Report: Ticketed Drivers Guilty Until Proven Innocent' in D.C.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

BLANCHE L. BRUCE
INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL

OIG No. 14-I-0063 September 2014

Report of Special Evaluation

PARKING AND AUTOMATED TRAFFIC
ENFORCEMENT TICKETS PART I:
TICKET ISSUANCE PRACTICES

September 2014

Letter re: 14-I-0063
September 8, 2014
Page 3 of 4

DISTRIBUTION:

The Honorable Vincent C. Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia
Mr. Allen Y. Lew, City Administrator, District of Columbia (via email)
Mr. Paul Quander, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and J ustice (via email)
The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia (via email)
The Honorable Mary Cheh, Chairperson, Committee on Transportation and the Environment,
Council of the District of Columbia (via email)
The Honorable Kenyan McDuffie, Chairperson, Committee on Government Operations, Council
of the District of Columbia (via email)
The Honorable Tommy Wells, Chairperson, Committee on Public Safety and the J udiciary,
Council of the District of Columbia (via email)
Ms. Lucinda Babers, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles (via email)
Mr. Brian Flowers, General Counsel to the Mayor (via email)
Mr. Christopher Murphy, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor (via email)
Ms. J anene J ackson, Director, Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs (via email)
Mr. Pedro Ribeiro, Director, Office of Communications, (via email)
Ms. Nyasha Smith, Secretary to the Council (1 copy and via email)
Mr. Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of Columbia (via email)
Mr. J effrey DeWitt, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (via email)
Mr. Mohamad Yusuff, Interim Executive Director, Office of Integrity and Oversight, Office of
the Chief Financial Officer (via email)
Mr. Lawrence Perry, Deputy D.C. Auditor
Mr. Phillip Lattimore, Director and Chief Risk Officer, Office of Risk Management (via email)
Mr. Steve Sebastian, Managing Director, FMA, GAO, (via email)
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C. Delegate, House of Representatives,
Attention: Bradley Truding (via email)
The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Attention: Howie Denis (via email)
The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, Attention: Marianna Boyd (via email)
The Honorable Thomas Carper, Chairman, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Attention: Holly Idelson (via email)
The Honorable Tom Coburn, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Attention: Chris Barkley (via email)
The Honorable Mark Begich, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Emergency Management,
Intergovernmental Relations and the District of Columbia, Attention: J ason Smith (via email)
The Honorable Rand Paul, Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Emergency Management,
Intergovernmental Relations and the District of Columbia
The Honorable Harold Rogers, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, Attention: Amy
Cushing (via email)
The Honorable Nita Lowey, Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, Attention:
Angela Ohm (via email)
The Honorable Ander Crenshaw, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government, Attention: Amy Cushing (via email)
Letter re: 14-I-0063
September 8, 2014
Page 4 of 4

The Honorable J os E. Serrano, Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Financial Services
and General Government, Attention: Angela Ohm (via email)
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Attention:
Kali Matalon (via email)
The Honorable Richard Shelby, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Attention: Dana Wade (via email)
The Honorable Tom Udall, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government, Attention: Marianne Upton (via email)
The Honorable Mike J ohanns, Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services
and General Government, Attention: Dale Cabaniss (via email)

Inspections and Evaluations Division
Mission Statement

The Inspections and Evaluations (I&E) Division of the Office of the
Inspector General is dedicated to providing District of Columbia (D.C.)
government decision makers with objective, thorough, and timely evaluations and
recommendations that will assist them in achieving efficiency, effectiveness and
economy in operations and programs. I&Es goals are to help ensure compliance
with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, identify accountability, recognize
excellence, and promote continuous improvement in the delivery of services to
D.C. residents and others who have a vested interest in the success of the city.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 TOC-i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
Flowchart Overview of Ticketing and Adjudication Entities ................................................. 2
Background ................................................................................................................................ 3
Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 4
Scope and Methodologies .......................................................................................................... 4
General Assessments of MPD, DPW, and DDOT Ticketing Operations .................................. 5
Conclusions Regarding the Districts ATE Program and Ticketing Practices........................... 6
COMPARISON OF THE DISTRICTS AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
SYSTEM (ATES) TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ATES .................................................... 8
Observations From J urisdictional Comparison ........................................................................ 11
DDOT Study Intended to Instill Public Trust in Speed Cameras Reached Questionable
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 12
D.C. Code and DCMR Are Silent With Regard to Key Aspects of ATE Program ................. 20
Confidentiality, Use, and Retention of ATE Images and Videos ..................................... 20
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT (MPD) ........................................................... 24
Background .............................................................................................................................. 25
Types of Tickets Issued ............................................................................................................ 25
Operations Overview................................................................................................................ 26
Roles of Contractors ................................................................................................................. 27
ATS, MPD Quality Assurance and Oversight Methods .......................................................... 29
Multiple Vehicles Review Guidelines for Speeding Violations Lack Precision .................. 32
Tickets Issued When Vehicle in Images Does Not Match Registration Information .............. 40
Patrol Officers Need Written Guidance for Handheld Ticketing Devices ............................... 44
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW) ...................................................................... 47
Background .............................................................................................................................. 48
Types of Tickets Issued ............................................................................................................ 48
Operations Overview................................................................................................................ 49
Quality Assurance and Oversight Methods .............................................................................. 50
Ticketing Procedures, Training Materials Are Incomplete, Contradict DCMR ...................... 51
TicPix Often Fails to Present Motorists With Images of Violations........................................ 55
You Are Guilty Until You Have Proven Yourself Innocent ........................................... 57
DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DDOT) ......................................... 60
Background .............................................................................................................................. 61
Ticketing Overview .................................................................................................................. 62
Roles of Primary Contractors ................................................................................................... 63
Quality Assurance and Oversight Methods .............................................................................. 63
Lack of Written Procedures Leads to Glaring Inconsistencies in Practice .............................. 64
May a Motorist Legally Park at a Broken Meter? ............................................................ 64
Inconsistencies Between DDOT and DPW Issuance of Parking Tickets ................................ 66
TCOs Not Required to Photograph Violations ........................................................................ 68
DDOT Should Monitor Transaction Fees Paid to Parkmobile, Complaint Data ..................... 69

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 TOC-ii
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 71
Appendix 1: List of Findings and Recommendations ............................................................. 73
Appendix 2: DMV Annual Statistical Report to the City Council .......................................... 78
Appendix 3: Overview of Photo Review Processes ................................................................ 87
Appendix 4: DDOT-commissioned Speed Limit and Safety Nexus Study for 4800 Block
Texas Ave., S.E. (excerpt) ........................................................................ 91
Appendix 5: August 20, 2014, DDOT/MPD Response to Draft Report ................................. 95
Appendix 6: August 15, 2014, DPW Response to Draft Report ........................................... 111
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ACR-i

ACRONYMS & ABREVIATIONS


Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ACR-ii
ATE Automated Traffic Enforcement

ATES Automated Traffic Enforcement System

ATS American Traffic Solutions

CY Calendar Year

DCMR D.C. Municipal Regulations

DDOT District Department of Transportation

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles

DPW Department of Public Works

eTIMS Electronic Ticketing Information Management System

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

I&E Inspections and Evaluations Division (OIG)

IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

ITSA Information Technology Staff Augmentation

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPD Metropolitan Police Department

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NLETS National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

OAG D.C. Office of the Attorney General

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCP Office of Contracting and Procurement

OCTO Office of Chief Technology Officer

OIG Office of the Inspector General

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ACR-iii
PEMA Parking Enforcement Management Administration (DPW)

PEO Parking Enforcement Officer (DPW)

QA Quality Assurance

RFP Request for Proposals

ROSA Registration of Out-of-State Automobile

RPP Residential Permit Parking

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

TCO Traffic Control Officer (DDOT)

TOA Transportation Operations Administration (DDOT)

WALES Washington Area Law Enforcement System
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014



Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ORG- ii
MPD Organizational Charts

Source: Http://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/MPD_Org_Charts_111813.pdf (last visited Dec. 16, 2013).

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ORG- iii

Source: Http://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/MPD_Org_Charts_111813.pdf (last visited Dec. 16, 2013).


Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ORG- iv
DPW Organizational Charts

Source: DPW email fromDecember 24, 2013.

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ORG- v
DPW Parking Enforcement Division

Source: DPW email fromDecember 24, 2013.
SUPVY PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER:MS-1802-14-FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
ENFORCEMENT(COORD):MS-
1802-12-FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
ENFORCEMENT: MS-1802-11-
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
1802-12-FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
VACANT
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
1802-12-FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
FILLED
SUPERVISOR PARKING
VACANT
SUPERVISOR PARKING
VACANT
STAFF ASSISTANT:CS-0303-09-
FILLED
LEAD PARKING ENFORCEMENT:
CS-1802-09-FILLED - 18 FTE
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER: CS-1802-6~8-FILLED-
191 FTE
LEAD PARKING ENFORCEMENT:
MS-1802-11-VACANT - 4 FTE
SPARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER: CS-1802-~-8-VACANT -
38 FTE

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ORG- vi
DDOT Organizational Charts

Source: Http://dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/Appendix_A_OrgCharts_TOA.pdf (last visited Dec. 16, 2013).

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ORG- vii


Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 ORG- viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Parking & Automated Traffic Enforcement September 2014 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 1: Flowchart Overview of Ticketing and Adjudication Entities

MPD
Automated
enforcement
cameras.
Primary
contractors:
American
Traffic Solutions
(camera
equipment,
initial violation
processing);
Reflex; Sensys.
DPW
Parking
Enforcement
Management
Administration:
358 FTEs (actual
FY 2013), including
209 enforcement
officers.
Parking tickets only.
Budget: $26 million
(approved FY 2014)
DDOT
Manages D.C.s
17,000 parking
spaces.
Contracts with
Xerox (meter
maintenance);
Parkmobile
(mobile
payment).
Parking and
moving
violation
tickets.

Data Processing: Xerox State & Local Solutions (contract administered by DMV)
Xerox manages eTIMS (Electronic Ticket Information Management System), the Districts
depository of parking and moving violation ticket data.
December 2012: the District solicited bids for new vendor to replace eTIMS; no bids
received the District is considering bringing data processing in-house.
Xerox contract value: $11 million/year (CY 2013).
Primary Issuers of Tickets: Department of Public Works (DPW), Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD), District Department of Transportation (DDOT)
Ticket Payment, Adjudication (DMV)
DMVs Adjudication Services Division: 51 employees (actual FY 2013).
18 hearing examiners, whose average annual case load was 11,514 in FY 2013.
Appeals Process

Three Traffic Adjudication Appeals Boards, each of which consists of one
DMV employee; one Office of the Attorney General (OAG) attorney; and one
appointed resident, who is paid a wage rate equivalent to a
DS14 government salary ($87,661).

Each board meets weekly; collectively they issued 1,668 decisions in
FY 2013; average time required to close a case: 22 months.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

Between August 2013 and April 2014, the Inspections and Evaluations (I&E) Division of
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted fieldwork for a special evaluation of the
Districts parking and automated traffic enforcement (ATE) ticketing practices.
1
While a total of
31 District and federal agencies have the authority to issue moving violation tickets (e.g., cell
phone use while driving, illegal turns, failure to use a seatbelt) and/or parking tickets, this report
focuses on the three agencies that issue the most tickets: (1) the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD), which administers the Districts ATE program (i.e., the radar/camera installations that
record vehicles that violate red light, speed limit, and certain pedestrian safety regulations) and
whose officers issue both parking and moving violation tickets; (2) the Department of Public
Works (DPW), whose Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) issue only parking tickets; and (3)
the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), which manages a corps of Traffic Control
Officers (TCOs) who are deployed throughout the District to manage traffic flow at intersections
and construction sites and during special events, but who also have authority to issue parking and
moving violation tickets. In calendar year 2012, these three agencies accounted for
approximately 98% of the parking and ATE/moving violation tickets issued in the District:
DPW (51%), MPD (38%), and DDOT (9%).

Parking tickets are a significant source of revenue to the District. In FY 2013, these three
agencies issued 1,731,861 parking tickets. Revenue from parking tickets that same year totaled
$82,847,664. Similarly, MPD
2
issued 666,275 ATE tickets in FY 2013; revenue from ATE
tickets totaled $88,832,976 that year.

1
A second report will assess the Districts administration of the ticket payment, adjudication, and appeals processes.
See Table 1 on the previous page.
2
According to MPDs website:

To enhance the safety of the District's residents and visitors, the Metropolitan
Police Department has developed an automated photo enforcement program
designed to reduce the number of drivers who violate traffic regulations. The
cameras help enforce traffic laws and reduce violations by automatically
photographing the license plates of vehicles whose drivers violate the
regulations.

Http://mpdc.dc.gov/node/216212 (last visited Feb. 6, 2014).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 2: Parking and ATE Tickets Issued by the District and Related Revenue
FYs 2011 to 2013

FY
Number of
Parking
Tickets Issued
Revenue From
Parking
Tickets
Number of
ATE Tickets
Issued
Revenue From
ATE Tickets
Total Ticket
Revenue
2011
1,984,682 $91,362,271 420,818 $60,105,091 $151,467,362
2012
1,850,776 $90,671,066 1,018,953 $91,806,356 $182,477,422
2013
1,731,861 $82,847,664 666,275 $88,832,976 $171,680,640
Objectives

There were two primary objectives to this part of the special evaluation: (1) to assess the
adequacy and clarity of District government entities and contractors policies and procedures
governing the issuance of parking and ATE tickets; and (2) to present actionable
recommendations for improving the accuracy and efficiency of the Districts ticket issuance
processes. Part Two of this special evaluation, which will result in publication of a separate
report, will focus on the Districts administration of the ticket payment, adjudication, and appeals
processes.
Scope and Methodologies

The team conducted approximately 50 interviews that included employees of the Office
of Contracting and Procurement (OCP), the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), MPD, DPW,
DDOT, American Traffic Solutions (ATS),
3
Xerox State and Local Solutions (Xerox), and
Parkmobile.
4
The team also observed the software programs and processes through which ATS
and MPD personnel review images of possible ATE violations. I&E also interviewed and
observed DPW PEOs and DDOT TCOs. The team visited the neighboring jurisdictions of
Arlington County (VA), Prince Georges County (MD), and Baltimore, MD to observe elements
of their ATE programs and interview knowledgeable employees about quality assurance
practices. I&E analysts also reviewed a random sample of 250 parking tickets issued by DPW to
determine the frequency with which motorists who receive tickets are provided photographic
evidence of their violations; the results of this review are found on page 54 of this report.

3
According to its website: American Traffic Solutions, Inc. is [] the leading provider of traffic safety, mobility and
compliance solutions for state & local governments, commercial fleets and rental car companies.
Http://www.atsol.com/our-company/ (last visited Feb. 6, 2014).
4
Per its website, Parkmobile is the leading global provider of seamlessly integrated end-to-end solutions for mobile
payments and parking guidance using business analytics and parking.
Http://us.parkmobile.com/members/company-info (last visited Nov. 12, 2013).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General Assessments of MPD, DPW, and DDOT Ticketing Operations

MPD

MPD and its primary contractor, ATS, administer a multi-step violation review process
(see Appendix 3 for diagrams) that ensures several reviewers/approvers look at each potential
red light or speed limit violation before a ticket is issued. The number of levels of review in this
process exceeds recommended quality assurance practices; however, much of the speed camera
technology currently deployed on District streets cannot indicate the lane of travel of a violating
vehicle, which introduces an element of uncertainty at any location where a speed camera is
monitoring two or more lanes of traffic moving away from the camera. Therefore, MPD
contractors and sworn officers must decide whether a violation was committed and which
vehicle, if any, should be ticketed. The OIG learned that in those instances when multiple
vehicles appear in the violation image(s), MPD reviewers decide, with what the OIG believes is
a lack of precision and certainty, (1) which vehicle was speeding and (2) whether there is
sufficient distance between the violating vehicle and others in the images to justify issuance of a
ticket. (See page 31 for this finding.) Earlier this year, MPD deployed speed camera technology
that it says is able to positively identify the violating vehicle. While this new technology sounds
like a positive enhancement to the Districts ATE program, the reality is that the District often
issues speeding tickets without conclusive identification of the violating vehicle. The OIG
strongly encourages MPD to be more rigorous and precise in its review of ATE speeding
violation images that capture multiple vehicles as current MPD decision-making practices in
certain review situations appear somewhat arbitrary.

MPDs ATE training manual also instructs reviewers to accept violations and issue
tickets in certain instances where the type of vehicle captured in the ATE images does not
comport with information obtained through MPDs search of vehicle registration databases. (See
page 39.) The OIG believes that MPD should discontinue this practice because it leads to the
issuance of erroneous tickets, which then puts a recipient of such a ticket in the challenging and
frustrating position of trying to prove to a hearing examinerwithout having vehicle registration
information that MPD has access to or an understanding of how his or her vehicle was
identifiedthat he or she is not the owner of the subject vehicle.

DPW

In FY 2013, DPW PEOs issued nearly 1.4 million tickets for roughly 130 types of
parking violations. Procedures and training materials distributed to PEOs provide useful
instructions on a wide range of topics, including customer service and fundamental ticket-writing
procedures, but provide very few specifics for handling commonly encountered situations, such
as the ticketing of federal and District government vehicles or what to do when a motorist drives
off before the PEO has printed the ticket. DPW cites the importance of its TicPix program,
which allows motorists to view pictures of the violations for which they received a ticket so that
they better understand why tickets are issued. However, after reviewing randomly selected
tickets of the 10 most common parking violations, the OIG concluded that DPW far too often
fails to make images available through TicPix. Violation images are the only assurance a
motorist has that his or her ticket was correctly issued and are important evidence to hearing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

examiners and appeals boards tasked with adjudicating contested tickets. Therefore, the OIG
recommends that DPW implement a policy that any parking ticket for which the motorist is not
given clear photographic evidence of the violation shall be dismissed, unless the motorist is
given an adequate explanation. (This finding begins on page 54.)

