Fighting City Hall - A David vs. Goliath Story In Harrisonburg, Virginia

 

Who says you can't fight City Hall! 

Well, in what became an epic battle, a Mt. Jackson "David" slayed an automated Goliath. This David is actually Scott of Mt. Jackson, Va. When Scott received a $100 speeding ticket in the mail, courtesy of an automated license plate reader, for driving his truck 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, he knew there was a problem. He hadn't driven that truck since last winter. So, rather than roll over, he rolled up his sleeves and went to work. Turns out, Scott and his father, who lives in nearby Basye, VA, are co-registrants of dad's truck. Dad drives the truck; Scott gets the ticket.

The plate reader statute, Code of Virginia § 46.2-882.1 (E) reads in pertinent part:

“In the prosecution for a vehicle speed violation in which a summons was issued by mail, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the summons issued pursuant to this section was operated in a manner constituting a vehicle speed violation, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner…of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner… of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Such presumption shall be rebutted if the owner… (i) files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation and provides the name and address of the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or (ii) testifies in open court under oath that he was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation and provides the name and address of the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. ....” (Emphasis added)

In other words, the law presumes that you're guilty until you can prove your innocence. Either confess your sin and pony up $100 or offer up a suitable sacrifice in your stead. Scott chose option "C"; he took the camera cop to court, and won!

On October 9, 2024, in the Harrisonburg-Rockingham General District Court, Harrisonburg police Sgt. Westfall gave his testimony and presented his video evidence of Scott's supposed infraction. Then it was Scott's turn to cross-examine Sgt. Westfall. Scott barely finished his second question to Westfall when the Judge abruptly interrupted: "Stop! This proceeding is over. We're not going any further. I've heard enough. I'm dismissing this case."

Apparently, the Judge was eager to vindicate Scott's constitutional rights. Or, perhaps more likely, the Judge sought to prevent Scott from further exposing to the public the statute's constitutional infirmities.

Scott's questions: (1) How does the state prove ownership of the offending vehicle? Sgt. Westfall: We use a third party.

(2) Why was Scott ticketed but not his co-registrant father?
Sgt. Westfall: Scott’s name was listed first on the registration.

It was here that the Judge stopped the proceedings. Presumably, the astute Judge saw the writing on the wall.

First, Sgt. Westfall's testimony that a third party determines ownership of the offending vehicle constitutes textbook inadmissible heresy evidence, i.e., the testimony, in essence, was that, a guy (the "third party") told another guy (Sgt. Westfall) that Scott owns a truck.

Perhaps more problematic for the court was Sgt. Westfall's testimony that Scott, but not his co-registrant father, was ticketed because Scott's name appeared first on the registration. When the state presumes that a citizen has committed a traffic violation based solely on the order in which the citizen's name appears on a vehicle registration, such presumption is the very definition of arbitrary.

And the Judge's sudden halt to the proceedings prevented Scott from delving into other potentially unconstitutional aspects of the statute. For example, the statute provides that the accused motorist send a notarized affidavit to the city-contracted company that manages the city's traffic camera program attesting that the accused was not the driver who committed the infraction and then provide the name and address of the person who was driving. However, the accused may not know the identity of the driver who committed the infraction.(Edit: technically, the statute specifies the affidavit be sent to the Clerk [of the Court]. In practice in the City of Harrisonburg, they require you to send it to the speed camera vendor the City contracts with. If you try and send it to the Clerk, the clerk rejects it, mails it back to you, and instructs you to file it with the vendor. This is actually nearly impossible to know unless you actually go and read the statute itself because everything the City and Vendor provide a defendant tells them to send the affidavit to the vendor.) 

For example, Scott could not know on October 9, 2024, whether his father had, on June 21, 2024 (the day of the alleged infraction), permitted his wife, or someone else, to use the truck to go to the grocery store.

Sworn affidavit statements constitute testimony given under penalty of perjury. Scott cannot in an affidavit speculate about who may have been driving his father's truck months earlier. Yet, the statute provides that Scott perjure himself in an affidavit by pointing the finger at another driver--even when Scott cannot know who the driver was.

Surely a statute is unconstitutional when it requires or encourages a citizen to perjure themselves as a prerequisite for access to the court.

