Red-Light Fight
PROGRAMMING ALERT: Due to CBS's coverage of the Michael Jackson Memorial, KBTX News 3 at Noon on Tuesday will air at 11:30am.
Red-Light Fight Save Email Print
Posted: 9:07 PM Dec 4, 2008
Last Updated: 10:48 PM Dec 4, 2008
Reporter: Ashlea Sigman
Email Address: Sigman@kbtx.com

A | A | A

He said it was the first time he had ever been in court, but Thursday, College Station resident Jim Ash took the hot seat.

Ash tried to explain to Municipal Judge Ed Spillane why he shouldn't have to pay a $75 fine from a red-light camera.

Judge Spillane played video of Ash's car pulling up to an intersection as the light turned red, then making a right turn.

"My understanding is that the chain of custody of the evidence that you're looking at has not been followed. In that they're not licensed by the state to do that type of work in the state," said Ash.

Ash is citing a district judge's summary judgement in Dallas, a few weeks ago. The judge ruled that a red-light camera company must follow the texas occupations code and be licensed as an investigations company.

"I'm aware of the occupation code argument, the license and the case that's in Dallas," said Spillane. "What relevance does the licensing of the camera have to do with- one, the transportation code statute? Secondly, what does that have to do with whether or not you went through the red light?"

"So lacking a license, I feel that my notice of violation is deficient," said Ash.

College Station city attorneys argued the controlling law in the case was not the occupations code, but a city ordinance.

"At no point in time do they say there needs to be any sort of private investigations license," said College Station Assistant City Attorney Michael Matlack.

"I have no idea all the different contracts involved in all the different criminal cases where there's a higher standard," said Spillane. "My burden is to look at that and say did you, Mr. Ash, go through the red light? It seems clear to me that you did violate the civil statute."

Although Ash lost his fight Thursday, he plans to continue the battle.

"In a lot of ways I expected this outcome and these are never really decided at the municipal court level, they're always at the district court level, or federal court level where people ultimately get relief," said Ash.

A salesman by trade, Ash said this will be the last time he'll represent himself in court, and has already contacted an attorney about filing an appeal.

"It's gonna call for greater legal minds than mine at this stage," said Ash.

More Stories
Accused Burleson County Shooter to Face Death Penalty

Slain Suspect Linked to SC Serial Killings

Catch A Glimpse of the Space Station

Longtime Blinn Leader Announces Retirement

Tuesday Daytime Programming Change Alert

Large Fire In Colorado County Nearly Contained

Lawyer Wants Video Suppressed in Fight Club Case

Cream Used to Treat Skin Cancer May Help Reduce Wrinkles

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Mark Daniels Location: Bryan on Dec 10, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Jim Ash, so am I to assume that you would still be disputing the legality of the video company if say one of those non- state liscensed cameras caught a drunk making the same illegal turn you did, and lets say ran down one of your family members? That video being the only proof to put your loved ones killer behind bars? Lemme answer that for you, no you wouldn't. You'd be thanking God for those cameras. You think you found a loop hole in the system and are wasting peoples time and money trying to circumvent the law to your own advantage to get out of paying a 78dollar ticket? What values did your parents teach you?

Posted by: Jim Ash Location: College Station on Dec 9, 2008 at 08:51 PM
*American Traffic Solutions is not licensed under the Texas Occupations Code §1702.101. That American Traffic Solutions operates as a private investigative service in the State of Texas without a required license and thereby making my notice of violation deficient.*The Fourteenth Amendment outlines a right to equal protection under the law. The conversion of a criminal matter under section 544.007(d)of the Texas Transportation Code to a civil matter in the case of city ordnance 3017 denies me protections afforded other citizens in the defense of my life, liberty, and property.*The conversion of the criminal matter under section 544.007(d) of the Texas Transportation Code serves to deny me my Fifth Amendment Right to due process. City Ordinance 3017 § 3.(k).(iii) states “my failure to contest is an admission of liability”, in direct violation of my Fifth Amendment rights.* American Traffic Solutions is a profit driven company with prime economic interest in generating violations.