DDOT

DDOT TCOs main responsibility is to direct traffic in the District, but they also have the
authority to write both parking and moving violation tickets, of which they issued 316,687 and
3,389, respectively, in FY 2013. The number of tickets written annually by DDOT TCOs falls
far short of the 1.4 million tickets written by DPW PEOs in FY 2013, but DDOTs lack of
comprehensive ticketing procedures, which has resulted in inconsistent ticketing practices among
TCOs, is a significant concern. (See page 64.) Ironically, the question that drew the most varied
responses from DDOT employees was whether a District motorist may park legally at a broken
meter. DDOT should act immediately to issue clear guidance not only to its TCOs, so that
ticketing operations are more consistent, but also the public. Skeptical members of the public
might believe that the Districts failure to inform them on this subject is intentional: without
clear criteria of the Districts ticketing policy, a ticketed motorist is unable to prove that DDOT
enforcement officers failed to follow proper procedure.

Conclusions Regarding the Districts ATE Program and Ticketing Practices

D.C. Code and D.C. Municipal Regulations (DCMR) are silent in a number of areas that
deserve greater scrutiny by stakeholders, such as the confidentiality, retention, and destruction of
images and videos captured by the Districts ATES. There are essentially no statutory
restrictions on the Districts burgeoning network of speed, red light, and pedestrian safety
enforcement cameras. Other jurisdictions have imposed specific limits on the numbers and uses
of cameras, and even the hours of the day during which they may be in operation.

Earlier this year, DDOT delivered to the D.C. Council a study that was intended to
instill public trust that speed cameras are installed by the D.C. government to improve safety
and not just increase local revenues; however, the study created the opposite effect when it
concluded that deployment of automated speed enforcement equipment was justified at every
one of over 300 existing, planned, or proposed locations that were studied. With the Districts
deployment of ATE equipment expanding this year to some stop signs and crosswalks, coupled
with a growing library of still images and videos of violating vehicles, the D.C. Council should
consider whether the D.C. Code and DCMR thoroughly address key elements of the Districts
ATE program.

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, which is why this report aims to identify processes and decision points where MPD,
DPW, and DDOT can enhance their respective operations, improve consistency, and ensure that
the evidence used to support their tickets is clear and obvious. Agency-specific
recommendations to that end are found throughout this report and should help to improve the
consistency of operations within each agency. Problems identified in this report should also
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

inform public debate of the City Councils proposal earlier this year to centralize the ticketing
and adjudication processes into a new Department of Parking Management.
5
The OIG also
believes that by improving the accuracy and irrefutability of their ticketing practices and
evidence provided to motorists, District agencies can stem the annual increase in the number of
tickets contested and adjudicated in the District each year. In FY 2013, the mean caseload per
DMV hearing examiner was 11,514 tickets, an increase of 24% from the previous year.

One of the most insightful and provocative comments made to the OIG team came from a
senior District official: One of the beauties of parking, its 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. The attitude behind this twist on accepted
jurisprudence that the burden of proof rests with the ticketed motorist is also seen in a
number of the key findings of this report:

MPDs issuance of tickets even in those instances when it cannot conclusively
identify the speeding vehicle;
MPDs issuance of tickets when vehicle information gleaned from violation
images does not match registration information linked to the license plate;
DPWs issuance of parking tickets even when required photographic evidence
is not available to motorists; and
DDOTs failure to require TCOs to capture images of violations.
Not having tested the assumption, the OIG must believe that the majority of parking and ATE
tickets issued each year in the District are accurate. However, public frustration with a system
that imposes monetary penalties unless one is able to prove himself or herself innocent is
understandable. Enhancements to the D.C. Code and DCMR that explain to motorists (1) each
agencys ticketing procedures and (2) the motorists right to specific, reasonable evidence
supporting a parking or ATE ticket, will lighten the difficult burden of having to prove oneself
innocent (or that proper procedure was not followed) in situations where a ticket was issued
erroneously or assigned to the wrong vehicle.

5
See http://www.marycheh.com/release/cheh-proposes-fundamental-reorganization-of-transportation-agencies/ (last
visited May 29, 2014).
ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON


COMPARISON OF THE DISTRICTS AUTOMATED
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (ATES) TO
OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ATES


Jurisdictional Comparison
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safetys (IIHS)
6
Highway Loss Data
Institute, as of December 2013, 502 communities in the United States had red light camera
programs and 136 communities had speed camera programs. Using information presented by the
IIHS, the OIG researched the enabling legislation, procedures, and practices of several
jurisdictions and states with established ATE programs and statutes. The objective of the
research was to note both similarities and differences between the Districts ATE program and
those in other jurisdictions, to not only understand the Districts program within a larger context,
but also to identify facets of the Districts policies and practices that may warrant further
scrutiny, debate, and clarification. The chart on the following page identifies similarities and
some key differences between the Districts ATE program and laws and practices in other
jurisdictions.

6
According to its website: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent, nonprofit
scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses deaths, injuries and property damage
from crashes on the nations roads. Http://www.iihs.org/iihs/about-us (last visited Dec. 19, 2013).

Table 3: Comparison of the Districts ATE Program Elements to Other Jurisdictions

D.C Virginia Maryland Illinois California
New York
City
Types of
Cameras in
Use
Speed,
Red Light
7

Red Light
Speed,
Red Light
Red Light Red Light
Speed,
Red Light
Statutory
Limitations on
Cameras?
None
Speed
cameras not
authorized
8

Speed
camera use
restricted to
school/road
work zones
9

Speed
cameras
prohibited
Speed
cameras
prohibited
Speed
camera use
restricted to
school zones
Limitations on
Number,
Operation of
Cameras
None
Only 1
covered
intersection
for every
10,000
residents of
the proposing
(Arlington
County)
Speed
cameras in
school zones
may only
operate M-F,
6 a.m.- 8
p.m.
Statistical
analysis of
impact on
safety at
each
intersection
required to
be made
public
Finding of
fact
proving
system is
needed at
location for
safety
reasons
Limits on
numbers of
both types of
cameras, and
hours of
operation of
speed
cameras
10

Notification
signage
required at
each ATES
location?
No Yes
Speed
Yes
11

Red Light
Yes (State
roads)
12

Yes Yes No
Use/Retention
of Violation
Images
Addressed in
Law?
Not
addressed
in the D.C.
Code or
DCMR
Images
purged
within 60
days of final
disposition of
ticket
Not
addressed in
MD Code
21-809 or
21-202
Images are
confidential,
only for
government
uses
Records are
confidential,
destroyed
after final
disposition
of ticket
Images shall
not identify
driver,
passengers,
or vehicle
contents

7
In 2014, the District introduced new ATE technologies at some stop signs, crosswalks, and intersections.
8
The Virginia Code does not list cameras as a permissible device for determining speed of motor vehicles traveling
on Virginia roads. VA. CODE ANN. 46.2-882 (LexisNexis current through the 2013 Regular Sessions of the
General Assembly and Acts 2014, c. 1.).
9
In Montgomery County, speed cameras are permitted in both residential districts and school zones; in Prince
Georges County, speed cameras are permitted only in school zones. Other than work-zone enforcement, Maryland
law provides that any local speed monitoring system must first be authorized via local legislation.
10
Red light camera usage is limited to 150 intersections. The City of New York may only deploy speed violation
monitoring systems at up to 20 school zones at one time. School zone speed limits may be in effect from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
11
A sign must be installed when automated speed enforcement (ASE) of a school zone is on a state highway and is
recommended when the zone is on a local road. A sign is required in all work zones where automated speed
enforcement is being used. ASE in Montgomery County residential districts does not require signage.
12
Marylands State Highway Administration does not require a sign at each camera location; [i]n certain cases,
area-wide signing is appropriate and acceptable. Http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Index.aspx?PageId=782 (last
visited May 6, 2014).

Observations From Jurisdictional Comparison

The OIG team concluded that the Districts enabling legislation is silent on a number of
topics addressed in other jurisdictions, a condition that puts virtually no restrictions on the
Districts burgeoning ATE program. For example, in some jurisdictions, there are specific limits
on the number of cameras that may be installed. Limits on the number of cameras take several
forms; the number of cameras permitted can be either a specific number (as is done in New York
City) or tied to the jurisdictions population (which is how Arlington County (VA) defines its
limit). Elements of programs in other jurisdictions clearly emphasize safety as the primary
objective. For example, some programs limit the use of speed cameras to designated school
zones and tie the cameras hours of operation to the school day. Californias vehicle code
explicitly states that a government agency cannot consider revenue generation as a factor
(beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system) when installing an ATES; camera
placements must be motivated by safety concerns.
13

Requirements in ATE-enabling legislation regarding the use of notification signage is
another way in which other jurisdictions prioritize the element of safety and differ from the
Districts. Neither the District Code nor DCMR addresses the issue of ATES signage at
individual enforcement locations. Maryland, California, and Oregon, for example, have specific
requirements for signage to notify motorists that they are approaching an intersection or other
location where ATE equipment has been deployed. Oregon requires that speed camera radar
equipment be operated out of a marked police vehicle (i.e., unmarked vehicles may not be
deployed) and that a motorist be shown his or her vehicles actual speed within 150 feet of the
ATES unit, thereby giving motorists obvious indicators of the need to slow down at a particular
location.
14
If the primary objective of ATE is to alter motorists driving behaviors at a particular
location, signage advertising the use of ATE at each location clearly supports that mission.
Therefore, the D.C. Council should consider a requirement that signage be posted at every
location where ATE equipment is deployed.

The OIGs review of best practice guidance and other programs identified another
element of the Districts ATE program that is not as well-defined as in other jurisdictions:
requirements to document safety concerns prior to the installation of ATE equipment at a
specific location and study the impact of ATE equipment on safety after its installation. Public
acceptance of an ATE program is bolstered when the need for enhanced enforcement is studied
and documented, along with its positive impact on motorist behaviors and safety at a particular
location.

The next two findings address specific areas of the Districts ATE program that should be
addressed by District stakeholders and decision makers, in part to increase public acceptance of
the Districts escalating deployment of ATE technology.

13
CAL. VEH. CODE 21455.5(h)(3) (Deering current through Chapter 19 of 2014 Regular Session of 2013-2014
Legislature).
14
OR. REV. STAT. 810.439(1)(a)(B)-(C) (LexisNexis current through 2013 Legislative Session).

1. A January 2014 report to the D.C. Council, which was intended to instill public
trust that speed cameras are installed by the D.C. government to improve safety and
not just increase local revenues, justified the need for speed cameras at all 241
planned/proposed locations that were studied. However, at nearly half of those
locations, the 85
th
percentile speeda common traffic engineering benchmarkwas at
or below the posted speed limit.
15

DDOT Study Intended to Instill Public Trust in Speed Cameras Reached Questionable Conclusions
The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Speed
Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines state:
16

The first step in planning the operations of an ASE [automated
speed enforcement] program is to identify the speeding-related
safety problems and attitudes that the ASE program will be
designed to address. Measures that reflect a speeding problem
include speeding-related crashes, excessive speeds, speed variance,
and citizen complaints.

Speeding-related crashes are the most direct indicator of a safety
problem at a particular location . . . . Excessive speed is also an
indicator of a potential safety problem because there are direct
relationships between speed and crash probability . . . and between
speed and level of injury in a crash . . . .

In other jurisdictions, authorizing statutes or regulations mandate traffic safety studies
before installation of an ATES. The OIG team noted such traffic study requirements in
Maryland, Virginia, and California.
17
In California, [p]rior to installing an [ATE] system, the
governmental agency shall make and adopt a finding of fact establishing that the system is
needed at a specific location for reasons related to safety. CAL. VEH. CODE 21455.5(c)(2)(A)
(Deering current through Chapter 19 of 2014 Regular Session of 2013-2014 Legislature). Some
jurisdictions also require study of the impact of the ATES following installation. Oregon
requires biennium evaluations of the cameras effect on traffic safety, public acceptance of the
cameras, and administration of the use of the cameras.
18
Illinois law states that a municipality or
county operating an ATES shall conduct a statistical analysis to assess the safety impact of each
automated traffic law enforcement system at an intersection following installation of the
system, and make the analysis available to the public on its website. 625 ILL. COMP. STAT.

15
The 85
th
percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles travel. According to the U.S. Department
of Transportation: [It] is used extensively in the field of traffic engineering and safety. Since the majority of
drivers are considered reasonable and should be accommodated, some numerical definition for this segment of the
driver population is needed. Over time, the 85
th
percentile driver (or speed) has been used to characterize reasonable
and prudent behavior. Http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa10001/ (last visited J une 25, 2014).
See http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa10001/ (last visited J une 11, 2014).
16
Http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Enforcement+&+J ustice+Services (last visited Aug. 27, 2014).
17
For example, prior to installation of a red light camera on a state road, Maryland requires that [t]he jurisdiction,
not its contractor, must send a request for approval of a camera installation to the appropriate [State Highway
Administration] District Traffic Engineer. The request must provide documentation of the traffic safety issue .
. . . Http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Index.aspx?PageId=782 (last visited J une 25, 2014).
18
See OR. REV. STAT. 810.438(3) (LexisNexis current through 2013 Legislative Session).

ANN. 5/11-208.6(k-7) (LexisNexis current through Public Act 98-627 of 2014 Legislative
Session). Illinois law further provides:

If the statistical analysis indicates that there has been an
increase in the rate of accidents at the approach to the intersection
monitored by the system, the municipality or county shall
undertake additional studies to determine the cause and severity of
the accidents, and may take any action that it determines is
necessary or appropriate to reduce the number or severity of the
accidents at that intersection.
Id.

Requiring safety studies as part of the statute that authorizes the ATES accomplishes two
objectives: it emphasizes to the public that the primary goal of such a program is to increase
motorist and pedestrian safety, and it forces the entity managing the ATES to collect and analyze
data that prove (or disprove) achievement of that goal.

There are no such safety study provisions in District law, but the Fiscal Year 2014
Budget Support Act of 2013 required DDOT and MPD to submit a joint report to the D.C.
Council analyzing existing and proposed locations for automated speed violation enforcement
equipment. The study was intended to instill public trust that speed cameras are installed by the
D.C. government to improve safety and not just increase local revenues.
19
The OIG believes,
however, that the study resulted in the opposite effect with its conclusion that conditions at every
one of the existing, planned, and proposed locations studied justified the use of speed camera
equipment.

DDOT contracted a consulting firm to collect and study safety data to determine whether
there was a technical justification for a speed camera at each of the existing, planned, and
proposed speed camera locations.
20
According to the reports Executive Summary,

DDOT provided draft copies of each location report to MPD for
their staff review. MPD staff reviewed the results and
recommendations related to [the] nexus between traffic safety and
speed camera installation and provided comments on the draft
reports.

* * *

At locations where the speed data or the crash data did not provide
sufficient background information, engineering judgment was used

19
See http://ddot.dc.gov/node/766092 (last visited May 8, 2014).
20
Prior to the publication of this study, the team asked interviewees how speed camera locations were chosen. An
MPD official said that camera locations were based on citizen requests because [t]hey live and work in the
neighborhoods and know what the traffic patterns and violations are like . . . . When a request is received, an
MPD employee will observe the potential site and an MPD manager ultimately decides whether a camera should be
placed at the location.

to determine if any elements in the field assessments such as the
proximity to school zones and the presences of bicycle and
pedestrian activity provided additional information for safety
considerations. Overall, all of the results supported the nexus
between traffic safety and the speed camera at all 295 existing,
planned, and proposed locations.[
21
]

The OIG team reviewed the site specific reports for the 241 planned and proposed
locations that were studied.
22
At 194 of the 241 (80%) planned or proposed speed camera
locations, the average speed of the vehicles observed during the DDOT-commissioned study was
at or below the posted speed limit. Average vehicle speed at a location can be a misleading
figure, however, because important outliers in the data, i.e., those vehicles traveling well above
the speed limit, get lost in the average. Even after applying a more stringent comparison, i.e.,
the 85
th
percentile speed against the posted speed limit, the studys conclusion that there is a
safety justification for a speed camera at every planned/proposed location is still questionable.
As shown in the table below, at 63% of the planned/proposed sites studied, the 85
th
percentile
speed was no more than 4 mph above the posted speed limit.

Table 4: 85
th
Percentile Speeds at 241 Planned/Proposed Speed Camera Sites
85
th
Percentile Speed of Observed Vehicles Percent of Sites Studied
At or Below Posted Speed Limit 46%
1-4 MPH Above Posted Speed Limit 17%
5 MPH or More Above Posted Speed Limit 37%

It is also important to note the distribution of speeds at those locations where the 85
th

percentile speed exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph or more. At 10 of those locations, even
though the 85
th
percentile speed exceeded the speed limit by more than 5 mph, that speed was
still 30 mph or slower.

21
Tables in the Executive Summary of the DDOT report identify 295 locations, but supporting documents presented
site analysis data for nearly 330 locations. At a number of locations, data were collected and analyzed for both
directions of travel (e.g., northbound and southbound). The study was not consistent in its presentation of these
data. In some instances, both directions of travel were considered one location; in others, each direction of travel
was considered a separate location. For the purpose of its analysis, the OIG team counted each direction of traffic
studied as a separate location.
22
The OIG team excluded the existing speed camera locations from its analysis due to the fact that the presence of
the cameras likely affected the speeds of the vehicles observed during the traffic studies.

Table 5: Distribution of 85
th
Percentile Speeds At Sites Where Speed
Was 5 MPH or More Above the Speed Limit

85
th
Percentile Speed Number of Sites
0-25 MPH 1
26-30 MPH 9
31-35 MPH 31
36 MPH or faster 48

A number of the sites where 85
th
percentile speeds exceeded 35 mph are located on major
thoroughfares, such as Interstates 295 and 395 and the Suitland Parkway, however, most were
not. For example, at locations such as the 6600 block of 16
th
Street, N.W., and 2500 block of
North Capitol Street, N.E., 85
th
percentile speeds exceeded 55 mph, which clearly justify the
need for enhanced speed enforcement and other traffic control measures.

