate the photo radar get and how often are they trained?

3. How can a neighborhood get NASCOP out of their neighborhood?

4. Why doesn't NASCOP include the photographs with the initial letter to all recipients but instead make you come to them? This one is just annoying but wise on their part because it makes you come downtown (assuming you want to see the pictures) and risk the possibility to getting a parking ticket which of course gets more money for the city.

5. Is there a US Constitutional law/right being violating with the current NASCOP operation? The initial letter "asks" or intimidates the recipient into providing evidence to further incriminate themselves (it asks the recipient to mail a photo copy of your drivers license into their offices). Also, there may be a violation of due process laws outlined in the Constitution. And of course is photographing someone within their car a violation of privacy? It is if you photograph someone within their house and the photographer is standing outside. Does this sense of privacy extend to the automobile as well? Lastly, burden of proof sits on the owner of the vehicle to prove his/her innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the owner operating the vehicle and speeding at the time the photos were taken. Makes no difference if the owner was actually driving or not. Why doesn't the city just routinely issue citations to all registered owners living within the city limits?

6. Are all citations written against the state's Basic Speed Law (CVC 22350)? In my own case, NASCOP never informed me of the driving conditions or the risk of endangering people or personal property by the result of my alleged speeding.

7. Why is the NASCOP program ran by the city's Department of Transportation (DOT) and not city's Police Department?

8. The city's only web page devoted to the NASCOP program explains that "The idea is to slow traffic, not issue citations.". Why then are citations issued? Why not just mail the owner of each vehicle reminding them to slow down?

9. If the true interest of the city is to promote safety on our streets, why doesn't the city promote other alternatives that would not only help reduce speeding but also promote a much more scenic neighborhoods, increase property values, etc? According to a "Traffic Calming Toolkit" brochure found on the city's DOT web site there are many ways to help reduce speed on a more natural level that I believe would also help add value and beauty to the area. Why haven't these techniques implemented on the streets that have speed related problems?

10. According to an article found in the Web extra to the September 21-27, 2000 issue of Metro, "According to neighbors, the street used to be narrower, with trees lining the sidewalks as in other Willow Glen neighborhoods. But the trees were removed in the early '60s because they needed the street as a bypass road.". The street the statement is referring to is Minnesota Avenue. People naturally have a tendency to reach higher speeds on wider roads because of the increased sense of safety that warrants the higher speeds; one of the reasons why freeways and Interstate highways are so wide. Wider the roads, the more likely people driving on them will increase their speed. The narrower the road, the more likely people driving on them will slow down. Assuming the statement made in the Metro is correct in that the city in fact widened the street to allow it to become a bypass road for their state road freeway project (CA-87), then isn't the city to blame for the speeding problem found on Minnesota Avenue? And if the city is to blame for the conditions now found on the road and they are in fact operating an illegal speed enforcement program, doesn't that mean the city is involved in a conspiracy against its own residents and a conspiracy to violate the laws of California for monetary gain?

11. According to the minutes of the city council, dated Tuesday, November 30, 2004, Resolution No. 72399 was approved. The resolution is entitled, "A Resolution of the Council of the City of San José Authorizing the Director of Transportation to Execute Four One-Year Options to Renew the Agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.". The minutes involving this resolution state the Director of Transportation has the authority to "execute four one-year options to renew without further city Council action other than the appropriation of necessary funding". So the city is contractually involved with a 3rd party in some way with respect to the NASCOP program. In what degree is Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. involved? My initial notice came from Scottsdale, AZ (so says the postmark). I believe its possible Redflex is handling the image processing for the city and perhaps other records. If that is the case, there is reason to believe Redflex may be in a position to profit from citations issued and convictions which means the company has a financial interest in the number of convictions. That then means the company has interests in doctoring evidence to support the city's traffic citations and therefore all evidence brought forth by the prosecution that was handled by Redflex is inadmissible in a court of law.

12. Is the city's Attorney aware of any of these legal problems? How about the local DA?