Posted by: Granni Location: Kerrville, TX on Dec 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Our society is very adamant about following the law. In this instance an out-of-state for-profit corporation seeking Texas citizens' hard-earned money for questionable infractions should be willing to pay the licensing fees to operate in Texas. The use of digital imaging instruments can certainly be manipulated for profit with today's technology. I can send you an image showing him BACKING through the light. Think about it...Good luck, Mr. Ash!

Posted by: To Charles Location: from Susie on Dec 8, 2008 at 03:39 PM
Why do you think I don't believe he should have received a ticket?? Is that what all of you think? Good grief. The man deserved a ticket, OK? whew can we get passed that now?? Newsflash: Ash Paid The Ticket. Since he went back and dotted his 'i's and crossed his 't's, now it's someone elses turn. End of story. Oh my goodness I cannot believe this. ha enough of me commenting here. I am absolutely not going to debate with imbeciles. That IS definitely ludicrous and pointless. Why don't you, Mr. Charles, go to college, get an education, grow a spine, take a stand, and form a unique opinion. To all of you, the point is not to have to pay the ticket or to receive a refund. But hey, rules are rules. If we have to follow them, so does everyone else involved. Admit your fallacious assumptions and move on.

Posted by: SUSIE Location: b/cs on Dec 8, 2008 at 03:23 PM
To commenter at 1:03. RE-READ my comment. I was in an accident in Hempstead when someone ran a stop sign and hit me. MY DAUGHTER, was near fatally injured in CARLOS by no fault of an ignored stop sign, but of a bad driver error caused by someone who didn't require a stop sign to drive badly. Get it? How dare you presume with your obvious Ignorance about my feelings toward my family OR about the cameras/laws, or what I wish or wish not to be seen doing. As if! I live a life of shame. HA! I tell ya what, if there were cameras running on me when I crossed your path I wouldn't give a care WHAT was captured on 'em! You understand that?!! and I doubt many would disagree with me at this moment. As my point has CLEARLY been overlooked AGAIN...I relate our experience with bad drivers and yet STILL support Mr. Ash. You should just leave well enough alone what you do not comprehend. Nor should narrowmindedness at your age be tolerable at my age.

Posted by: To Susie (Cont) on Dec 8, 2008 at 01:11 PM
The point where I WILL have a problem with the cameras is when they become sophisticated enough to read license plates on the fly and remember them or notify authorities on any vehicle that matches the BOLO list. While this will allow stolen and amber alert vehicles to be tracked and pinned down very quickly, the potential for "the man" to start dragging in everyone who drove past a burglary scene within an hour of the crime and asking them (ie ME) WHY they were there is really bothersome.

Posted by: to Susie on Dec 8, 2008 at 01:03 PM
"You do not understand the concept so why bother commenting? I know perfectly well what I am saying and relating. The point is about speaking up for what is right and wrong, and refusing to sit down, shut up, and just do what you're told because it's the authorities." You're half right; I DON'T understand YOU, although I DO understand the concept of standing up for "what's RIGHT" whether or not it's being enforced by the authorities. And in this case, the AUTHORITIES are right, and a piece of paper certifying that the company doesn't hire criminals isn't going to make a hill of beans either way. You care more that an "automated" camera might catch you doing something foolish than you do that it might prevent a runner from killing someone as they almost killed your daughter. Me, I'd prefer to see an automated camera record than have a cop claim he saw me run a red; while both can lie, it's a whole lot easier for the cop. And he's a whole lot more likely to gossip about irrelevencs

Posted by: To Susie: From Charles Location: College Station on Dec 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM
The camera company did not make a mistake, Mr Ash did and was caught on camera. Looks like a slam dunk to me. Guilty as charged. Now, reread the DPS Drivers License manual.