Other information in some of the site-specific reports, however, did little to justify the
need for automated speed violation enforcement. Take, for example, the proposed speed camera
location at 4800 Texas Ave., S.E. The speeds of approximately 3,200 vehicles were observed
over a 24-hour period. The average speed of these vehicles was 12 mph; 85% of the vehicles
observed were travelling 17 mph or slower. Only 1 vehicle exceeded 25 mph. The study, an
excerpt of which is found at Appendix 4, also indicates that the site averaged two injury-related
accidents per year from 2010-2012, which it considered an elevated number. The study for
this particular site concluded (at page W7-412):

Although the speed data analysis showed the mean and 85
th

percentile speeds to be lower than the posted speed limit, due to
the elevated number of injury-related crashes, the specific site
characteristics, the proximity of schools to the site, and other
pedestrian generators, there is a nexus between traffic safety and
the speed camera at this location.

Similarly questionable is the justification for a proposed speed camera in the 700 block of
26
th
Street, N.E., where during a 24-hour period in J anuary 2014, 1.6% of the nearly 400 vehicles
observed exceeded the 25 mph posted speed limit. Only one vehicle was recorded traveling
more than 30 miles per hour. The study for a camera planned for 27
th
and K Streets, N.W. notes
that there are three schools in the area: Georgetown University, Georgetown Montessori, and the
Fashion Institute of Design. To get to either of the first two schools, which are located nearly
and over 1 mile from the planned camera location, respectively, motorists must pass through
multiple traffic lights or stop signs. The Fashion Institute of Design is not a campus attended
by students, but rather a small administrative office located in an office complex several blocks
from the planned camera location. In the 6500 block of Western Avenue, a location studied in
November 2013, not a single vehicle was recorded traveling 11 mph or more over the speed
limit, the threshold at which the Districts equipment is set to capture images of speeding

vehicles. The Crash Data Analysis of the study states (at page W3-245): there were zero
crashes at this location; yet, the report concludes (on page W3-246): Although the speed data
analysis showed the travel speeds as being lower than the posted speed limit, the residential
nature of the location as well as the pedestrian generators of the [M]etrobus stops support a
nexus between traffic safety and the speed camera at this location.

The OIG team does not dispute that safety concerns may exist at some or many of the
241 planned and proposed locations for automated speed enforcement, but questions why the
study found a justification to deploy speed cameras at every location. As DDOT notes in the
Executive Summary of its study, the District uses automated speed enforcement as one of
several tools to promote safety. However, without more conclusive data, the OIG is somewhat
skeptical that use of this particular speed enforcement tool is justified at every one of the over
300 existing, planned, and proposed locations that was studied, and encourages DDOT and MPD
to devise and apply a more robust methodology for determining whether automated speed
enforcement is warranted and appropriate for a particular location. The current methodology,
which to some members of the public could appear to be a rubber stamp approval of all
locations proposed by MPD, does little to increase public trust in the Districts ATE program.
When asked about a recent public announcement of the deployment of automated speed limit
enforcement equipment at locations not identified in the DDOT study, a District official
reiterated that MPDs use of ATE equipment is not restricted to those locations assessed during
the study. MPDs response not only raises additional questions about the utility of the J anuary
2014 study but also MPDs seemingly unbridled authority to deploy equipment anywhere in the
District without the need for justification, public input, or a demonstrated safety nexus.

Recommendations:
23

(1) That the Chief of MPD (C/MPD) and the Director of DDOT (D/DDOT), to
bolster public trust in the Districts automated speed enforcement program,
critically evaluate the J anuary 2014 traffic safety study protocol and its results,
and request and document further justification prior to installing ATE equipment
at any of the planned or proposed locations addressed in the study.
Agree Disagree X

MPD/DDOT August 2014 Response, As Received:
Disagree. The methodology used in the 2014 Safety Nexus Study was thorough and
accurately reflects the findings of traffic safety experts. Moreover, the Report fundamentally
misunderstands the role of the 85
th
percentile speed analysis in determining whether a specific
location should have an ATE camera.

23
On J une 30, 2014, MPD, DPW, and DDOT received draft copies of this report. The OIG asked each agency head
to review the drafts findings and recommendations and provide written comments. DPW sent its response on
August 15, 2014; MPD and DDOT submitted a joint response on August 20, 2014. MPD/DDOT comments appear
verbatim in the body of this report below the corresponding recommendation. The entire MPD/DDOT response
document, which contains additional commentary that does not appear in the body of this report, is included as
Appendix 5 of this report. Similarly, DPWs comments appear following each applicable recommendation, and its
complete response appears as Appendix 6.

While the District does use vehicular speed as a factor in its determination of whether to
place an ATE camera at a location, this is not the sole factor in making traffic safety
determinations. Instead, the study conducted a comprehensive review of speed data, accident
data, injuries and fatalities resulting from collisions, speed-related crashes, site characteristics,
bicycle and pedestrian traffic generators, and overall traffic operations.

The Report is critical about the presence of ATE cameras at locations where the average
roadways speeds are at or below the 85
th
percentile.
[24]
This is a curious complaint since any
driver complying with the posted speed limits at that location does not run the risk of being
ticketed for speeding. The Report fails to appreciate that a location with an ATE camera and
vehicles traveling at the speed limit is evidence of modified driver behavior, which has resulted
in lower- and safer- speeds on roadways. This is a clear indication that the ATE program is
working as intended.

OIG Comment: The MPD/DDOT response states: The Report is critical about the
presence of ATE cameras at locations where the average roadway speeds are at or below
the 85
th
percentile, further commenting in a footnote, [o]f the 241 locations studied, 87
already had an ATE camera. Those statements misinterpret the OIGs finding. The 241
locations cited in this finding were planned or proposed according to DDOT. As
already noted in this report, the OIG team excluded the existing speed camera locations
from its analysis due to the fact that the presence of the cameras likely affected the speeds
of the vehicles observed during the traffic studies. The OIGs analysis in this finding
focuses solely on the DDOT studys assessment of planned and proposed ATE enforcement
locations. Therefore, the OIG stands by its analysis and recommendation.

Given finite program resources, MPD and DDOT should use traffic study data to inform
its decisions about where to deploy ATE equipment and prioritize those locations where
speeding is a documented problem. As stated in the report, the OIG concurs that safety
concerns may exist at some or many of the planned locations for automated speed
enforcement, but questions how the study found a justification to deploy speed cameras at
every planned and proposed location.

In their response to the draft, the entirety of which is at Appendix 5, MPD and DDOT
wrote, [a]though the Report purports to be concerned about the need to instill public
trust and increase program acceptance in the ATE program, it ignores an April 2013
survey that found District residents support the ATE program by huge margins. That
need was articulated by the D.C. Council in its FY 2014 Budget Support Act of 2013.

(2) That the D.C. Council, following collaboration with MPD, DDOT, and outside
subject matter experts, amend the D.C. statute that authorizes the use of ATE to:
(1) require a robust justification, accompanied by traffic data, of the need for an
ATE device at a planned location; (2) within a reasonable period following
installation of the device, require a statistical analysis of the impact of the device
on traffic safety at the location; and (3) make all of these documents readily
available to the public on DDOTs website.

24
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: Of the 241 locations studied, 87 already had an ATE camera.

Agree X Disagree

(1) & (2) Agree in part. The 2014 Safety Nexus Study is a comprehensive technical report
that identified factors between planned ATE locations and ensuring traffic safety.
[25]
The
methodology used to create the 2014 Safety Nexus Study was thorough and accurately reflected
the findings of traffic safety experts, who utilized accepted standards and practices outlined in
the following:

a) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices;
b) American Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Green Book;
c) Transportation Research Board/FHWA Highway Capacity Manual;
d) Institute of Transportation Engineers Standards and Guidance Documents;
e) AASHTO Highway Safety Manual; and
f) DDOT Engineering/Design Manuals, Crash Statistics Report, Commercial
Vehicle Crash Statistic Report, Traffic Count Data and Speed Studies.
DDOT and MPD agree that it would be helpful to provide the public with additional
documentation for each of the proposed and planned ATE locations to more thoroughly explain
the various traffic and safety engineering factors used in such analyses. MPD is working with the
Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) to provide additional information for each of the
ATE locations listed on OCTO's GIS webpage, which is publicly available at
http://atlasplus.dcgis.dc.gov, including numbers of tickets issued.

However, the need to deploy resources to ensure public safety must continue to rest with
the Chief of Police and transportation safety experts. Mandating burdensome and time-
consuming reports, analyses, and additional layers of bureaucracy will not protect users of the
District's roadways. Residents expect and demand safe streets, not a never-ending series of
hyper-technical reports before any action can be taken. ATE cameras are public safety resources
that are deployed in real time as the need arises and based on a review of community requests,
history of traffic collisions, speeding factors, and safety considerations such as proximity to
schools, parks or recreation centers, bike lanes, and crosswalks.

As we have repeatedly stated, the goal of the ATE program is not a one-time or short-
term stationing of ATE equipment at a single location to operate for a few hours a day; the point
is to modify driver behavior throughout the entire city by constant and effective enforcement of
traffic violations. The simplest way for a driver to avoid a ticket for speeding, red light running,
or running a stop sign is to just not do it.

(3) Agree. Both agencies agree that all existing documentation be made publicly
available online and this is currently done. The 2014 Safety Nexus Study is available on the

25
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: The Report is available on the DDOT website:
http://ddot.dc.gov/node/766092.

DDOT website
[26]
and MPD provides information on the type and location of every ATE camera
in the District on its website.
27

OIG Comment: Before dismissing this recommendation as simply an endorsement of
burdensome and time-consuming reports, analyses, and additional layers of bureaucracy
and a never-ending series of hyper-technical reports, MPD and other stakeholders,
including the City Council, should consider the following guidance from the Federal
Highway Administrations (FHA) Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational
Guidelines:

Public reaction to fixed ASE [automated speed enforcement] may
be more negative than reaction to mobile ASE. First, fixed units
are often derided as speed traps or revenue machines installed
in locations where speed limits are perceived to be unreasonably
low. In this case it is important to explain the site selection process
and support site selection with safety statistics.

* * *

Site evaluations and speed surveys should be conducted to
determine whether sites identified by citizens warrant speed
enforcement.
* * *
A speed survey should be conducted at each candidate site to
assess speeds and the potential of various countermeasures to
mitigate excessive speeds. Data should be analyzed to
determine the factors associated with the safety problem, and
enforcement should be adapted according to these factors. If
countermeasures other than ASE are deemed more appropriate and
feasible, they should be implemented and the site should be
reevaluated before implementing ASE.
28

The pre-deployment study of a potential ATE site as well as a post-installation assessment
of the impact of the ATE equipment on safety at the location should be codified as
recommended to ensure these important program activities occur routinely and
consistently. Without codification, key ATE program evaluations could be suspended
without explanation or justification.

Also, in their response to the OIG, MPD and DDOT opined, the indisputable facts show
the ATE program is working: In addition to far fewer collision-related fatalities and
injuries, speed-related traffic collisions are on a clear downward trend over the past three

26
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: http://ddot.dc.gov/node/766092.
27
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/dc-streetsafe-automated-traffic-enforcement
28
Id. at 15, 17, and 19, available at
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/810916.pdf (last
visited Sept. 3, 2014).

years. While that trend is certainly a positive one, the traffic safety statistics report
29

cited by MPD and DDOT also shows increases during that same period in the numbers of
total collisions, injury collisions, and total pedestrians involved in traffic crashes.

The reader should also note that the MPD/DDOT response did not cite improvement in
safety at any specific site or group of sites where ATE equipment has been deployed, but
instead presents broad, District-wide safety improvements. As the FHA guidance advises,
[p]rogram evaluators are cautioned to avoid oversimplifying the effects of ASE. The
evaluation should encompass more than just a simple comparison of data before ASE was
implemented versus data during ASE activity.
30

2. The D.C. Code and DCMR are silent with regard to other important ATE program
issues that should be addressed in the statute or regulations, such as the
confidentiality and retention of violation images, as well as limitations on camera
operations and the information captured by them.
D.C. Code and DCMR Are Silent With Regard to Key Aspects of ATE Program
The team reviewed applicable D.C. Code and DCMR provisions pertaining to ATE and
determined that they were silent on a number of important topics, including the: 1)
confidentiality and investigative use of images and videos captured by ATE equipment; 2)
timeframes for the retention and destruction of ATE images; 3) number of cameras that can be
placed in the District and whether there should be any restrictions on their placement (e.g.,
limited to school zones); 4) need for signs at ATE equipment locations; and 5) need for a law
enforcement officer to review or certify a ticket captured by ATE equipment. Overall, the team
found legal and regulatory references to ATE in the D.C. Code and DCMR to be sparse, which is
problematic given the Districts well-established and steadily increasing network of speed and
red light enforcement cameras and the recent introduction of automated stop sign, crosswalk, and
gridlock enforcement technologies.
Confidentiality, Use, and Retention of ATE Images and Videos

The team reviewed a number of other jurisdictions laws and found that some were more
specific than the Districts in a number of areas. Virginia, Illinois, California, Washington, and
New York have legislative provisions limiting the use/retention of recorded images, for example,
allowing them to be used only for the purposes of adjudicating violations, for statistical purposes,
or other governmental purposes.
31
Virginia and California codes also provide specific guidance
about retaining images, requiring records to be purged after a period of 60 days (Virginia) or 6
months (or until final disposition of the case) (California).
32
New York City and Washington

29
See http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/2014-07-
16%20Final%20Crash%20Report%202010%20to%202012.pdf (last visited, Aug. 27, 2014.)
30
Id. at 44.
31
See 625 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/11-208.6(g); see also CAL. VEH. CODE 21455.5(f)(1); N.Y. VEH. & TRAF
LAW 1180-b(a)(5)(ii) (Consol. current through 2014 released chapters 1-25, 50-58); VA. CODE ANN. 15.2-
968.1(H); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. 46.63.170(1)(g) (LexisNexis current through 2013 3
rd
special session).
32
VA. CODE ANN. 15.2-968.1(H); CAL. VEH. CODE 21455.5(f)(3).

further restrict images by only allowing photographs of a vehicle, not its driver or passenger(s).
33

The District lacks any comparable DCMR or D.C. Code section.

The OIG team recognizes that there may be legitimate, investigative purposes for these
images, but acceptable uses of these images have not been mandated by the D.C. Council and,
therefore, the full scope of private and public use of these images remains unclear. The team is
also concerned that District law does not mandate any retention/destruction requirements for
ATE images and videos. Given its well-established use of red light and speeding enforcement
technologies, the District and its contractors continue to accumulate a library of still images and
videos of license plates and violating vehicles. With the addition of enforcement technologies
aimed to protect pedestrians, the District has begun to collect still images and videos of people,
which presumably could be used to identify specific individuals. Lacking privacy, retention, and
destruction requirements, District statutory provisions and regulations leave open to speculation
a number of issues:

Could these images and videos be requested by either the prosecution or the
defense and/or reviewed in conjunction with a criminal investigation?

Could insurance companies request access to specific images and videos to make
determinations of insurability?

Could someone request and be given access to these images and videos as part of
a civil case, such as a divorce or child custody proceeding?

Could the District (or one of its contractors) be held liable in the event of a data
security breach that results in the public disclosure of images in which vehicles or
pedestrians are easily identifiable?

This list of potential issues is not exhaustive and, given the sheer number of images the District
has collected and will continue to collect through automated speed, red light, and pedestrian
safety enforcement technologies, the privacy, use, and destruction of the images and videos are
matters the D.C. Council is well-advised to consider and address clearly in amendments to the
legislation that authorizes ATE.

Recommendation:

That the D.C. Council, after conferring with MPD and DDOT, consider inserting
language in the D.C. Code to codify key ATE program elements, including, but not
limited to: 1) the confidentiality of and limitation on uses of all images and other
information collected by the Districts ATE program; 2) guidelines and timeframes for
the retention and destruction of all images and videos captured by the Districts program
equipment; 3) limitations on the number of cameras that can be placed in the District and
their hours of operation; 4) the requirement for a site-specific safety study prior to each
new camera placement; and 5) the requirement for a sign at every location where ATE
equipment is deployed.

33
See N.Y. VEH. & TRAF. LAW 1180-b(a)(5)(i); see also WASH. REV. CODE ANN. 46.63.170(1)(d).


Agree 1, 2 In Part Disagree 3, 4, 5

MPD/DDOT August 2014 Responses, As Received:
(1) Agree in part. MPD is respectful of an individual's privacy and recently hired a
Privacy Officer who will coordinate and manage the creation of strong privacy policies and
protocols to implement new technological tools. The Department follows federal regulations
[34]

on the retention of images with personally-identifiable information. Under these federal
provisions, such images are destroyed after 90 days if there are no pending administrative
hearings or any other matter involving a criminal predicate. MPD's Privacy Officer will review
ATE policies to ensure it is in compliance with federal requirements.

(2) Agree in part. As noted in the previous response, MPD's policy on the retention of
images with personally-identifiable information is governed by federal requirements. In
situations where no citation is issued by MPD's ATE program staff, the ATE camera images are
deleted after approximately 60 days. For situations where a citation is issued to a vehicle owner
for traffic violations, the images of the violation are maintained by the Department of Motor
Vehicles pursuant to its own retention policies. Additionally, while the ATE images are under the
control of MPD, only ATE program staff and the program vendors have password-protected
access to them. This protects confidentiality and limits access to the images by any non-ATE
program personnel.

OIG Comment: During fieldwork for the special evaluation, the OIG asked American
Traffic Solutions (ATS) where ATE system images are stored, for how long, and whether
they are eventually destroyed. ATS officials told the team that while MPD owns all the
images, they are stored in an ATS data center in Tempe, AZ for a period of 7 years, and
that ATS has not destroyed any images since it began its involvement in the Districts ATE
program. The OIG will discuss this issue with MPDs Privacy Officer during the
compliance phase of this special evaluation.