A hypothetical: Scott owns the truck and instructs his wife to exceed the speed limit when going to the grocery store. Scott receives a plate reader ticket. Must Scott then provide affidavit testimony against his spouse? Must he relinquish his rights against self-incrimination?

The offending statute, 46.2-882.1, applies to citizens statewide. But because violations of this statute are adjudicated in General District Courts which, unlike Circuit Courts, are not "courts of record" and thus do not require the presence of a court reporter, it may be impossible to review the adjudication of these cases in the district courts.

Both Scott and this writer are legal laymen; neither is an attorney and, therefore, cannot offer legal advice. But the district court Judge who abruptly halted the court proceedings and dismissed the state's case against Scott is an attorney. And the Judge knows what we know not.

by: Muhammad Couch

Virginia Speed Camera Problems

VA's Speeding Camera Violations Should be Challenged in Court Across the State

A Courtroom Win in Harrisonburg, VA: Fighting a Speed Camera Ticket

On June 21st, my father’s truck was caught speeding by a camera in Harrisonburg, VA, and a ticket was sent to me as one of the joint owners. The violation was recorded as 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, and I received the ticket even though I wasn’t driving. This experience led me to challenge the ticket in court—and win. But beyond my case, this situation could have much wider implications for anyone facing similar charges across Virginia.

Understanding the Law: Code of Virginia § 46.2-882.1

Virginia law (§ 46.2-882.1) creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner of a vehicle is guilty of a speeding violation if caught by a speed camera. This presumption applies unless the owner rebuts it by providing evidence that they weren’t the driver at the time of the violation.

In cases where there are multiple owners of the vehicle, the law still applies to both owners. If only one of the owners is charged, it raises the issue of a violation of constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments—specifically, due process and equal protection under the law.

The Problem With Selective Charging

In my case, the key issue was that I was charged with the violation, but my father—also a registered owner—was not. The City of Harrisonburg arbitrarily chose to charge me based on the fact that my name appeared first on the vehicle registration. This selective charging was not only arbitrary, but it violated my constitutional rights. Under the law both owners should have been presumed guilty unless one could rebut the presumption. Either an investigation into who was driving must be performed or both owners must be charged. 

This raises a broader issue: How many other cases in Harrisonburg, or even across Virginia, involve similar violations of constitutional rights where only one owner was charged for a speeding violation despite there being multiple owners?

Statewide Ramifications

The statute at issue here—Code of Virginia § 46.2-882.1—applies statewide, meaning that the improper handling of joint ownership cases might not be limited to Harrisonburg. If other cities and counties across Virginia have made the same mistake, the potential statewide implications are significant. Countless people may have had their constitutional rights violated if localities across the state have only charged one owner of jointly owned vehicles caught in speeding violations.

This could open up a path for further legal challenges, class action lawsuits, or even changes in how localities handle speed camera tickets moving forward.

What You Can Do if You Receive a Ticket

If you receive a ticket from a speed camera in Virginia and you’re one of two or more registered owners, check to see if both owners were charged. If only you were charged, this may violate your rights to due process and equal protection. You can raise this issue in court, as I did, to potentially get the ticket dismissed.

How I Won in Court

When my case was called, I pointed out that the vehicle had two registered owners, yet only I was charged. The officer admitted that the reason was because my name was listed first on the registration. The judge immediately stopped the proceedings and dismissed the case, recognizing that this selective charging was unconstitutional.

Wider Implications: Are More People's Rights Being Violated?

What happened in my case raises a serious question: How many other people’s rights have been violated? If cities like Harrisonburg aren’t applying the law correctly when vehicles have joint ownership, there could be widespread violations. And since this is a statewide statute, this problem may not be isolated to one city.

This issue has the potential to affect anyone in Virginia who shares ownership of a vehicle and gets a ticket from a speed camera. It could also prompt larger legal challenges or force localities to change how they handle such cases in the future.

Key Takeaways

1. Virginia law presumes the vehicle owner is guilty of speeding when caught by a speed camera.
2. If there are two or more owners, either an investigation should be performed or both should be charged—if only one is charged without an investigation, it may violate constitutional rights.
3. The issue could have statewide implications if other localities are making the same mistake as Harrisonburg.
4. Challenge selective prosecution: Raise the issue in court, and you might get the ticket dismissed, just as I did.