Posted by: TO AG Location: FROM SUSIE on Dec 7, 2008 at 08:47 PM
You do not understand the concept so why bother commenting? I know perfectly well what I am saying and relating. The point is about speaking up for what is right and wrong, and refusing to sit down, shut up, and just do what you're told because it's the authorities. By the way, some people (and I'm not speaking entirely for myself here) ARE offended and feel VIOLATED by the cameras and that is their HUMANE right to privacy. Who is anyone to say when another feels violated in any way? Yes, these days you walk outside and you are not protected by anything anymore. I also realize that if something is not legal, then it just isn't. There are standards, practices, legal formats and premises that must be followed. Many people protest a legal dispute due to a minor infraction (technicality) of their rights. As if this is all so unheard of, or unnecessary. Ash paid his fine. The camera company should be held accountable for their error as well or can they just do whatever they want to?

Posted by: TO MAE Location: from SUSIE on Dec 7, 2008 at 08:19 PM
MY FAMILY DID GET HIT BY A STUPID WOMAN WHO TURNED IN FRONT OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC! My daughter was life flighted to Houston Hermann in 2004 and is the reason that road in Carlos was widened! I DID GET HIT BY AN OLD LADY WHO RAN A STOP SIGN BACK IN HEMPSTEAD at the newly built intersection Hwy.290 circa 1995! Next time, think! before you comment! My truck was totaled then and I luckily walked away! And my daughter has seizures to this day from brain damage from her accident caused by NO fault of a stop sign but result of idiots behind the wheel. Ash paid the fine. Do ya get that yet?? And if there is injustice, it is contestable in our country yknow. If someone is on the side of road handing out tickets, posing as an officer, and you're speeding and get a ticket...do you have to pay that ticket? NO! The guy would not be authorized to issue one. Don't any of you get the point of Mr. Ash's case? I had a kind enough comment. Damaco n MAE, you know what you can do with yours.

Posted by: Domaco34 Location: bcs on Dec 7, 2008 at 05:49 PM
Hey look, another looser---Good job justin 1:59. Way to tach our kids to break the law then waste tax payers money on fighting YOUR mistake. Idiots!!!

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 7, 2008 at 12:55 AM
It really doesnt matter about the license...what matters is that he was caught (on camera) running a red light, and he is trying every way not to pay ! LISTEN UP ! YOU RAN A RED LIGHT, NOW YOU NEED TO PAY UP!

Posted by: whatever on Dec 6, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Let the man spend his money if he wants to. Besides, if OJ "didn't know" armed robbery and kidnapping are illegal, how can you expect the average citizen to know the minor detail that you are supposed to completely stop before turning right on red? Good grief, let's give everybody a second chance and for heaven's sake don't judge them - that's God's job. (and those comments are sarcastic for those of you who were wondering).

Posted by: t on Dec 6, 2008 at 09:09 PM
ok, this goes to charles. so you never in your life let someone borrow your vehicle knowing that they were not as perfect a driver as you are? if these cameras don't show who is driving, there should not be a ticket. but if you admit to driving and breaking the law, pay your stupid fine, buddy!

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 6, 2008 at 03:36 PM
That he contacted the media with this story shows only that he wanted to draw attention to himself. He's had his few days of attention, now let's drop this and move no. You ran a red light, you got nailed...bottom line, your guilty no matter if a camera caught you or a cop!

Posted by: Justin Location: TAMU on Dec 6, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Hang in there Jim! Red light cameras are just another form of the government protecting us from ourselves. Furthermore, this use of technology by the city seems to be purely to collect revenue. What happened to the police being there to help? Now it seems that their number one purpose is to make money. While I think the state has too many occupational codes, the government should follow them as well. It is not right that people trying to work are slowed down or charged by these laws, but when it is a city government's contractor not having the proper license, the laws should not matter. The government needs to be put in check. Jim, if I ever get one of these violations (which would be odd considering I don't run red lights - even when cameras aren't watching), I will be fighting it as well. It's not about the fine, it's about the principle. If we don't stop this trend soon, the government will be watching all aspects of our lives on camera.