(3) Disagree. MPD and DDOT disagree with the OIG recommendations on limiting the
number of ATE camera locations or hours of operation. We believe that this recommendation
demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the ATE program and how to effectively and
consistently ensure traffic safety. As has been noted, the goal of the ATE program is not to
reduce traffic violations at a single location or time of day; the goal is to modify driver behavior
throughout the District so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists are safer while using
all roadways. And the facts show the ATE program is working. The District has experienced
significant reductions in collision-related fatalities and injuries, and speed-related collisions are
on a clear downward trend.

(4) Disagree. As noted in the response to OIG Finding #1, the need to deploy resources
to ensure public safety rests with the Chief of Police and transportation safety experts. While a
site justification can be produced, mandating that the District government simply take no
enforcement action until such a report is requested, procured, reviewed, released for public
comment, revised further, and then released in final format would be a severe impediment to the

34
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: 28 CFR Part 23.

timely and necessary deployment of a public safety resource.

(5) Disagree. MPD and DDOT adhere to the requirements of D.C. Official Code 50-
2201.31, which require signs posted throughout the District to give notice to motorists that the
District is a strict traffic enforcement zone and uses ATE cameras for moving violations. In
addition to there being signs warning motorists of photo enforcement posted on many speed limit
signs throughout the city, at each location where an ATE speed enforcement camera is deployed,
there is a sign adjacent to the speed limit sign giving notice of automated enforcement.

OIG Comment: The purpose of the jurisdictional comparison is to present stakeholders
and decision makers with context and information to assess the thoroughness and efficacy
of the administration of the Districts ATE program. The OIG stands by its
recommendations as stated and believes the D.C. Council should consider whether ATE
program elements and restrictions implemented by other jurisdictions are necessary in the
District, and work to revise the D.C. Code and DCMR accordingly.
MPD


MPD
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)

MPD

Background

MPD is the Districts primary law enforcement agency and its mission includes traffic
safety and reducing unsafe and aggressive driving.
35
The Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Support
Emergency Act of 1996 (D.C. Act 11-302) first authorized the use of automated photo
enforcement of moving violations. Red light cameras were first deployed in 1999, while the
Districts first speed violation cameras were activated in 2001. In the early years of its ATE
program, the District purchased cameras prior to their installation and paid a contractor to
process and prepare the images for review. In 2006, the District altered its approach to procuring
cameras. Under more recent contracts with equipment vendors, the District owns the equipment
at the conclusion of the contract period, while continuing to rely on contractors to prepare
violation images for MPDs review. As of J anuary 2014, the District was operating a total of 87
fixed, mobile, and portable speed cameras and 48 red light cameras. At that time, the District
was also in the process of activating a new generation of enforcement equipment, which includes
crosswalk, stop sign, and gridlock enforcement cameras. Additionally, the District plans to
activate more speed and red light violation enforcement locations this year.

Types of Tickets Issued
The tables below detail the numbers and types of tickets MPD issued in FYs 2011, 2012,
and 2013, and the associated revenues.
36

Table 6: Automated Tickets Issued by MPD FYs 2011-2013
37

FY
Automated Red
Light Violation
Tickets Issued
Automated
Speed Violation
Tickets Issued
Total Automated
Tickets Issued
Revenue From
Automated Tickets
2011 81,680 339,138 420,818 $60,105,091
2012 96,223 922,730 1,018,953 $91,806,356
2013 84,300 581,975 666,275 $88,832,976

Table 7: Parking Tickets Issued by MPD FYs 2011-2013

FY
Parking Tickets
Issued Using
Handheld Device
Handwritten
Parking
Violation
Tickets
Total Parking
Tickets Issued
Revenue From
Parking Tickets
2011 12,623 50,955 63,578 $4,996,064
2012 9,531 36,690 46,221 $4,026,292
2013 7,679 36,810 44,489 $3,751,113

35
See http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/traffic-safety-0 (last visited Feb. 6, 2014); see also http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/dc-
streetsafe-automated-traffic-enforcement (last visited Feb. 6, 2014).
36
The revenue dollars reported are based on payments processed within each of the three FYs, independent of when
the tickets associated with those payments were issued.
37
The numbers reported include voided and warning tickets.
MPD

Table 8: Moving Violation Tickets (Non-Automated) Issued by MPD FYs 2011-2013

FY
Moving Violation
Tickets Issued
Using a Handheld
Device
Handwritten
Moving
Violation Tickets
Total Moving
Violation (Non-
Automated)
Tickets Issued
Revenue From
Non-Automated
Moving Violation
Tickets
2011 57,563 55,627 113,190 $9,440,570
2012 44,441 39,346 83,787 $8,447,162
2013 42,228 37,372 79,600 $6,961,756

Best practices recommend that to increase program acceptance, revenue generated by an ATE
program should be placed in a highway safety fund.
38
At the time of fieldwork for this special
evaluation, automated ticket revenue was deposited into the Districts General Fund.
39

Additionally, the team reviewed the FY 2014 Budget Support Act and found other uses for ATE
revenue earmarked by the Council, e.g., the End Homelessness Fund.
40

Operations Overview

Automated Red Light Violation Enforcement

In the District, the driver of a vehicle may not enter an intersection when facing a solid
red light. A typical red light violation camera system consists of a camera mounted on a pole
70- 90 before the intersection, which is activated by vehicle detection sensors embedded in the
pavement near the intersection. These sensors indicate the lane of travel of the violating vehicle,
unlike most of the Districts automated speed enforcement equipment, which does not identify
the lane of travel. For each potential violation, two still images are captured, and depending on
the type of equipment at the location, a short video may also be recorded.
41

Intersections with red light enforcement equipment are marked with a crosswalk and a
white stripe located before the crosswalk, called a stop bar, or in some instances just the stop bar.
If a vehicle is before the crosswalk/stop bar in the first violation image, and its rear tires have
cleared the crosswalk/stop bar in the second image, a ticket may be issued. According to MPDs
training manual (page 47), a right turn on red following a complete stop is permitted, but a clear

38
See, e.g., http://www.ghsa.org/html/issues/auto_enforce.html (last visited Nov. 14, 2013).
39
As stated on the Districts website: The General Fund, which is the principal operating fund of the District, is
used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Http://budget.dc.gov/glossary-of-terms (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
40
In 2013, the Council directed all automated traffic enforcement revenues over $88 million to the Office of
Unified Communications Emergency and Non-Emergency Number telephone Calling Systems Fund (E-911
Fund). The E-911 Fund resources are dedicated to defraying technology and equipment costs incurred by the
District in providing a 911 system and costs incurred by wireless carriers in providing wireless E-911 service.
Http://app.cfo.dc.gov/services/fiscal_impact/pdf/spring09/FIS%20-
%20Fiscal%20Year%202014%20Budget%20Support%20Act%20of%202013.pdf (last visited J an. 29, 2014). The
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Support Act of 2013 repealed the dedication of ATE revenues to the E-911 Fund so that
all automated traffic enforcement revenues are deposited into the local fund. Id. (Note: The General Fund consists
of the local fund, dedicated funds, and special purpose funds.)
41
For those red light cameras with video capability, MPD reviews the video to confirm whether the violating vehicle
stopped before turning right.
MPD

stop must be made by the vehicle before the stop bar . If the vehicle does not stop[,] no matter
how slow it is going[,] a violation has occurred and a ticket should be issued.
42

Red light camera images are prima facie evidence
43
of violations. MPD reviewers
analyze still images and videos to determine whether violations occurred; in certain instances
where motorists commit a violation for a valid reason (e.g., moving to allow an emergency
vehicle to pass, or at the direction of a traffic control or MPD officer), tickets are not issued.
Even a District emergency vehicle can be issued an automated red light violation ticket, provided
its emergency lights are not illuminated in the violation images, i.e., an indication that the
vehicle was responding to a call for assistance.

Automated Speed Limit Enforcement

Automated speed limit violations
44
consist of either one or two captured images,
depending on the type of equipment used at a particular location. Pole-mounted units and
portable units set up on the side of the road both capture two images of potential violations;
cameras mounted to MPD vehicles only capture one image of each potential violation. (For the
latter category, a second image is unnecessary because the MPD officer in the vehicle witnessed
the violation and verified the violating vehicles speed.) While capable of monitoring both
approaching and receding traffic, MPDs speed camera units monitor only those vehicles
traveling away from the unit.

Typically, video is not used to record speeding violations in the District.
45
Photographs
of speeding violations are not prima facie evidence; therefore, speeding tickets require a
deployment log indicating that the equipment was set up, tested, and operating properly. Per the
Districts regulations, fixed-site speeding detection equipment needs to be tested every 4 days by
an MPD officer or technician. 18 DCMR 1035.2(b).

Roles of Contractors

ATS
The majority of MPDs photo enforcement equipment is maintained under a contract with
American Traffic Solutions (ATS).
46
Each month, ATS is paid a fixed, per unit fee for
maintaining the equipment and the initial processing of the images captured by their equipment:

42
MPD Photo Enforcement Violation Review Training Manual, April 2013, p. 47.
43
"Evidence that will establish a fact or sustain a judgment unless contradictory evidence is produced." BLACK'S
LAW DICTIONARY 598 (8th ed. 2004).
44
The Maryland Transportation Code defines a speed monitoring system as a device with one or more motor
vehicle sensors producing recorded images of motor vehicles traveling at speeds at least 12 miles per hour above the
posted speed limit[,] which implies that jurisdictions in Maryland do not issue automated speeding violations
unless a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit by at least 12 miles per hour. MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. 21-
809(a)(8) (LexisNexis current through emergency legislation effective May 15, 2014, and legislation effective J une
1, 2014, 2014 General Assembly Regular Session). Neither the District Code nor DCMR specifies a cushion
range for an automated speeding violation, but an MPD manager told the OIG that it does not process violations
unless the vehicle is traveling at least 11 miles per hour above the posted limit.
45
Some speeding cameras are able to record video. According to an MPD manager, video capability was added
because of a fatal hit-and-run incident that occurred at one camera location several years ago.
46
ATS has been the Districts primary ATE vendor since 2006. The estimated total costs of ATS current contract
MPD

$3,192 for each red light camera;
47

$4,788 for each fixed or portable speed unit,and
$6,385 for each mobile speed enforcement camera.
48

ATSs contract also contains cost reimbursement provisions for repairing/replacing equipment
($600,000); public information materials ($5,000); and facility lease expenses ($300,000). ATS
is paid the same amount of money per camera regardless of how many violations are processed
or tickets issued.
49
ATS is expected to send all potential violations to MPD for review within 10
days after the photograph is taken because tickets must be issued within 25 days;
50
according to
an MPD manager, ATS consistently meets this standard.

Sensys and Redflex
In 2011, MPD began the process to acquire new ATE technologies by issuing a request
for proposals (RFP) for new photo enforcement equipment with a 5-year warranty. MPD, not
the new equipment vendor(s), would be responsible for maintenance and processing the images
and other information captured by this second-generation equipment. Two vendors won the
contracts: Sensys provides most of the requested components (intersection speed and traffic
control, portable speed, gridlock, stop sign, and pedestrian safety enforcement technologies);
51

while Redflex provides oversize and overweight vehicle restriction enforcement equipment.
52

Sensys and Redflex furnish the equipment, train MPD employees on its use, and provide
technical support. The contracts with Sensys and Redflex are 1-year contracts with four, 1-year
options. In late 2013, MPD began deploying the new technologies and, in February 2014, the
District started issuing tickets for violations captured by the new equipment.

are:
Base Year: $6,386,179;
Option Year 1: $6,599,942; and
Option Year 2: $6,822,041.
47
These are the base year prices, the option year prices vary slightly.
48
These cameras are mounted to both marked and unmarked vehicles. According to an MPD manager, vehicle-
mounted speed enforcement cameras require more maintenance than the other types of cameras because they require
ATS employees to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to assist with downloading images, making sure
vehicles are ready to go out for the next shift, and responding to any issues with vehicles or the equipment.
49
ATS also subcontracts with Bazilio Cobb Associates to provide employees who process images.
50
Title 18 DCMR 3003.5 states: When a violation is detected by an automated traffic enforcement device, any
resulting ticket shall be mailed to the owner and the relevant information transmitted to the Department of Motor
Vehicles within twenty-five (25) days after the date the violation was detected.
51
The costs for the Sensys contract are:
Base Year 1: $9,726,552;
Option Year 1: $7,584,688;
Option Year 2: $6,751,632;
Option Year 4: $6,959,232.
52
The costs for the Redflex contract are:
Base Year 1: $887,224;
Option Year 1: $1,783,020;
Option Year 2: $1,793,644;
Option Year 4: $1,824,096.
MPD

Xerox
Xerox State and Local Solutions (Xerox) uses two systems, CiteNet and CiteWeb,
53
to
process and store the photographs and videos captured by MPDs ATE equipment and prepare
potential violations for review. For those violations verified and approved by MPD, a
subcontractor prints the tickets and mails them to the vehicles registered owners. The
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) administers the contract with Xerox, and MPD has a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DMV pertaining to processing tickets. Therefore,
MPD is not a party to the Xerox contract for ticket processing, but pays DMV via MOU to
administer the ticketing process, collect payments, and adjudicate tickets challenged by
motorists.
54

ATS, MPD Quality Assurance and Oversight Methods

The team assessed MPDs quality assurance and oversight methods to determine whether
appropriate diligence is applied to minimize the issuance of erroneous tickets. ATS and MPD
apply a multi-step review process during which several different people
55
look at each potential
violation to confirm both the existence of a violation and the issuing state and number on the
license plate of the violating vehicle.

The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administrations Speed
Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines state (on page 38): Ideally, all
violations should be reviewed and certified by at least two individuals. ATSs and MPDs
combined practices exceed this standard, with three to four people reviewing each potential
violation. (See Appendix 3 for an overview of the review processes.) This multi-step review
process helps minimize errors and increase accuracy within the ticketing process.

In addition to multiple reviews of all potential violations, MPD uses a number of reports
to monitor and administer automated ticketing processes. A number of these reports are detailed
in Table 9 :

53
The new photo enforcement equipment acquired by the District sends images directly to MPD contract employees
who use CiteNet to (1) determine whether there was a violation and (2) crop the images so that the license plates can
be enlarged and presented clearly. Once cropped, the images are uploaded to CiteWeb where they are reviewed
again by contract employees and MPD sworn officers. Potential violations captured by MPDs first-generation
photo enforcement equipment are reviewed and prepared by ATS and then sent via file transfer protocol to Xerox
where they are put into CiteWeb for MPD to review.
54
The MOUs between MPD and DMV were valued at:
$4,761,847 (FY 2011);
$4,697,022 (FY 2012); and
$6,200,000 (FY 2013).
According to a DMV employee, [t]he large increase in FY13 assumed hiring of additional hearing examiners or
reimbursement for overtime to reduce photo ticket hearing backlogs and increased photo ticket issuance. The latter
did not occur so a sizeable portion of that money has been/will be returned by DMV to MPD as part of year-end
reconciliation.
55
All MPD civilian employees performing photo enforcement work are Information Technology Staff
Augmentation (ITSA) contractors, managed by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). ITSA is a
hiring program for technical civilians managed by OCTO; this program was designed to allow District managers to
hire staff quickly. MPD is in the process of converting contractors who passed an MPD background investigation to
full-time MPD employees.
MPD

Table 9 - Reports Used by MPD to Review Automated Ticketing Processes
Status Analysis Report: contains
information that is transmitted from the
front-end vendor (ATS) to the back-end
vendor (Xerox) and details the number
of tickets mailed, tickets rejected or
accepted, and license plates without
registered addresses.
First-Level Review Approval Report:
compiles data from initial ATS
contractor review; identifies the
reviewer, how many hours he/she
worked, how many tickets were accepted
or rejected, and types of rejected tickets.
Initial Approval Productivity Report:
compiles data from initial MPD
contractor approval of tickets, prior to
the sworn officer review; identifies the
worked, how many tickets were
accepted or rejected, and the types of
rejected tickets.
Location Performance Detail and
Summary Report: provides a summary
of each camera location, including how
many images were processed, how many
images were rejected, and whether
images were rejected for controllable or
uncontrollable reasons.
Approval Productivity Report:
compiles data from the MPD sworn
officers review; identifies the
worked, how many tickets were
accepted or rejected, and the types of
rejected tickets.
Sensys and Redflex Site Report:
details whether a camera is in alignment.
When a camera is set up, its settings are
documented. When an employee is
reviewing a ticket in CiteWeb, this
report allows him or her to look at
sample images to see if the camera is in
alignment.

There are a number of other processes that further support MPDs quality assurance (QA)
activities:

Reject review - An MPD contractor reviews all rejected violations to ensure that they
were properly rejected.
56
ATS also conducts its own reject review.
Spot checking - According to an MPD manager and an MPD contractor, an MPD
contractor spot checks tickets almost daily. During these spot checks, the employee
ensures that violations were accepted or rejected based on MPDs business rules.
57

Additionally, an MPD manager is automatically sent one ticket from every batch
58

to verify such things as image quality and the accuracy of the citation.
Updated business rules - According to an MPD manager, MPDs business rules are
revised all the time. For example, when a new license plate type is added by a
state, the manual is updated.

56
If there is a violation that should have been issued, but was rejected, it will be corrected. If the reviewer assigned
to the reject review queue sees a pattern of rejections issued by the same processor that should not have been
rejected, the processor is notified and the issue is discussed so that it does not happen again.
57
MPDs business rules dictate the protocols for when to accept or reject a potential ATE violation and are
documented in MPDs Photo Enforcement Violation Review Training Manual.
58
A batch includes as many as 400 tickets.
MPD

Training - MPD contractors and sworn officers receive regular on-the-job training.
When mistakes/issues occur, re-training occurs. For example, when needed, a
reminder will be sent to all employees not to issue tickets when tag images are
fuzzy.
MPD QA process document - This report details every step in the photo
enforcement process including what the step is, how success is defined, what can go
wrong, and how to mitigate problems.

