Muscatine

Logic and justcurious....I have previously studied and read the Iowa Supreme Court's majority decision from 2008 on the automatic traffic enforement devices for the City of Davenport. The vote was 6 to 1 on the Davenport case, which was only to decide if the city ordinance pre-empted state law, which would be iilegal. They decided it did not.

Hence the City could continue use of photo-radar and photo red light cameras under their ordinance, fines of which ARE adminstrative (or civil) ( like parking tickets are), and are not judicial tickets that would require courts to report convictions to the D.O.T. driver's license office and records division. So, yes, justcurious, these types of infractions do not go on your driving record.

Logic...just FYI...there is a little known Iowa code section that is called Offenses by Owners, that would allow officers to charge the owner for any offense by other drivers. It does exist but is hard to prove, and is little-used. That's why it is little-known. But, thru that, an owner CAN be charged with whatever vehicle offense the driver of that vehicle committed.

These cameras are just revenue generators. When people learn they can pay the ticket and nothing comes of it, they will; rather take time off work, hire an attorney to go fight it. In the end, you will pay more costs and more attorney fees than the fine would be....so people are just gonna shut up and pay. That is why these are great sellers...it totally pays for iteslf and then generates even more revenue.

I just don't know that Muscatine has that many red light busters anyway. You all probably noticed that there was no record of officer-issued red light tickets offered to the council or Journal....the graffitti problem in town is bigger than red light violators, in my opinion.

Sorry BB but in reading the Iowa code you refer to it reads different, not charge the owner with the offense but does require them to furnish driver information.

321.484  Offenses by owners.

It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to law.

The owner of a vehicle shall not be held responsible for a violation of a provision regulating the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle, whether the provision is contained in this chapter, or chapter 321L, or an ordinance or other regulation or rule, if the owner establishes that at the time of the violation the vehicle was in the custody of an identified person other than the owner pursuant to a lease as defined in chapter 321F. The furnishing to the clerk of the district court where the charge is pending of a copy of the lease prescribed by section 321F.6 that was in effect for the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be prima facie evidence that the vehicle was in the custody of an identified person other than the owner within the meaning of this paragraph, and the charge against the owner shall be dismissed. The clerk of the district court then shall cause a uniform citation and complaint to be issued against the lessee of the vehicle, and the citation shall be served upon the defendant by ordinary mail directed to the defendant at the address shown in the lease.

If a peace officer as defined in section 801.4 has reasonable cause to believe the driver of a motor vehicle has violated sections 321.261, 321.262, 321.264, 321.341, 321.342, 321.343, 321.344, or 321.372, the officer may request any owner of the motor vehicle to supply information identifying the driver. When requested, the owner of the vehicle shall identify the driver to the best of the owner's ability. However, the owner of the vehicle is not required to supply identification information to the officer if the owner believes the information is self-incriminating.

In checking further, the code only requires them to furnish driver information under certain conditions and that does not include this discussed situation.

Reading something and being trained in it's interpretation are two different things, Logic. I see you have missed the fine legal points in this.

Let me see if I can explain this further...

1st paragraph: (Umbrella statement covering all laws for vehicles upon a highway) "It is unlawful for the owner....or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to law". That statement is all-inclusive. However, the hard-to-prove element of this that I alluded to earlier is the word *knowingly*. How does the owner knowingly permit illegal operation if the owner is not present? (Unless maybe the owner knew the person appeared drunk or knew the person had no license when loaning the car...again; a bit hard to prove, but it has been used.)

2nd paragraph: This only applies to stopping, standing, and parking, and an owner who can show by documentation that he (or they) had leased the vehicle in question to the driver on the date covering the time of the alleged offense, and *shall NOT be held responsible for the violation*. The clerk of court must then file the charge against the person named on the lease.

3rd paragraph: This portion is limited only to the chapters cited there, and compells the owner (shall) to identify the driver *to the best of the owner's ability*. Isn't it reasonable that owners should know who is operating their vehicle? (Unless it was stolen?).

I finally used this once as an officer when a set of parents kept letting their unlicensed juvenile to drive their vehicles. He kept wrecking, getting stuck sometimes blocking the road, and neighbors saw him and made reckless driving complaints. We charged him with no license each time we could ,which at the time kept him from getting his license until 18. They reacted by letting him keep driving due to the fines being small back then and he was a juvenile. So, we eventually charged the parents with this section, they were convicted, and we finally brought all that to a stop. When faced with their son being charged with felony car theft, they admitted he did not steal the car and they knew he had it and knew he had no license.

Is this anymore clearer?