Posted by: Joel Location: CS on Dec 6, 2008 at 11:41 AM
When I get caught speeding, I learn from my mistake and watch my speed. Jim is not learning from his mistake he is trying to get out of paying for it. This is a waste of my tax dollars and court time. Accept responsibility for your actions and learn from it. We all have to pay for mistakes, you should too.

Posted by: AG Location: Bryan on Dec 6, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Susie, if Rosa Parks had put people's lives in danger for her actions, yes, she should have shut her mouth and sat in the back of the bus. This is not the same thing. She was protesting a civil right. Jim is protesting a technicality when in fact he put people's lives in danger by not stopping and looking before he turned right. Totally different circumstances. At the time Jim did not stop and turned right at this light, he did not know that the camera company was not licensed by the state. He is only using this after the fact to get his money back. Not the same at all. Jim, find a good cause and put your time and effort into it. This one is not a good one but I would bet that you could do some good if you had a good cause.

Posted by: Domaco34 Location: bcs on Dec 6, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Susie, to compare HUMAN rights to breaking traffic laws shows you shallowness and stupidity.

Posted by: Mae Location: Bryan on Dec 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Hey Susie - when your family gets hit by someone running a red light, let me know what you think then.

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 5, 2008 at 10:41 PM
There sure are alot of whiners who break the law, putting our families in harms way in our city!

Posted by: Susie Location: b/cs on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:51 PM
I can't believe people think that it's ludicrous to go to court over this. I guess Ms. Rosa Parks should have just kept her mouth shut and took her seat in the back of the bus, huh? Yes, breaking traffic laws is a serious offense. But if there is a problem, then something needs to be said. If only to bring attention to a matter and help enforce it's own legitimacy. We aren't losing a thing by what Mr.Ash is doing. In fact, we just might gain something from his actions.

Posted by: To CJ on Dec 5, 2008 at 06:00 PM
"However, when did the law change about turning right on red (unless there is a sign stating you can't)?" I't didn't; all the folks who STOPPED rather than just slowing to 10 miles per hour before making the turn didn't get dinged. Only those who just pulled out without stopping to look for cross traffic got nailed. And Jim is trying to claim that this falls under the provision that when a someone in the State of Texas hires someone to do surveillance on someone, the person they hire must have a state Private Investigator license. The legal question is whether doing surveillance on a PLACE rather than a PERSON falls under that provision; a Judge in Dallas said it does, the local judge said the provision only applies to criminal cases. And the second question is, as I asked before, do you really want to hand defense attorneys the tool of claiming that neither Connivence Store clerks who maintain the store cameras nor private citizens have such a license?

Posted by: SN Location: BCS on Dec 5, 2008 at 04:46 PM
I saw the video yesterday and yes he did turn right on red, but he failed to stop FIRST. He only slowed down and made the right turn. Didn't STOP at all. Give it up Jim Ash. You got caught and you just want to whine and it makes you look ridiculous. The fact is, if people would follow the law in the FIRST place there would be no need at all for red light cameras. Or jaywalking tickets. What part of FOLLOW THE LAW don't you get?

Posted by: Mae Location: Bryan on Dec 5, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Broke the law by running red light, wasted judge's time for which taxpayers are billed, planning to spend money on lawyer and court costs? What's next? We've been hit three times by people running red lights so I am all for enforcement.

Posted by: EM Location: College Station on Dec 5, 2008 at 03:34 PM
If you read the story when it came out it said that he had already paid the fine and is now fighting to get it back

Posted by: TB Location: BRYAN on Dec 5, 2008 at 02:48 PM
Jerry, he never denied driving the car.