Although MPD performs QA steps in reviewing photographic evidence, the OIG team
identified additional ways MPD could improve its oversight of automated ticketing processes,
including the following:

Reject review queue report - No report is generated for the reject review queue,
although MPD requested one from Xerox. This report could be used to identify a
reviewer who is wrongly rejecting a disproportionately large number of tickets;
CiteNet queue report - An MPD manager told the team that this report is in
development. This report would display information on the work conducted by
reviewers in CiteNet, including who worked, how many hours he/she worked, how
many tickets were accepted and rejected, and the types of rejects.
Reference guide - An MPD manager informed the team that a reference guide has
not yet been implemented but that it would be helpful to have a process cheat sheet
for new employees.

An MPD manager said that although a few things [e.g., incorrect tickets] slip through,
most errors are caught through the multi-step review process. The team agrees that many
potential errors are contained because of MPDs QA processes. For example, without a reject
review, MPD might be at risk of fraudulently rejected tickets (e.g., MPD contractors or officers
rejecting violations committed by friends or family members). Similarly, because of MPDs
multiple review process, improperly approved tickets can be detected by other reviewers.

The team recognizes that despite the QA processes in place, there remains a chance of
human error, especially with the volume of violations reviewed. Processors may make
typographical errors, e.g., transposing numbers and letters, that may be repeated and/or not
caught by future reviewers. Accordingly, the team noted additional ways that MPD could
improve its processes, which are addressed in the following findings and recommendations.

OIG Assessment of MPDs Ticketing Operations

Are MPD violation review policies and procedures clear and complete?

Violation review and approval/disapproval procedures, commonly referred to as MPDs
business rules for violation processing, are documented in MPDs Photo Enforcement
Violation Review Training Manual. The manual provides basic explanations of red light and
speed violation enforcement technologies, and uses actual images captured by ATE cameras to
illustrate various instances when it is appropriate to issue a ticket, as well as situations where
violations should be dismissed without issuing a ticket. MPD interviewees generally described
MPD

the manual as adequate. MPD reviewers also said they received 1-2 weeks of training, either
from a manager or another reviewer, that covered topics such as identifying license plates and
using the image review/preparation software, and felt the initial training and ongoing training
they receive from MPDs ATE program manager were sufficient.

Unlike red light violation detection equipment, which has sensors embedded in the
pavement at the enforcement site, the Districts speed camera technology does not indicate the
lane in which the violating vehicle was traveling.
59
Therefore, MPD reviewers must rely on on-
the-job training and the MPD training manual to decide whether a speeding violation has
occurred and to identify the violating vehicle. Based on a review of the training manual and
interviews with MPD reviewers, the OIG team came away with two overriding impressions of
the speed violation review process: (1) decisions on whether to issue a speeding ticket can be
arbitrary; and (2) reviewers decisions were not consistent in certain situations, such as what to
do when there are multiple vehicles in the images or when the vehicle in the violation images
does not match the vehicle cited on the registration information linked to the photographed
license plate.

3. Guidelines used by MPD reviewers to decide whether a speeding violation occurred
lack precision and, in certain situations (e.g., when multiple vehicles are captured in
an image), reviewers decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, which raises a
concern that some photo-enforced speeding tickets are issued without a conclusive
determination of the violating vehicle or that a violation has occurred.
Multiple Vehicles Review Guidelines for Speeding Violations Lack Precision
One of the primary decisions that MPD reviewers must make is whether a speeding
violation is clearly documented. On multi-lane roads where speed cameras have been deployed,
it is common for a camera to capture images where two or more vehicles are traveling in the
same direction, either in the same lane or adjacent lanes. In these situations, the reviewer must
determine which vehicle, if either, was in violation. This is commonly referred to as the
multiple vehicles rule and the slides and captions below, which appear in MPDs training
manual, exemplify the types of decisions that reviewers make each day.

59
In February 2014, MPD deployed new speed camera technology at some locations that assists with identifying the
violating vehicle. According to MPD, the radar used with Sensyss cameras determines which vehicle was speeding
and identifies it by imposing a green bar in the violation images. MPD officials indicated that the cameras are set
on a site-by-site basisto not photograph situations where multiple vehicles are present and unseparated by a
minimum distance (e.g., 10' - 15'). However, MPD also stated that if images taken by these new cameras capture
more than one vehicle and the vehicles are too close, reviewers will not issue a ticket. The fact that reviewers
must still decide whether to reject violations due to multiple vehicles underscores an ongoing lack of precision and
conclusiveness in the Districts ability to identify speeding vehicles in certain instances.
MPD


MPD


MPD

MPD intends for these images to clearly illustrate situations where reviewers should
confirm or dismiss violations. However, without specificity for defining a hidden vehicle and
a method for precisely concluding that two vehicles are too close together, the OIG believes that
in certain instances the process for conclusively identifying the violating vehicle depends too
much on an individual reviewers judgment and, therefore, is not sufficiently precise. This belief
was reinforced by comments made by ATS and MPD interviewees:

One initial reviewer said that while the data bar in a potential speeding violation
image will indicate the speed of the vehicle that triggered the camera, if there are
two pictures of a violation there [has to be] enough movement [of the vehicle] to
show that the speed was accurate.

A supervisory reviewer opined that processing speeding violations is easier than
red light violations, the only hard part being determining which vehicle was
actually speeding when there are multiple vehicles. According to this reviewer,
the violating vehicle is usually the closer one, based on where the camera is
positioned.

An MPD reviewer admitted that the multiple vehicles rule can be confusing and
described how instructions given to reviewers have changed several times, which has had the
effect, intentional or not, of reducing the number of violations rejected due to multiple
vehicles. Several years ago, reviewers were told not to issue a ticket for any violation image(s)
in which more than one vehicle was visible. Then, reviewers were instructed to reject violations
only if the license plate of another vehicle appeared in an image with the vehicle suspected of
speeding. The guidance was revised again as reviewers were told that if only a portion of a
second vehicle (and not its license plate) is visible, the violation should not be dismissed due to
multiple vehicles. This reviewer said that, currently, the multiple vehicles rule is based on the
distance between the two vehicles captured in the image(s), which s/he described as needing to
be a decent amount of distance a significant amount of distance. MPDs business rules do
not define a method for precisely determining this distance, or when a violation should be
dismissed because multiple vehicles appear in the image(s).

Until August 2013, the DCMR contained a precise methodology for identifying which
vehicle was targeted by the Districts automated speed enforcement cameras. Title 18 DCMR
1035.5 previously stated:

A vehicle traveling in the direction being tested and whose image
is entirely or partially within the two diagonal lines of a cone
shown on an official overlay transparency, when the hearing
examiner places that transparency over a photo of the violation
provided by the Metropolitan Police Department, is the vehicle
whose speed was detected by the photo radar device. The
dimensions of the cone and the overlay transparency are depicted
below.

MPD


The cone depicted above was previously used to show which car was targeted by the
speed camera. However, in August 2013, 18 DCMR 1035.5 was changed to read:

The images captured by the photo radar device shall enable
identification of the vehicle whose speed was detected by the radar
unit.

Illustrations of How Tickets Could be Issued in Error

Other slides in MPDs business rules, though presented in that document as examples of
when a ticket should not be issued, also demonstrate how tickets could be issued in error. In the
first example on the following page, the business rules state that a vehicle in the left lane (which
is not visible in the first image but is partially visible in the second) triggered the camera.
However, it is conceivable that a reviewer, who is processing 100 or more potential violations an
hour,
60
could (1) conclude that the vehicle in the foreground is the offending vehicle, (2) decide
that the hidden vehicle did not trigger the camera, and (3) approve issuance of a ticket.

60
Employees self-reported that they reviewed between 100 and 200 violations per hour. (One employee even noted
that he/she could review up to 500 violations in 1 hour.)
MPD


There is another scenario that cannot be discounted: that the vehicle in the left lane is fully
obscured in the first image and partially obscured in the second, and that the vehicle closest to
the camera was the violating vehicle. Given that much of the Districts speed camera technology
does not conclusively identify the lane of travel of the speeding vehicle, it is conceivable that one
reviewer would reject this violation, while another would issue a ticket to the vehicle closest to
the camera.

MPD

The images below of a school bus are another illustration of how an erroneous ticket
could be issued due to either faulty technology, or because the vehicle that may have been
speeding is blocked from view.

Rightly so, MPDs business rules clearly state that a ticket should not have been issued in
this instance. However, what is interesting is the explanation: It is probably that the RADAR
detected a car on the left of the bus traveling at 61 miles per hour. That is possible, but given
that neither the bus nor the two vehicles in the top right of the images have moved, it does not
seem likely that another vehicle in the vicinity was able to reach that speed. That implausible
explanation highlights the limitations of the technology: in many situations, one or two speed
camera images cannot tell an accurate story, and when such situations are left to a reviewers
interpretation and judgment, arbitrary and erroneous ticketing decisions will result. Once the
ticket is issued, however, the onus is on the recipient to disprove an erroneous interpretation of
events, or simply pay the fine.

Most of the Districts automated speed enforcement equipment, unlike its red light
violation equipment, does not identify the violating vehicles lane of travel, hence the need for
the multiple vehicles rule, which is neither clearly defined nor precise. As long as the District
continues to deploy equipment that requires reviewers to decide which vehicle was speeding,
judgments using imperfect information will continue. To minimize the issuance of erroneous
MPD

speeding tickets in the District, MPD should explore ways to make deployments of existing
enforcement technology more precise and clarify the multiple vehicles rule.

Recommendation:

That the C/MPD: 1) instruct violation reviewers to not issue a speeding ticket in any
instance where the violation images capture more than one vehicle traveling in the same
direction; 2) write and implement a more precise multiple vehicles business rule that
clearly documents this policy; and 3) confer with ATS and its other technology vendors
to determine whether all currently deployed speed enforcement equipment can be used
more precisely, e.g., to target only one lane of travel at an enforcement location.

Agree Disagree

[Note: The MPD/DDOT response did not indicate agree or disagree for this recommendation.]

First, it is important to note that the ATE program staff carefully reviews any images
containing multiple vehicles before approving the issuance of a citation. Citations are issued to
vehicle owners only when the program staff can identify the vehicle they believe has committed a
traffic law infraction.

Second, in a highly urbanized jurisdiction like the District, there are often multiple
vehicles traveling on the same roadway. The Report urges the prohibition of any citations if any
ATE camera photographs more than one vehicle in its frame. But if the District followed the
Report's recommendation, it would become nearly impossible to enforce traffic violations
against any vehicle unless that vehicle was the only vehicle on the roadway.
[61]

MPD agrees on the need to use the best technology and to have sufficient quality control
mechanisms in place to ensure accuracy and consistency. But not every instance of multiple
vehicles in an image should automatically result in ticket dismissal. Instead of a blanket amnesty
policy as recommended by the Report, new technology being deployed at ATE camera locations
clearly shows which vehicle is the one detected speeding when more than one vehicle is captured
in the image. MPD is deploying these ATE cameras at locations with more than one lane of
traffic in either location, which will address the Report's concerns about "multiple vehicles"
without providing a free pass to drivers committing traffic violations. For ATE cameras using
the older technology, they are deployed at locations with one lane of traffic in either direction.
MPD believes this change in technology and policy addresses the Report's concerns about
"multiple vehicles."

OIG Comment: The OIG stands by its recommendation as stated. When asked about the
new speed camera technology, an MPD official said that even when other vehicles are
recorded by a violation image, the technology identifies a single speeding vehicle. However,
the official also said that these new cameras are configured to not capture images if

61
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: Presumably, the Reports same logic would apply to any officer that
observes traffic violations where there are multiple vehicles traveling close to one another.
MPD

multiple vehicles are present and are too close to each other. This threshold is site-
specific and determined by factors such as camera position and roadway design. When
asked whether MPD reviewers rely solely on the technologys indication of the speeding
vehicle before approving issuance of a ticket, the MPD official acknowledged that reviewer
discretion is still involved: if multiple vehicles are captured in an image and are deemed
too close, the reviewer will not approve issuance of a ticket. Again, the fact that (1)
camera thresholds vary from site to site, and (2) MPD reviewers must still decide in some
instances whether to reject possible violations due to the presence and positioning of
multiple vehicles, underscores the new technologys limitations and an ongoing lack of
precision and conclusiveness in the Districts ability to identify speeding vehicles in certain
instances.

The OIGs concerns regarding multiple vehicles remain and are reinforced by an
interviewees explanation of a rule of thumb applied by MPD: If a member of the
public received the notice of violation in the mail, would he or she contest it saying it was
not his or her car?

Are MPDs other quality assurance practices sufficiently stringent?

Once a reviewer concludes that a speeding or red light violation has occurred, the next
step prior to issuing a ticket is to identify the owner of the vehicle captured in the violation
image(s). Page 38 of the Federal Highway Administrations Speed Enforcement Camera
Systems Operational Guidelines state: Once registration information has been received,
violation processors should perform a second check to ensure that the make and model of the
vehicle reported in the registration information matches the vehicle in the violation photo. The
OIG team was surprised to learn that some MPD reviewers will approve the issuance of a ticket
even if the type of vehicle captured in the violation differs from the type of vehicle described in
registration information. To minimize the issuance of erroneous tickets, MPD should
discontinue this practice.

4. MPD issues a moving violation ticket even if the vehicle make and model
information on the registration does not match the vehicle captured in the violation
images. This practice can lead to the issuance of erroneous tickets; in similar
instances, other jurisdictions do not issue tickets.
Tickets Issued When Vehicle in Images Does Not Match Registration Information
During the first review of a potential violation (which is conducted by either MPD or
ATS, depending on which equipment captured the violation images), the reviewer manually
enters the violating vehicles license plate number and issuing state into one of several systems.
62

Through an interface with the Washington Area Law Enforcement System (WALES),
63
which

62
MPD reviews and processes violations in CiteNet or CiteWeb while ATS processors initially review violations in
Axsis.
63
WALES is the front door to a system called the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(NLETS). For example, if an individual with a Montana license is pulled over by an MPD officer in the District, the
officer would enter the individuals information into WALES, which then interfaces with NLETS to search the
MPD

searches other states motor vehicle registration information, one of MPDs vendors sends
batches of information through WALES to identify the registered owner of each violating
vehicle, his or her address, and information about the vehicle to which the plate was issued. If
this search returns registration information, i.e., WALES obtains a hit, another reviewer will
look at the violation images and manually enter the license plate number and issuing state and
conduct a second search for registration information. CiteWeb will then indicate whether the
state and license plate entered the second time matches the information entered by the first
reviewer. This redundancy is one of several intended to ensure accuracy in the ticketing process.
(See Appendix 3 for illustrations of MPDs violation review processes.)

The Virginia
64
and Maryland
65
Codes are silent as to whether tickets are issued in such
instances, but in practice, both Arlington County, VA and Prince Georges County, MD do not
issue a ticket if the make and model of the vehicle in the violation images do not match
information obtained through the registration search.

Unclear Business Rules, Differing Decisions by Reviewers

With regard to instances where vehicle registration information does not comport with
what is in the violation images, instructions in MPDs written business rules are not clear,
stating:

Make sure the vehicle make from the registry return matches the vehicle make in the
picture. (page 101)
Under Other Disapproval Reasons, it states, Wrong Tag in Image: The tag does
not match the vehicle that is in violation. (page 44)

MPDs training guide also contains this slide:

Montana DMVs database.
64
See VA. CODE ANN. 15.2-968.1.
65
See MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. 21-809.
MPD


The OIG team interviewed violation reviewers to determine whether, despite unclear
written guidance, reviewers handling of these instances were consistent. Their comments are
paraphrased:

MPD manager If the violating vehicles license plate is clear in the image, a ticket
may be issued if the make and model of the vehicle do not match the registered make
and model of the car as reported to MPD through WALES.
MPD reviewer I do the final review. Im looking for a clear, legible tag, making
sure I see the make and model of the vehicle, that the tag matches the vehicle, and
that the violation was committed. A ticket is not issued if the make and model of the
vehicle shown in the image do not match the registration information.
MPD reviewer If the make and model of the violating vehicle do not match the
registered make and model, I will reject the ticket. I never approve such tickets.

Issuing a ticket when the violating vehicles information does not match registration
database search results leads to the issuance of erroneous tickets, which may explain the fact that
the OIG frequently receives correspondence from out-of-state motorists insisting that their
vehicle is not the violating vehicle. The motorist is then in a difficult and uninformed position of
having to figure out and prove how the District or another jurisdiction erroneously linked his or
her vehicle to the license plate in the violation image. The onus in these instances should be on
MPD

the District to make issued tickets irrefutable not on vehicle owners to prove how the District
erred when it issued the tickets.

Recommendations:

(1) That the C/MPD instruct MPD reviewers to not issue a ticket unless both the
vehicle make and model in the violation images match the make and model
information obtained through MPDs license plate search procedures.

Agree Disagree

(2) That the C/MPD ensure that MPDs violation review business rules and all
training materials clearly articulate this policy.

Agree Disagree

(3) That the D.C. Council insert language into the D.C. Code and/or DCMR stating
that if the make and model of a violating vehicle captured by ATE equipment
does not match the make and model of the vehicle identified by license plate
search procedures, then the District will not issue a ticket.

Agree Disagree

[Note: The MPD/DDOT response did not indicate agree or disagree for any of these three recommendations.]

Agree in part. On some occasions, ATE program staff may issue citations to a vehicle
whose tags, make and model in the image do not match the make and model information in a
vehicle registration database. In issuing citations for "mismatched" tags, the experience of MPD
officers and ATE program staff has been that vehicle owners may switch their vehicle tags from
one vehicle to another, often to avoid the consequences of driving an unregistered vehicle.

