IG: District’s traffic cameras, parking officers unfairly ticket motorists

A D.C. Council member with oversight of transportation issues says she’s scheduling a hearing to vet the findings of a blistering inspector general’s report critical of the city’s enforcement of parking and traffic laws.

A 116-page report released Monday says the District’s ticketing system, which generated $171 million last year, unfairly assumes motorists are guilty before proven innocent and that, in some cases involving automated enforcement tickets, motorists are issued citations even when license plates don’t match the vehicles they’re registered to.

“I have to say that some issues are ones that we can fix and should fix,” said D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat. “There are some things that should be nipped in the bud. If there are questions about whether the camera captures an actual infraction, then it shouldn’t be issued.”

The report, issued by the District’s Office of the Inspector General, suggests what city officials have long denied: that despite assurances that the enforcement is meant to improve public safety, ticketing from parking tickets and the city’s vast network of speed and red-light cameras is really meant to drive up revenues.

“Motorists deserve reasonable assurances that District entities and contractors involved in issuing parking and moving violation tickets emphasize diligence and accuracy over volume and revenue,” states the OIG report, issued by interim Inspector General Blanche Bruce.

The report highlights flaws within the three agencies that enforce parking and traffic violations and recommends fixes to restore public trust in the system.

Among the inspector general’s findings: the Metropolitan Police Department issues speed camera tickets on multilane roadways even when it is unclear which vehicle was detected speeding; that the Department of Public Works deprives motorists of evidence that a ticket was written correctly by failing to photograph violations; and that ticket writers have no idea whether or not to issue fines to motorists parked at broken meters.

The report quotes one senior D.C. official as saying, “One of the beauties of parking [is] it’s like the [Internal Revenue Service]. If you get a parking ticket, you are guilty until you have proven yourself innocent. … That has worked well for us.”

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier shot back in a statement that the report misunderstands the purpose of the automated traffic enforcement program.

“Contrary to the report’s flawed assumption, there is widespread support for the District’s ATE program among residents, because they know it is the most efficient method of traffic safety enforcement,” she said.

She added that the department plans to implement some changes “to strengthen the policy” of the speed camera program.

The police department’s staunch defense signals to AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John B. Townsend II, who believes ticketing has gotten out of hand in the District, the strong need for a thorough vetting of the ticketing programs.

“My fear about this is that because of the moral authority of the police department … they are going to try to say this is about traffic safety,” Mr. Townsend said. “Is a hearing just going through the motions, or will real reform come?”

The report also knocked DPW and Department of Transportation for not following protocol when issuing parking tickets. A review of issued parking tickets found that employees often do not take photographs of violations. And when investigators questioned ticket writers about specific violations, they found agencies had no clear policy on whether motorists can be ticketed for parking at broken meters.

The report is the first part of the inspector general’s investigation into ticket enforcement in the District. A second report that details findings regarding the ticket payment and adjudication process is expected to follow.

Ms. Cheh said she hopes to hold a hearing on this OIG report by the end of the month.

“It’s our responsibility to make sure the tickets are appropriately given. That’s on the government. But after that, compliance with the law is on the driver,” she said.