Posted by: Charles Location: College Station on Dec 5, 2008 at 02:17 PM
This message is directed to Jerry. This is a civil case and does not need the knowledge of who was driving the car. However, it is the owners responsibility when he allows someone to drive his car, that the person will drive safely and with in the law. Therefore he should get the mailed out citation. I personnally feel that when ever someone is given a citation for violating a traffic law and he/she is not the owner of the car, that the owner should also be given a citation for negligence in evaluating the person who borrowed or used his/her automobile. You really would be upset with that rule wouldn't you.

Posted by: Woody Location: College Station on Dec 5, 2008 at 01:33 PM
You cant win in Brazos County its all crooked and we have seen a few cases this year that prove it. One day the Courts and City will get a slap on there face with a HUGE law suit that even there great grandchildren are gonna feel it. This is a money hungry and corrupt city that was not like this until after 99. I have lived here 27 Years and back then we didn't have all this BS back then. We gotta clean it up very soon. I agree you break the law pay the fine but are the people who are giving us these tickets licensed like we are licensed for driving and other things that we need a license for? Thats all I want know.

Posted by: David Location: College Staion on Dec 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I would pay the 75.00 because if you wait like I did it goes up to 100.00. What will he do then, check on the collections dept to see if they are lisenced too. Pay it now while you can.

Posted by: mikey Location: collegestation on Dec 5, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I read 'car pulling up to an intersection as the light turned red, then making a right turn." It didn't say whether he stopped, looked then turned right or what. I missed the video if there was one, but I thought you could turn Right on Red too. Of course, after coming to a complete stop. Just unclear on the details by this story

Posted by: CJ Location: College Station on Dec 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Oldsalty is absolutely correct - you won't find justice at municipal court in Brazos County - they are crooked. However, when did the law change about turning right on red (unless there is a sign stating you can't)?

Posted by: Terri Location: CS on Dec 5, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Good for Judge Spillane to look past the clouding of the issue to the heart of the matter: Mr. Ash broke the law. Even though you are allowed to turn right on red at most intersections, you must come to a full stop before doing so. $75 is cheap compared to what it would have cost him if he'd caused an accident by his negligent behavior.

Posted by: Raye Location: Bryan on Dec 5, 2008 at 10:18 AM
I guess I will never figure it out, but why do people always whine when they get caught doing something wrong? Get over it, you did the crime, pay the fine - it's time to move on.

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 5, 2008 at 10:15 AM
not all video evidence will be thrown out, but in the case where a company is hired by the city to do this kind of thing, they have to follow procedures. this doesn't apply to private video systems.

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Hire an attorney....go to court..over $75 dollars. My God... You RAN THE RED LIGHT. WHO CARES IF SOMEONE PROFITS FROM IT??? There's a very simple answer - OPEY THE LAW. No violations, no profit for the horrible, awful, scary company getting your money.

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 5, 2008 at 09:36 AM
They threw out all the red light cameras in lubbock because of a law suite just like this one.

Posted by: Katrina C Location: Wellborn on Dec 5, 2008 at 09:31 AM
I agree with Anonymous @ 5:08AM. You did the crime, just pay the fine and get over it. All of this over $75 and don't dare say it's over the principal, it's because you know that more than likely, you'll do it again when you're in a hurry and you don't want another ticket so you're nit picking everything. I hope that you lose this all the way to the top. Get over it and obey the laws

Posted by: TB on Dec 5, 2008 at 09:31 AM
What it boils down too Mr.Ash, you got caught, pay the fine. Even thought the company did not have a license to operate, you still ran a red light and got caught. Pay the fine.