Although the Report states that it "frequently receives correspondence from out-of-state
motorists insisting that their vehicle is not the violating vehicle", ATE program managers are
unaware of any of these "frequent" complaints having been forwarded to them for review and
resolution. Additionally, the Report fails to quantify the frequency with which OIG has received
these types of complaints or how OIG has attempted to resolve them.

MPD will amend its ATE policy to require that when an image captures a vehicle with
tags, make and model that do not match the information in the vehicle registration database, it
shall be subject to a second level of review before a citation is issued to the vehicle owner.
During the second level of review, staff will seek to determine the reason for the mismatch. If the
cause of the mismatch can be identified and corrected (such as, for example, an erroneous
recording of the tags or the vehicle's make or model, or the tags belong to the same owner as
vehicle in the image), the citation will be issued. However, if the cause of the mismatch cannot
be identified, then the citation will be dismissed by ATE program staff and not issued to the
vehicle owner.
MPD

OIG Comment: While the planned changes to MPDs violation review practices are a
positive development, the OIG still encourages the D.C. Council to insert language into the
D.C. Code and/or DCMR stating that if the make and model of a violating vehicle captured
by ATE equipment does not match the make and model of the vehicle identified by license
plate search procedures, then the District will not issue a ticket.

Is available technology being used fully to properly document non-automated parking and
traffic violations (i.e., those tickets given to motorists by MPD patrol officers)?

Implementation of ATE equipment in the District has resulted in a decline in the number
of moving violation tickets issued annually by MPD patrol officers: 30% fewer moving
violation tickets in FY 2013 (79,600) compared to FY 2011 (113,190). The data in Table 7 on
page 28 also show that by a ratio of 5:1, handwritten parking violation tickets still outnumber
parking tickets officers issued from a handheld electronic device, while the number of
handwritten moving violation tickets officers issued each year is roughly equal to the number of
handwritten parking violation tickets officers issued.
66
While the numbers of both parking and
moving violation tickets issued by officers on patrol are steadily declining, either by
circumstance or due to an intentional shift in MPD officers priorities while they are on duty, the
number of tickets issued annually by MPD officers is still substantial: over 110,000 in FY 2013.
The OIG did not determine the frequency with which motorists appeal parking and moving
violation tickets issued by MPD officers (and whether motorists appeal automated moving
violation tickets less frequently than they appeal tickets issued by an officer), but it is reasonable
to assume that an increased use of images and audio notes to document and support tickets would
help officers provide conclusive evidence of a violation (e.g., an image of a vehicle parked in a
bus zone), and thereby reduce the likelihood that a motorist will contest a ticket. Given the large
number of District parking and moving violation tickets that are appealed each year,
67
and the
costly, time-consuming adjudication process, the District should explore all reasonable efforts to
increase the irrefutability of issued tickets.

5. MPD officers who use handheld electronic devices to issue parking and moving
violation tickets need written guidance on capturing photographic evidence.
Patrol Officers Need Written Guidance for Handheld Ticketing Devices
Instead of handwriting tickets for parking and moving violations, some MPD officers
carry electronic devices that can record up to four images and 2 minutes of audio for each
infraction.
68
The team reviewed the handheld user guide and determined that the types of

66
It is also interesting to note that the numbers of parking tickets issued by MPD patrol officers have declined
steadily over the last 3 years. From FY 2011 to FY 2013, the total number of parking tickets issued by officers
decreased 30%.
67
In calendar year 2012, motorists contested nearly 100,000 moving violation tickets and over 200,000 parking,
standing, stopping, and pedestrian safety violation tickets. (See Appendix 2.)
68
MPDs handheld devices are provided by Symbol Technologies, a subsidiary of Motorola. MPD purchased its
handheld units with federal grant funds. MPD developed software for the units with DMVs vendor, Xerox. The
devices are programmed to document various violations, such as parking, speeding, registration, and taxicab
licensure violations. MPD currently has about 275 of these units, and some were being prepared for deployment at
the time of this special evaluation. According to an MPD manager, there were about 180 units in the field at the
time of this special evaluation; however, the cost of each device prohibits wider deployment.
MPD

images and other information that officers should capture for different violations are not
discussed. As a result, officers may not know what photographic evidence should be captured to
document a violation.

There is no District or MPD requirement that an MPD officer take pictures or record
voice notes to document a parking or moving violation, and MPD does not give officers
instructions on using the devices. Requiring officers to take photographs of license plates when
issuing moving and parking violations would help prevent tag recordation errors. Images of a
violation would also afford the District and the motorist evidence in the event the motorist
chooses to contest the ticket. Violation images would also be useful to motorists who receive
notices of unpaid tickets for violations they did not commit. For example, if an officer
incorrectly transcribes a license plate and, as a result, the unpaid ticket is linked to another
vehicle, a difficult onus is placed on an innocent motorist to prove that his or her vehicle was not
the violating vehicle. If officers were to capture images of the violation and the vehicles tag,
make, and model, both MPD and the public would certainly benefit.

Recommendation:

That the C/MPD: 1) mandate MPD officers increased use of handheld devices to
photograph and document parking and moving violations; 2) submit proposed rulemaking
to amend the DCMR to include provisions for when officers should capture photographic
evidence to document parking and moving violations; 3) create and promulgate internal
policies and procedures for capturing images and other information with the handheld
devices to better document parking and moving violations; and 4) train officers on any
new policies and procedures.

Agree In Part Disagree

Agree in part. MPD does not agree that the Report's recommendation for mandating the
use of handheld electronic devices to all officers is in the public interest or a responsible use of
public funds.

For moving violations, mandating that an officer take a photograph of the violation as it
is occurring while using a handheld device is neither feasible nor necessary. It would be
impractical to expect an officer to be able to properly photograph speeding or red light running
as the infraction is occurring. In addition, any ticket issued by an officer would be to the vehicle
driver and would be based on the information contained on the individual's driver license; this
negates concerns about incorrectly identified plates or the vehicle's make or model.

For parking violations, MPD will review the ATE program policy on the use of handheld
electronic devices by MPD officers.

Additionally, the use of photographic evidence program is simply a courtesy to vehicle
owners. It does not - and should not - change the evidentiary requirements for establishing a
prima facie case for parking violations.
MPD

OIG Comment: The report does not recommend mandating the use of handheld devices by
all officers as MPD states. The OIG is advocating the increased use of these devices to
increase the accuracy and thoroughness of the evidence that underpins parking and
moving violations because, as stated in Tables 7 and 8, MPD officers handwrote nearly
75,000 parking and moving violation tickets in FY 2013.

In their response, MPD/DDOT wrote: It would be impractical to expect an officer to be able
to properly photograph speeding or red light running as the infraction is occurring. The OIG
agrees and did not recommend that officers capture photographic evidence of all violations.
As stated in the report, requiring officers to take photographs of license plates when issuing
moving and parking violations would help prevent tag recordation errors. The voice notes
function could be used to efficiently capture additional details of all violations.

Furthermore, a review of 18 DCMR 2600 (Civil Fines for Motor Vehicle Moving
Infractions) yields a number of moving violations that the OIG believes could be more
efficiently and thoroughly documented using the handheld devices imaging features.
Examples of such violations include:

Commercial vehicle, spilling load
Covering tags
Failure to display current inspection sticker
Operating with expired inspection sticker or expired rejection sticker
Altering tags
Expired tags
Improper display of tags
Vision front or side obstructed
Windshield, defective or obstructed
DPW


DPW
Department of Public Works (DPW)
DPW

Background

DPWs Parking Enforcement Management Administrations (PEMA) 358 employees
(actual, FY 2013) constitute the Districts largest ticketing entity. PEMAs 195 parking
enforcement officers (PEOs), 20 supervisors, and 3 shift coordinators monitor the Districts
approximately 17,000 metered parking spaces and 3,500 blocks of residential zoned parking.
69

PEOs patrol designated areas (also referred to as beats) 7 days a week with the following
purpose: To improve public safety, quality of life and economic competitiveness by enforcing
parking regulations and vehicular safety, providing smooth traffic flow and increased access to
short-term parking at meters and residential streets.
70
The DCMR grants DPW the authority to
issue tickets only for parking infractions; PEOs do not issue tickets for moving violations.
71

All PEOs must complete a 9-week training course, which includes a final exam, before
they may issue tickets. The training covers, inter alia: 1) violation types; 2) how to interpret
parking signs; 3) how to operate the equipment they carry (i.e., handheld device, printer); 4)
ethics; and 5) safety. In addition to parking enforcement, PEMA manages the Districts booting
and towing program and assists with removal of abandoned and dangerous vehicles.

In FY 2013, DPW PEOs issued nearly 1.4 million tickets for approximately 130 types of
violations. The most commonly cited violations pertained to:

1. an expired meter (231,305 tickets issued);
2. parking in a residential permit parking (RPP)
72
zone without a proper
permit (145,182 tickets issued);
3. disobeying an official sign (124,969 tickets issued);
4. no parking street cleaning (95,678 tickets issued); and
5. no parking or standing evening rush hour (66,897 tickets issued.)

On average, each PEO issues 30 to 40 tickets per day. However, this figure may increase
or decrease depending on the day of the week, such as weekends, with reduced vehicular traffic,
where ticket writing volume drops significantly; time of year (e.g., during the holiday shopping
season); or when a special event is taking place in the city. DPWs Parking Control Branch
Training Manual (Training Manual) cites responsiveness to citizen requests for parking
enforcement and residential permit parking service as well as the percentage of daily block
coverage of RPP enforcement as key customer service measures.

69
Http://dpw.dc.gov/page/about-dpw (last visited J an. 14, 2014).
70
DPW Parking Control Branch Training Manual, Section 1, Parking Enforcement Overview at 10.
71
By contrast, District Department of Transportation Traffic Control Officers have the authority to issue tickets for
both parking and moving violations.
72
Motorists are only permitted to park in RPP zones for designated timeframes. Once the timeframe has elapsed,
motorists must display an RPP or visitors pass in the windshield of their vehicle. Motorists who do not comply
with this requirement may receive a ticket. Http://dpw.dc.gov/service/ticketing (last visited J an. 8, 2014).
DPW

Operations Overview

DPW PEOs use electronic handheld devices to capture violation information and
generate tickets, formally known as Notices of Infraction, while on patrol. PEOs manually enter
violation information into the handheld, such as the vehicle license plate number and issuing
state, the vehicles make and body type (e.g., 2 door, 4 door), and the location and type of
violation. Additional fields in the handhelds software are programmed to populate
automatically. Data fields for ticket date, ticket time, and fine amount autocomplete and appear
on the ticket when it is printed. There is also a Notes section in the software that allows PEOs
to document additional violation information, such as approximations of distance (e.g., 5 feet
from an intersection) or the time that the PEO first observed and began timing the vehicle and
the time limit exceeded by a vehicle parked longer than permitted. The handhelds allow PEOs to
create tickets but they do not have printing capabilities; therefore, PEOs also carry a small
printer. At the conclusion of their work day, PEOs connect their handheld devices to a docking
station and the data from the devices are uploaded into the Districts electronic ticket information
management system (eTIMS), a system that is managed by Xerox under a contract administered
by DMV.

Using DPWs TicPix application, motorists can view images of the violation for which
they received a ticket.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so [DPW] is posting images
of parking tickets and the violations that led to the tickets being
issued by DPW. The images are being posted so that motorists
will better understand why tickets are issued.

* * *

Images, if any, will be posted 72 hours after a ticket is issued and
only DPW-issued tickets will have associated images. Images will
be posted for no more than 90 days.[
73
]

Motorists may pay DPW-issued tickets (as well as DDOT- and MPD-issued parking and moving
violation tickets) through the District DMV website, or by mailing payment. If a motorist does
not pay (i.e., admit to committing the violation) or would like to contest the ticket, DMV also
administers those processes.
74

Role of Contractor

In 2011, the Office of Contracting and Procurement, on behalf of DPW and PEMA,
awarded a 4 year fixed-price contract totaling $2,726,735 to EZTag
75
for support services for

73
Http://www.eztag-dcdpw.com/ticpixportal/DCCustomerPortal.jsp (last visited May 21, 2014).
74
Part II of this special evaluation will focus on the payment, adjudication, and appeals processes applied to parking
and moving violation tickets issued by the District.
75
EZTag maintains and supports the mobile enforcement system including the software (EZTag/GTECHNAs
Officer Command application), computer networking equipment and wireless services, and the handheld devices.
DPW

PEMAs existing parking enforcement activities, and maintenance and enhancements to the
existing EZTag system, including the TicPix website.

Quality Assurance and Oversight Methods

To monitor productivity and minimize issuance of erroneous tickets by PEOs, PEMA
managers are expected to conduct various reviews. At the end of a shift, each PEO must
complete a daily activity report to document, among other things:

hours on patrol;
tickets issued;
tickets voided;
vehicle tows authorized; and
data on vehicles observed/timed in residential areas.

A PEMA official said information from these reports is used to conduct weekly reviews. PEMA
officials use a Tickets by Officer Average report to identify PEOs with below-average
activity.
76
Once identified, the names of those PEOs are sent to their respective supervisors who
then meet with them individually to discuss their ticketing practices and determine whether
additional training is needed. PEMA also uses a Voids Reasons by Officers report
77
to
highlight weaknesses or suspicious patterns in the ticketing process. DPW supervisors also
conduct an annual beat analysis to determine how well enforcement efforts are working in
particular locations and identify others that may require more or less frequent enforcement. A
DPW representative attends monthly meetings with DDOT, MPD, and DMV counterparts where
ticketing practices and performance information are discussed and potential solutions to
problems are addressed. Each month, DPW receives a report from DMV detailing tickets voided
by DMV hearing examiners. When reviewing the reports, DPW officials identify which PEOs
tickets were contested, and which PEOs tickets were dismissed and why. Officials assess the
data to determine whether: additional training is needed for a specific PEO, the error that caused
the dismissal is being committed by other PEOs, or there is a systemic issue, e.g., a problem in
the handhelds software.

76
DPWs PEOs are not instructed to issue a minimum number of tickets each shift as there are no quotas. However,
DPW does monitor PEOs productivity.
77
This report contains the reasons cited by each PEO for tickets they voided. Common reasons include Drove Off
Refused, data entry errors, and printer malfunctions. PEMA standard operating procedures (SOPs) recommend
that PEOs not void tickets while in public; instead, a PEO should print the ticket and submit it to his/her supervisor
as part of the end-of-day reporting. If the PEO determines the ticket is invalid and wishes to void it immediately,
s/he may push a void button on the handheld, which prevents the device from sending the ticket to a printer.
DPW

OIG Assessment of Operations

Are DPWs ticket writing policies and procedures clear and complete?

6. PEMAs procedures and training materials are outdated and incomplete, and in
some instances the information/instructions in them do not comport with DCMR
parking enforcement regulations.
Ticketing Procedures, Training Materials Are Incomplete, Contradict DCMR
The team reviewed PEMAs Standard Operating Procedures for Parking Officers and
Supervisory Parking Officers (dated 2011), the Parking Control Branch Training Manual, and a
Comprehensive Listing of Parking Control Violations document that defines the number and
types of photos required for each type of parking violation. Overall, the team found that these
documents provide useful instructions and information on a wide range of topics, including
customer service, personnel policies (e.g., ethics and workplace conduct), using DPW-issued
communications equipment, and fundamental ticket writing procedures. Interviewees echoed
this sentiment and said that PEMA officials also keep them abreast of policy and procedural
changes through conversation and during daily roll call. With regard to providing explicit,
documented guidance on ticketing procedures, however, the SOPs and Training Manual provide
very few useful specifics. Below are several examples of key operational areas where PEOs
need written procedures.

Parkmobile Parkmobile is the system that enables motorists to pay for parking using
an application on their mobile phone or an Internet-connected device. When a motorist pays for
parking using Parkmobile, there is no obvious indication that he did so (unlike a meter that
indicates the paid time remaining, or a parking kiosk receipt placed in the front windshield).
Procedures for determining whether a motorist paid for parking through Parkmobile are
important because there is no visual evidence that a PEO could capture with a photograph (e.g., a
photo of an expired parking meter or of a dashboard without a parking receipt from a District
kiosk) to document a violation. Neither PEMAs SOPs nor the Training Manual, however,
mentions the Parkmobile application and how a PEO should query the system prior to issuing a
parking ticket.

Drove Off Refused Ticket One of the most commonly cited reasons for voiding a
ticket is that the motorist drove away before the PEO could complete it. Again, SOPs and the
Training Manual are silent as to what a PEO should do in this situation. Without clear written
guidance, PEOs handling of common situations (e.g., a motorist returns to his or her vehicle
while the PEO is entering violation data into the handheld; a motorist returns to his or her vehicle
after the ticket was printed and the PEO is placing it on the vehicle; or a motorist removes the
ticket from the vehicle and throws it on the ground) will be inconsistent and possibly subject to
influence by motorists.

Ticketing federal and District government vehicles, utility vehicles Explicit
procedures on this topic would seemingly be a vital source of information for PEOs that should
be updated regularly. PEMAs SOPs are silent on this topic, and its Training Guide wholly
inadequate.

DPW

Title 18 DCMR 2404.11 states:

Whenever a vehicle identified by license plates as being owned,
rented, or leased by the federal or District government is being
used on official business and is parked in a parking meter zone, the
operator of the vehicle is not required to deposit payment to park in
the parking meter zone.

Likewise, according to 18 DCMR 2420.3, an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner (ANC),
when displaying the proper vehicle placard and on official business, may park: (1) at a meter
without paying the fee; (2) in a timed-limit curbside space including an RPP area; or (3) in an
official government-reserved parking space. Commissioners are not exempted from any other
parking violations. The OIG found no other government vehicle exemptions from parking
enforcement in the DCMR.

Limited guidance in PEMAs Training Manual with respect to ticketing Government.
Congressional, City Council [and] ANC vehicles creates inconsistent parking enforcement
practices: These vehicles may be excused [emphasis added] from parking infractions incurred
during the course of urgent government business if there are no other legal spaces available, and
if the parking violation does not block traffic or cause a safety problem . . . .
78
Aside from the
exemption from paying for metered parking, the OIG team found no basis, either in the D.C.
Code or DCMR, for broadly exempting government vehicles from parking violation
enforcement. And, because neither the SOPs nor the Training Manual references government
vehicles exemption from payment requirements at metered parking, the OIG team doubts
whether that one permissible exemption is consistently applied. One PEO being observed and
interviewed by the team seemed unaware of even the scant written guidance on government
vehicles, saying PEOs are instructed to use their judgment when deciding whether to ticket
government vehicles.

The PEMA Training Manual further states that utility vehicles, especially those used by
employees conducting repairs, should be treated like law enforcement vehicles: with the
presumption that their business is urgent and their duties may require them to violate parking
laws. However, the PEO we observed and interviewed issued a ticket to a utility vehicle that
was parked in a No Parking zone. With thousands of federal and District government and
utility vehicle motorists competing every day for a place to park in the District, PEMA, as part of
a comprehensive update of its SOPs and Training Manual, should disseminate detailed
procedures for ticketing these vehicles. Further, to increase public awareness of ticketing
procedures and reduce perceptions that some of the Districts ticketing practices are arbitrary,
DPW should propose additions to DCMR Title 18, including more information about its
fundamental operations and how motorists may expect common ticketing situations will be
addressed, e.g., when a motorist returns to his vehicle when the PEO is entering violation
information.

78
Id. at 77. The manual states that there are nine types of violations from which these vehicles will not be excluded:
no standing anytime, rush hour, crosswalk, fire hydrant, loading zone, blocking a driveway or alleyway, sidewalk,
bus stop or bus zone, and school zone violations. Id.
DPW

Recommendations:

(1) That the D/DPW direct a comprehensive review and update of PEMAs SOPs and
Training Manual.

Agree X Disagree

DPW August 2014 Response, As Received:
PEMA's revision of the training manual and SOPs began in November 2013 and is
ongoing. In addition to the manual and the SOP's, PEO's receive timely updates through
roll calls, in-service training, and one-on-one meetings.

OIG Comment: DPWs response meets the intent of the OIGs recommendation. The OIG
will consider this recommendation closed once the SOPs are completed and DPW has
provided the OIG with an electronic copy of the new documents.

(2) That the D/DPW use the updated documents as the basis for proposed changes to
the DCMR that incorporate more specific guidance on topics including, but not
limited to: (1) ticketing federal and District government and utility vehicles, and
(2) PEOs authority to void tickets while on patrol, so that District motorists and
other stakeholders better understand PEOs discretion while on patrol and the
ticketing procedures they are expected to follow.

Agree Disagree X

DPW will work with DDOT, the regulatory authority, regarding amending necessary
parking regulations. However, no further clarity is needed regarding the issuance of
tickets to the federal and District governments. As stated above, the traffic regulations
state that federal and District government vehicles are exempt from paying for metered
parking. If the PEO observes any other violation, he or she is required to issue a ticket.
The operator of the federal or District government vehicle can then adjudicate the ticket
through the DMV.

DPW will not give PEO's the authority to void tickets while on patrol. In years past,
DPW had a problem with paper tickets and the ease with which they could be voided by
PEOs. DPW's current policy is a substantial step towards increasing accountability and
integrity in the ticket issuing system. If a PEO in the field had the the authority to void a
parking ticket he or she may be tempted to accept a bribe in exchange for this action.
Requiring the approval of a supervisor ensures that the PEOs are operating ethically.
Further, requiring supervisory approval is an important element of quality control and
will help ensure consistency in this area. Finally, the message that PEO's have no
discretion in these matters can be clearly conveyed to motorists and other stakeholders.

DPW

OIG Comment: The OIG is not recommending that PEOs be given the authority to
unilaterally void tickets while on patrol. As stated in the finding, without clear written
guidance, PEOs handling of common situations (e.g., a motorist returns to his/her vehicle
while the PEO is entering violation data into the handheld) will be inconsistent and
possibly subject to influence by motorists. Rather, the OIG is recommending that DPW
both update its SOPs and propose language for inclusion in DCMR so that those situations
where it is appropriate for a PEO to void a ticket while in the field (with or without
subsequent supervisory review), as well as those where PEOs have no discretion and are
required to generate a ticket, are clearly conveyed to motorists and other stakeholders.

In its response, DPW wrote: PEOs are aware that a ticket must be voided when a
motorist drives off before the ticket is placed on the vehicle[.] Given the frequency with
which PEOs request ticket voids because the motorist drove off, the OIG believes DPW
should explore the feasibility of mailing the notice of violation to the vehicles registered
owner following such an incident.

Also, the OIG stands by its recommendation and disagrees with DPWs opinion that no
further clarity is needed regarding the ticketing of federal and District government
vehicles and utility vehicles. Based on our observations of and interviews with PEOs, their
ticketing of such vehicles appears uninformed and inconsistent. Again, this is an area of
the Districts ticketing operations where additional language in DCMR would help inform
the public and other stakeholders, and possibly reduce the volume of tickets being
contested and requiring adjudication.

Since September 2011, motorists who commit a parking violation have been able to
access online images of the violation and the resulting ticket using TicPix. There are obvious
benefits to the TicPix program. The OIG believes that when presented with clear evidence of a
violation, a motorist better understands the infraction for which s/he was cited and therefore may
be less inclined to challenge the validity of the ticket with an Ive got nothing to lose attitude.
Capturing images of the violating vehicle and its license plate also increases PEOs accuracy
when recording the violation in the handheld device. But if a data entry mistake does result in
the issuance of an erroneous ticket, the images of the violating vehicle allow DPW to void the
ticket upon detection of the error either through DPW quality assurance activities, or by the
DMV after the motorist or registered owner challenges the ticket. The requirement to capture
images of violations also reduces the likelihood that a PEO will issue false tickets to give the
appearance of productivity while not actually being on patrol or to inflate his or her
performance.
79
According to DPW employees, they review photographs for their utility in
illustrating the violation, and only those of good quality are posted to TicPix.

79
While DPWs PEOs are not instructed to issue a minimum number of tickets each shift (i.e., there is no quota),
there are general expectations regarding their productivity. In 2013, a parking enforcement employee in Prince
Georges County, MD was found to have issued false tickets for fire lane violations. Ticket writers in Prince
Georges County were encouraged (but not required) to capture images of the violations. While investigating
complaints from motorists, MD officials found the ticket writer had no images to support the tickets he issued. The
false tickets were also discovered due to discrepancies between information on the tickets and registration
information for the vehicles. According to news coverage of the investigation, the parking officer issued the tickets
to meet unofficial quotas because he thought his supervisors werent happy with his performance.
DPW

Given the obvious benefits of the TicPix program to both DPW and motorists who
receive tickets, the OIG team looked at a sample of tickets to determine the frequency with
which images of violations are available through the TicPix website.

7. After reviewing a sample of 250 PEMA-issued tickets, the OIG concluded that
DPWs TicPix program too often fails to present motorists with the images required
by PEMA guidelines. These images are not only evidence of the violation for which
motorists were ticketed, but also the only assurance to the public that errors were
not made during the ticketing process.
TicPix Often Fails to Present Motorists With Images of Violations
PEMAs SOP 13.19 instructs PEOs to take up to four (4) pictures to support the
violation . . . . The number and type of images depend on the violation and are defined in
PEMAs Comprehensive Listing of Parking Control Violations. The vast majority of parking
violations (approximately 90%) require PEOs to capture at least one image documenting the
violation. For example, to document a No Parking 7:00 a.m. 6:30 p.m. violation, PEMA
requires three images: (1) from the front or rear showing the violating vehicle and the No
Parking sign; (2) of the vehicles driver or passenger side; and (3) from the front or rear
showing the vehicle and its license plate.

To conduct its analysis, the OIG team first identified the 10 most common types of
violations according to the numbers of tickets issued in FY 2013. For each of the 10 violation
types, the team randomly selected 25 tickets using DPWs Officer Command System.
80
Once
the 250 tickets were selected, the team used DPWs TicPix website to observe the number and
type(s) of images available for each ticket, then compared the number of photos available for
each ticket to the number required by PEMAs Comprehensive Listing of Parking Control
Violations. The teams observations are presented in Table 10 on the next page.

Http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=1035&sid=3355407 (last visited May 19, 2014.)
80
All of the reviewed tickets were issued between J anuary 1, 2013, and February 28, 2014.
DPW

Table 10: Photographic Evidence Available in TicPix for Samples of
DPWs 10 Most Frequently Issued Parking Tickets
81

Type of
Violation

Tickets
Issued
by
PEMA
in FY
2013
Initial
Fine
Number
of
Photos
PEOs
Must
Take
Results of OIG Sampling of Tickets
(For each violation type, the OIG team reviewed 25 tickets.)
Number
of
Tickets
With No
Photo
Number
of
Tickets
With
Fewer
Than
Required
Photos
Number
of
Tickets
With
Required
Photo(s)
or More
Portion
of
Sample
With No
Photo
Portion
of
Sample
With No
Photo or
Fewer
Than
Required
Expired
Meter
231,305 $25 2 7 1 17 28% 32%
Residential
Parking
145,182 $30 2 14 0 11 56% 56%
Disobeying
Official Sign
124,969 $30 2 14 1 10 56% 60%
No Parking
Street
Cleaning
95,678 $45 2 9 6 10 36% 60%
No Parking/
Standing PM
Rush
66,897 $100 2 9 1 15 36% 40%
Failure to
Display
Multi-Space
Receipt
58,752 $25 2 2 1 22 8% 12%
Failure to
Display
Current Tags
54,072 $100 1 3 0 22 12% 12%
No Parking
Anytime
46,211 $30 3 0 8 17 0% 32%
No Standing
Anytime
40,964 $50 3 7 10 8 28% 68%
No Parking/
Standing
AM Rush
38,243 $100 2 9 4 12 36% 52%

81
Three of the 10 most commonly tickets issued by DPW require no photographic evidence per PEMA policy:
Overtime at Meter (48,926 issued in FY 2013), Registration of Out-of-State Automobiles (45,950), and Failure
to Secure District Tags (41,569). For this analysis, they were replaced by the next most commonly issued tickets
requiring photographic evidence.
DPW

Overall, 30% of the tickets sampled did not have photographs available through
TicPix. For certain types of violations, the percentage of tickets posted to TicPix without
photographic evidence was even higher. For example, 56% of the Disobeying Official Sign
tickets reviewed by the OIG team lacked photographs, even though PEMA requires two: (1) one
of the front or rear of the violating vehicle and the sign, and (2) one from the front or rear of the
vehicle showing the make and license plate. Of the 250 tickets reviewed, 106 (42%) either
had no photograph available or the number of photographs available through TicPix was
less than the number required by PEMA policy.

Requiring PEOs to capture images of violations and making them available to motorists
through the TicPix website are vital quality assurance mechanisms. Not only do these photos
help to ensure PEOs accuracy and thwart the issuance of false tickets, but they are also crucial
to the Districts ability to successfully adjudicate tickets and motorists efforts to seek dismissal
of incorrectly-issued tickets. As a senior District official candidly said during an interview,

One of the beauties of parking, its like the [Internal Revenue
Service]. If you get a parking ticket, you are guilty until you
have proven yourself innocent. And thats worked well for
us.
You Are Guilty Until You Have Proven Yourself Innocent
Making photographs available to motorists through TicPix is key evidence for motorists
attempting to prove their innocence in the District, as well as to hearing examiners and appeals
boards. DPW must do a much better job of making clear evidence of violations available to
motorists who receive tickets. The District should, through more consistent use of its current
technologies and improved quality assurance mechanisms, strive to make parking tickets as
accurate and irrefutable as possible, instead of challenging motorists to prove their innocence.

Recommendations:

(1) That the D/DPW take immediate steps to improve PEOs compliance with
PEMAs requirements for capturing photographic evidence of parking violations.

Agree X Disagree

The TicPix program is considered internal guidance, and is not an agency requirement
for issuing tickets. At this time, the photographs are posted on-line for at least one year. The
OIG review of 250-issued tickets over a period of more than one year is thus not an
accurate assessment of the number of photographs taken during that time frame. The
TicPix Program has been undergoing business process improvements during the past 120
days. Considerable improvements have begun through more robust training and closer
managerial monitoring. This process will be an on-going priority until the error factor is
reduced by use of new equipment and daily PEO training.

DPW

OIG Comment: The OIG notes DPWs concurrence with the recommendation to improve
PEOs compliance with PEMA requirements for capturing photographic evidence of
parking violations. However, the OIG requests a more detailed explanation of the steps
being taken to improve PEO performance in this regard before this recommendation will
be considered closed.

(2) That PEMA implement a written policy that any parking ticket for which the
required number of photographs is not available through DPWs TicPix website
shall be dismissed due to lack of evidence (unless the motorist is given a reason
why the required number of photos was not available in TicPix).

Agree Disagree X

The TicPix program was instituted mainly as a courtesy to motorists. It was not intended
to change the evidentiary requirements for establishing a prima facie case for a parking
violation. Once a motorist challenges the ticket, he or she may rebut the prima facie case
by evidence that the violation was issued in error through the adjudication process. As
far as we are aware, there is no jurisdiction in the country that requires parking officers to
take pictures as part of the ticketing process.

OIG Comment: The OIG stands by its recommendation and believes the TicPix program
is more significant than simply a courtesy to ticketed motorists. The program provides
evidence of a violation and therefore greatly reduces the possibility of fraud in a system
where PEOs are expected to write large quantities of tickets daily. Photographic evidence
of violations also deters frivolous requests for adjudication and enhances the efficiency of
the adjudication and appeals processes. Regardless of whether other jurisdictions require
enforcement officers to capture images of parking violations, DPWs PEOs already capture
images of violations.

(3) That the D/DPW propose amendments to the DCMR that: 1) enumerate the
number and type(s) of photographs required for issuance of each type of parking
violation and made available through the TicPix website; and 2) document
PEMAs policy of dismissing any parking ticket for which the required number of
photographs is not available through TicPix.

Agree Disagree X

For the reasons discussed above, DPW disagrees with the proposal to require
photographs as part of the ticketing process.

DPW

OIG Comment: The OIG stands by its recommendation as written and hopes that other
District stakeholders continue to discuss the matter and, as appropriate, encourage DPW to
reconsider its position.
DDOT


DDOT
District Department of Transportation
(DDOT)

DDOT

Background

DDOTs Transportation Operations Administration (TOA) is responsible for
maintaining the Districts parking meters and parking signage, but also possesses substantial
enforcement authority. Unlike DPW PEOs, who only have authority to issue parking violation
tickets, DDOTs 85 Traffic Control Officers (TCOs) are authorized to issue both parking
violation tickets and moving violation tickets (see Tables 11 and 12).
82
The TCOs primary
responsibility is to manage incidents and intersections, e.g., directing traffic at assigned
intersections during the morning and afternoon rush hours, at accident or construction sites, and
in conjunction with special events that may increase traffic volume in the District or necessitate
the closing of intersections and roadways, such as the Fourth of J uly.
83
One of TOAs Key
Performance Indicators is the number of tickets issued annually per TCO; for FY 2013, that
measure was 3,200 tickets (or roughly 66 per week assuming a TCO is on duty 48 weeks out of
the year.) Productivity reports from October 2013 show that most TCOs were averaging 20 to
40 tickets per day. Some TCOs during that period issued 100+tickets on some days.
84

Table 11: Parking Violation Tickets Issued by DDOT FYs 2011, 2012, and 2013
FY
Parking Tickets
Issued Using a
Handheld Device
Handwritten
Parking Tickets
Issued
Total Parking
Tickets Issued
Revenue From
Parking Tickets
85

2011 99,508 161,600 261,108 $10,782,662
2012 263,749 20,790 284,539 $12,400,723
2013
312,653 4,034 316,687 $12,223,503

82
Examples of common moving violations are: no left turn; turning right on a red light where prohibited; failure to
wear a seat belt; distracted driving using a cell phone; and failing to yield right-of-way to a pedestrian. DDOT
senior managers said that TCOs rarely go into residential neighborhoods to enforce parking regulations; DPW is
primarily responsible for residential parking enforcement.
83
The TCO program was established in 2004 to manage critical intersections and prevent gridlock. According to
DDOTs TCO training manual:

The program began as a joint project of [DDOT], [DPW], and [MPD]. The
TCO[]s were initially a part of DPWs parking enforcement program. DDOT
contributed funds and selected the locations where traffic congestion was a
major factor in efficiently moving vehicles and people. Training was also a joint
DDOT/MPD/DPW effort. The TCO[]s put into service were trained at the MPD
Training Academy. On October 1, 2007, DDOT took over the operation and
management of the [TCOs] from [DPW].

84
TCO training procedures state that DDOT currently deploys TCO[]s to write parking citations, full time. There
is a deployment strictly for citation writing. The remainder of the TCO[]s write citations when they are not in their
intersections controlling vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In May 2014, DDOT officials told the OIG team that
statement is no longer accurate, and that the agency was in the process of updating their procedures to reflect current
operations.
85
The revenue dollars presented in the table reflect payments processed within each of the three FYs (e.g., revenue
reported for FY 2013 could include payments of fines for tickets issued in FY 2012).
DDOT

Table 12: Moving Violation Tickets Issued by DDOT FYs 2011, 2012, and 2013
FY
Moving Violation
Tickets Issued
From Handheld
Devices
Handwritten
Moving Violation
Tickets Issued
Total Moving
Violation Tickets
Issued
Revenue From
Moving Violation
Tickets
2011 1,335 3,083 4,418 $297,091
2012 3,820 167 3,987 $230,937
2013
3,261 128 3,389 $189,668

Ticketing Overview

TCOs receive 8 weeks of training that cover both their traffic control duties as well as
ticket issuance. Primary topics addressed during 3 weeks of classroom training include: Codes
of Conduct; Operating Government Vehicles; Controlling Intersections and Directing Traffic;
Traffic, Parking and Vehicle Regulations; and How to Issue Tickets. At the completion of
classroom training, TCOs spend time in the field learning more about traffic control and
ticketing procedures by shadowing more experienced TCOs. DDOT TCOs use handheld
Motorola devices
86
and PocketTix software to create and print tickets and can capture
photographs of violating vehicles.