Posted by: Jerry Location: Bryan on Dec 5, 2008 at 09:22 AM
I think there is a bigger issue here. And that is proof that Mr. Ash is driving the car. While the video clearly shows that his car didn't stop it only shows the rear and there is no evidence that he is the actual driver. The City of College Station and others that use this system state that these are civil ordinances and therefore they don't have to prove who is driving and they are quick to add that it is only $75.00 and doesn't go on your driving record, think of it as littering or not mowing your grass. Let's face it folks the issue here is MONEY and lots of it for the city and the camera companies. And if the camera companies are not operating under the laws of Texas then the "civil" fines that they impose should be thrown out. It's the same as any other business license in Texas, engineer, builder, lawyer, if you don't follow the rules you get sanctioned and it costs you money and you loose the right to operate in Texas

Posted by: Jim Ash Location: College Station on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:52 AM
Dear Anonymous, come on at least initials: No the Texas law does not cover business cameras in a store, and robbery is a crime, I am in a civil action, and the city is paying ATS to gather information on our collective movements for court. Bottom line no impact of C-store cameras. Thank you for asking.

Posted by: bob Location: bryan on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:49 AM
so what, YOU DID RUN THE RED LIGHT ! You BROKE the law, own up to it. I wish the cities had the monies to have a police oficer at every red light to catch runners, but we don't so we have to use technology. This legal farce is not any different than Johnnie Cochran argument if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Or this, say the red light camera caught a person murdering another then they should get away with murder because the camera's weren't installed by a state licensed company? Fact, there have been innocent people killed, murdered if you will, by a red light runner. We need to keep the camera's in place, operational and expand them. If you don't like doing the time, then don't do the crime.

Posted by: M Location: Bryan on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:44 AM
Awesome, this is a case of he has more money than sense. You don't hire an attorney over a $75.00 red light camera ticket. How could possibly come out ahead on this? What a joke.

Posted by: David Location: Bryan on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:42 AM
I understand both sides of the story. I think what Mr. Ash was trying to get across was that The company is employed by the city and must follow state laws at that point. The city can't have just anyone hand out traffic tickets. Would you want the trash man handing out tickets..he is employed by the city too. It is not the same as an individual or business using video. I think it is bothersome that evidence in a murder trial that is obtained illeglay will be thrown out but not in a traffic violation. What kind of message is the judge sending in that case?

Posted by: N on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:33 AM
in order not to have to pay a fine, maybe the best idea would be to NOT run a red light! marvel idea isn't it?

Posted by: Allen Location: Bryan on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:30 AM
So let me see if I understand this. He admits to running the light. Yet he doesn't feel the need to pay his fine. Wow - let's send him to Washington DC to run the government!! Or to one of the big 3 auto-makers to run one of those companies!!

Posted by: BIGBOY Location: BRYAN on Dec 5, 2008 at 08:26 AM
this is just another way to get more money out of hard working people

Posted by: B D on Dec 5, 2008 at 06:30 AM
Did Judge Spillane not go by a higher court ruling (District Judge Judement)

Posted by: oldsalty Location: bcs on Dec 5, 2008 at 06:10 AM
Sorry Ash but you wont find justice at this court in our county. We all know around here that they are crooked. Get a lawyer and keep fighting, then when you win you can comeback and gloat about it.

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 5, 2008 at 05:08 AM
So let me get this straight; The basis of the ruling is that in the State of Texas NO video can be used in court UNLESS the company owning and maintaining the camera holds a PI license? So if allowed to stand, not only will all the red light fines be thrown out, but all the home and business video systems that caught car burglars and convenience store robbers have to be thrown out as well. Do you REALLY want that, Mr Ash?

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 4, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I'm glad he's fighting this. Yes, he seems to have run the red light. But this company makes a profit of tickets or tax dollars. They need to follow the law. I hope more people will wake up and see that the law must be followed by all, not just drivers. If this company loses revenue because of dimissed tickets and lost credibility, maybe it will get its act together.

Posted by: Paul Location: Navasota on Dec 4, 2008 at 11:04 PM
He will appeal? Over $75? Wow...

Posted by: jerry steck Location: bryan on Dec 4, 2008 at 10:05 PM
you broke the law--grow up and pay up

AP Video
JobSearch Recent Listings
The following list shows the 5 most recent jobs posted on the Job Board at KBTX.com. View More Jobs.
Digital TV
Backyard BBQ