The PocketTix software used by DDOT TCOs on their handheld devices is not the
application used by DPW PEOs, but their functionality is similar. TCOs log into their handheld
by entering digits from their DDOT badge number. Once they print a test ticket, TCOs are able
to start issuing tickets. Using various callout buttons and drop-down menus in the PocketTix
application, a TCO is able to perform such tasks as: enter license plates of vehicles that they
need to time (e.g., note the time he or she first observed the vehicle in a 2 hour parking zone so
that the TCO knows when that vehicle has exceeded the limit); query the Parkmobile application
(see below for more information about Parkmobile) to determine whether observed vehicles have
paid for parking; and conduct a plate query to find out whether a particular vehicle has
multiple outstanding tickets or been reported stolen.

Clearly laid out screens and drop-down menus in PocketTix assist TCOs with
documenting parking and moving violations and printing tickets. For a moving violation, TCOs
capture information about the driver, which can also be autocompleted using a scanner function
in PocketTix if the drivers license contains an information barcode. The Image Capture
feature allows TCOs to take pictures that will then be connected to a particular violation and
ticket. Images are automatically saved after they are captured, and a maximum of four can be
saved per ticket.
87
An internal remarks screen allows TCOs to enter comments that are not
printed on the ticket (e.g., driver used foul language) but are saved with the violation record.

86
DDOT deployed its handheld devices as part of the 2011 implementation of Parkmobile. Under that contract,
Parkmobile provided the handhelds at no cost to DDOT. DDOT currently has about 70 handheld devices in use.
87
DDOT training materials state that image resolution affects the number of pictures that can be taken, i.e., if higher
resolution pictures are taken, the device may only be able to capture three images or fewer.
DDOT

TCOs also use their handheld devices to record changes in their shift status (e.g., when they are
active, at lunch, or performing administrative duties) and print an end-of-shift report to
document their activity and productivity.

Violation information from the TCOs handhelds is uploaded daily into eTIMS, the
system administered by Xerox (under a contract with DMV) that also serves as MPDs and
DPWs depository for ticket information. A DDOT-issued parking or moving violation ticket
instructs the motorist to go to http://mpdc.dc.gov/tickets to view associated images; from there,
the motorist is redirected to
https://wmq.etimspayments.com/pbw/include/image_access_service/input.jsp. Motorists are
able to pay for DPW-issued tickets online through DMVs website.

Roles of Primary Contractors

Parkmobile With Parkmobile, District motorists can pay for parking using a
smartphone or over the Internet.
88
The District launched a 1,000 parking space pilot program in
J uly 2010, and full service was implemented in J une 2011.
89
Motorists must first register
through Parkmobiles website, by phone, or by downloading and providing information using
Parkmobiles smartphone application. At the time of this special evaluation, a Parkmobile
employee reported that it was processing over 25,000 parking transactions a day for the District.

Xerox In addition to maintaining the eTIMS system, Xerox is the Districts primary
contractor with respect to parking meter installation, testing and maintenance, storage and
removal, and overseeing meter revenue. DDOT monitors Xeroxs performance through reports
provided by Xerox and the work of 4 meter inspectors who test 250-500 meters per week. Xerox
tracks and reports various data to DDOTsuch as the number and types of meter failures,
payment methods (coins versus credit cards), and revenues (including parking revenue collected
by Parkmobile)which DDOT uses to manage and make decisions regarding its meter
operations.

Quality Assurance and Oversight Methods

The team believes that DDOT should do more to monitor TCOs ticket-writing practices.
For example, a DDOT lead TCO informed the team that while he/she reviews the numbers of
tickets TCOs write, he/she does not review the types of tickets written by each TCO. One
DDOT employee is responsible for compiling weekly ticket reports (encompassing all tickets
TCOs write each week), spot checking TCOs tickets, and investigating tickets when there is a
citizen complaint. However, there did not appear to be an organized or documented system to
quantify and track TCO errors or citizens complaints.

88
Motorists are alerted to Parkmobile parking zones by signs and stickers bearing the five-digit Parkmobile zone
number. Users pre-register their license plates with Parkmobile and can then pay for parking in a particular zone
using Parkmobiles smartphone application or website. When a TCO needs to determine whether a motorist has
paid for parking, he or she enters the corresponding zone number to access a list of all vehicles that have parking
time remaining in that zone.
89
The first year of DDOTs contract with Parkmobile ran April 7, 2011, through April 6, 2012, and includes four 1-
year options.
DDOT

OIG Assessment of Operations

Are existing DDOT ticketing policies and procedures clear and complete?

8. TCOs lack written instructions about key facets of ticketing operations, foremost
being how they should take photographs of violating vehicles, which has led to
glaring inconsistencies in TCOs ticketing practices. The OIG team also noted
numerous inconsistencies between DDOTs and DPWs ticketing operations.
Lack of Written Procedures Leads to Glaring Inconsistencies in Practice
With regard to ticketing operations, DDOTs TCO training materials and other
documents reviewed by the OIG team provide useful detail in numerous areas, such as the
Districts municipal regulations pertaining to parking and moving violations, and use of the
handheld ticketing device and PocketTix application. In particular, a 50+page Handheld Device
Ticket Writing Guide, last updated in December 2012, presents TCOs with numerous screen
shots from PocketTix that clearly illustrate, step-by-step, various ticketing and accountability
functions. Though nearly 3 years old, another document clearly explains the interface between
PocketTix and Parkmobile and key functions, such as how to access up-to-date payment
information for vehicles parked in a particular Parkmobile zone. DDOT training and procedures
appear to adequately address the technology elements of TOAs ticketing operations, but absent
were policies and procedures pertaining to commonly encountered situations, such as, what a
TCO should do when he or she observes a vehicle parked at a broken meter, or when a motorist
drives away before the TCO can put the ticket on the vehicle. A DDOT manager explained that
there are no procedures in place for a number of topics, although there are unwritten rules and
TCOs receive instruction on them during training.
90

May a Motorist Legally Park at a Broken Meter?

Through interviews with and observations of TCOs, the OIG team concluded that TCOs
are not consistent in how they ticket violating vehicles. The strongest illustration of these
inconsistencies was found in TCOs comments with regard to a vehicle parked at a broken meter.
The reader should first note that Title 18 DCMR Chapter 24 (Stopping, Standing, Parking, and
Other Non-Moving Violations) provides no answer to the question of whether a motorist may
park at a broken meter, which is somewhat surprising given that this DCMR chapter addresses
comparatively minor issues, e.g., that unexpired time at a parking meter may be used by another
vehicle. Guidance at DMVs website regarding how to contest a parking ticket only implies that
a motorist may park at a broken meter: You must only claim one of the following defenses if
you deny the violation. The relevant meter was broken through no fault of your own.
91
Not
finding an authoritative answer in the DCMR, the team turned to DDOT procedures, and was
again surprised by the lack of a clear procedure for dealing with this situation. Interviews with
DDOT employees confirmed that the absence of written guidance has led to TCOs handling the

90
Interviewees also reported the need for more training. DDOT employees said Xerox training is adequate and
provided frequently (including refresher training). However, DDOT-provided training is not adequate because the
information is outdated, greater emphasis should be placed on writing accurate tickets, and refresher training is not
held frequently enough. A DDOT manager said that DDOT is in the process of developing a quarterly retraining
program for TCOs to make sure they are up to speed on new parking regulations and to address trends (e.g.,
repeated mistakes made by TCOs), but it had not been implemented at the time of the teams fieldwork.
91
Http://dmv.dc.gov/service/contest-parking-ticket (last visited May 23, 2014).
DDOT

situation based on what they have been told to do, and even what they think is fair. The
following are paraphrased responses provided by DDOT TCOs and supervisors as to whether a
motorist may park at a broken meter, evidencing the confusion among TCOs and DDOT
managers alike:

I will not issue a ticket to a vehicle just because it is parked at a broken meter. I will
only issue a ticket if it is parked for longer than the posted limit. This is how Ive
done it for all the years Ive been at DDOT and DPW. I think its fair if it was my
car, I would not want a ticket for parking at a broken meter. That said, there is a
chance that a TCO will not know that a meter is broken if the TCO does not check it.
I do not know whether a written protocol exists for this, but there should be one.

To park at a broken meter, the motorist should call 311 or 727-1000 to report it. The
operator will give the driver a confirmation number, which the driver should write on
a note that he or she leaves on the dashboard to show that the broken meter was
reported. If the motorist does not do this, he or she risks getting a ticket. I will not
give a ticket if I know the meter is broken. Before writing a ticket, sometimes I will
check to see if the meter is broken by depositing a coin, but I dont always check to
see if the meter is broken.

When I started at DDOT, I was told that we should time a vehicle parked at a broken
meter. If a vehicle is parked at a 2-hour meter, it can stay there for up to 2 hours
without getting a ticket. Now, because motorists can use the pay-by-phone system
[Parkmobile] as well as report broken meters to DDOT, Ive heard that someone can
get a ticket for parking at a broken meter. I dont ticket vehicles parked at broken
meters, though. Some DDOT supervisors tell TCOs to immediately write tickets for
vehicles parked at broken meters, others tell TCOs not to write tickets until after they
have timed the vehicle and documented that it exceeded the posted time limit. Im not
aware of any policy or procedure that says what to do.

A customer cannot get out of a parking ticket just because he or she parked at a
broken meter. The customer needs to call DDOT, report the broken meter, and move
off of the meter. The rule that an individual cannot park at a broken meter is not
stated on the meter itself and DDOT has been thinking about adding this warning to
meters because not everyone knows this rule.

There is no specific policy or procedure in place for the TCO to follow if they
encounter a broken meter. The unwritten rule is the TCO should check [Parkmobile]
to determine if the citizen paid via [Parkmobile.] Citizens [have] the capabilities to
pay via [Parkmobile] at a broken meter. If the citizen did not pay via [Parkmobile],
the TCO would issue the citizen a citation.

The confusion among TCOs and managers is evident, so is the impact upon District
motorists: inconsistency in ticketing operations. Depending on which TCO observes the vehicle
parked at the broken meter, he or she may take one of several approaches: do nothing; issue a
ticket immediately, with or without querying the Parkmobile system; check for a note confirming
DDOT

the motorist reported the broken meter and issue a ticket if he or she does not see one; or start
timing the vehicle and return later to issue a ticket if the vehicle exceeded the posted time limit.
DDOT should act immediately to issue clear guidance to not only its TCOs, so that ticketing
operations are consistent, but also the public, so that motorists understand the conditions under
which they may park at a broken meter. Some skeptical members of the public might assert that
the Districts failure to inform motorists (through parking meter signage, information at ticketing
agencies websites, and clear language in applicable DCMR chapters) on this subject is
intentional: without clear criteria of the Districts ticketing practices, a ticketed motorist is
unable to prove that proper procedure was not followed.

Inconsistencies Between DDOT and DPW Issuance of Parking Tickets

As discussed beginning on page 50 of this report, written guidance provided to DPW
Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs) regarding ticketing government and public utility vehicles
is vague, affords PEOs unnecessary discretion, and in some instances contradicts the DCMR
(i.e., with respect to ticketing ANC vehicles). Similarly, the OIG found little written procedure
at DDOT pertaining to ticketing government vehicles. The clearest articulation of DDOT ticket
policy that the team found was a J anuary 2013 memorandum from DDOTs training officer to
All Members D.D.O.T, which reads:

Vehicles that are displaying current Congressional, City Council
and Advisory Neighborhood Commission [sic] are responsible for
only the following violations:

1. AM and PM Rush hour
2. Bus stop or zone
3. Fire Hydrant
4. Loading Zone.
DO NOT ISSUE ANY OTHER VIOLATION EXCEPT
WHAT IS LISTED ABOVE.

CITY COUNCIL PERSONS AND ADVISORY
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION (ANC) WILL ALSO HAVE
THE SAME PRIVILIDGES [SIC] AS CONGRESS WHILE
DISPLAYING ANC TAGS OR PLACARDS. [Emphasis in the
original.]

The OIG team finds this instruction problematic for several reasons:

1. Similar to the guidance issued to DPW PEOs, the OIG could find no basis in the D.C.
Code or DCMR for such broad exemptions;
2. The exemptions afforded ANC members are clearly prohibited by the DCMR;
92
and

92
Title 18 DCMR 2420.3 states that an ANC commissioner while on official business and displaying the proper
placard may park at a meter without paying the fee, in a timed-limit space including RPP areas, or in an official
government-reserved parking space. Further, 18 DCMR 2420.4 states: Nothing in 2420.3 shall exempt the
holder from the observance of any traffic regulation other than those mentioned in 2420.3.
DDOT

3. Instructions given to TCOs are inconsistent with those given to DPW PEOs, i.e., TCOs
are instructed not to write tickets for violations for which PEOs may write tickets.

While DPW provides its PEOs with some guidance with regard to ticketing law enforcement
(work under the presumption that their business is urgent) and public utility vehicles,
93
DDOT
does not appear to have issued any written instructions on these topics. Ticketing such vehicles
is another instance where (1) TCOs have developed individual decision-making criteria, and (2)
DPW and DDOT ticketing procedures are inconsistent.

Recommendation:

That the D/DDOT promulgate new, comprehensive policies and procedures that address
situations commonly encountered by TCOs, including but not limited to: writing a ticket
for a vehicle parked at a broken meter; documenting a violation after a motorist drives
away before the TCO has finished writing the ticket; testing a meter before issuing a
parking ticket; and reporting a broken parking meter.

Agree X Disagree

Agree. Although DDOT's current Training Manual addresses all aspects of ticket-
writing, including, but not limited to, photographing of violating vehicles; writing a ticket for a
vehicle parked at a broken meter; documenting a violation after a motorist drives away before
the Traffic Control Officer (TCO) has finished writing the ticket; testing a meter before issuing a
parking ticket; and reporting a broken parking meter, an update of the TCO Training Manual
and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) has been initiated to provide a higher degree of
standardization in procedures. This initiative will promote uniformity, streamline operations,
and improve the quality of service to the public. The project, which started on May 30,2014, has
a seven-month schedule. Final SOPs are scheduled to be delivered to DDOT in late January
2015.
[94]

As the recommendation pertains to photographing parking violations, it should be noted
that the photographic evidence program was instituted mainly as a courtesy to motorists. It was
not intended to change the evidentiary requirements for establishing a prima facie case for a
parking violation. Once a motorist challenges the ticket, he or she may rebut the prima facie
evidence by proving that the violation was issued in error through the adjudication process. As

93
Per the PEMA Training Manual (Section 6, page 78), Utility vehicles are treated as though they were
government vehicles. The actual work vehicle is treated in much the same manner as a law enforcement vehicle.
94
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: Additionally, the Report indicates that certain exemptions for ticketing
government vehicles have no basis in law or regulation. However, Traffic Control Officers (TCOs) follow D.C.
Official Code 50-2201.03 (which regulates Councilmember and Congressional parking), 18 DCMR 2420.3
(which regulates ANC parking), and the DDOT memorandum, which is referenced in the Report and provides
appropriate guidance for Congressional and Council member vehicles. DDOT is currently updating the TCO
Training Manual and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to provide additional guidance to TCOs.
DDOT

far as DDOT and DPW are aware, there is no jurisdiction in the country that requires parking
officers to take pictures as part of the ticketing process.
[95]

DDOT will work with DPW to ensure uniformity with DPW when applicable.

OIG Comment: The response meets the intent of the recommendation and the OIG will
consider this recommendation closed when it receives electronic copies of the updated
TCO Training Manual and Standard Operating Procedures.

Again, photographic evidence of a parking violation is more than a courtesy to ticketed
motorists. It prevents ticketing errors and aids in their detection, greatly reduces the
possibility of fraud in a system where TCOs write large numbers of tickets daily, and
improves the efficiency of the adjudication and appeals processes.

9. TCOs are not required to take photographs that document parking and moving
violations, nor do they have written procedures describing the types and number of
photographs that would best support the violations they encounter.
TCOs Not Required to Photograph Violations
DDOTs use of handheld devices to capture images of violating vehicles has been
informal and inconsistent. TCOs began taking photographs of violations when they first started
using handheld devices to write parking and moving violation tickets (around August 2011).
According to TCOs, however, during the early implementation of the handhelds, data storage
capacity posed a significant problem. Storing photographs to the devices caused them to
malfunction, thus hampering TCOs productivity while in the field. Therefore, the TCOs were
instructed to only take photographs of violations in certain instances (e.g., when a vehicle was
parked too close to a fire hydrant, or other violations where an approximation of distance or the
position of the vehicle was necessary to document a violation). Then, in 2013, DDOT
supervisors apparently verbally instructed TCOs to take photographs of all parking violations
using their handheld devices.

TCOs have not received any written instructions about photographing violating vehicles.
A DDOT manager informed the team that DDOT is in the process of developing policies and
procedures for taking photographs of parking violations, but they were not yet available during
the teams fieldwork. Through interviews with DDOT employees, it became apparent to the
team that protocols for what these photographs should show and how many photographs should
accompany each violation are not clear and uniform practices are not followed by TCOs in the
field.

95
The MPD/DDOT response footnoted: On page 7 of the Report, it states that [v]iolation images are the only
assurance a motorist has that his or her ticket was correctly issued. However, the ticket itself provides adequate
details regarding the elements of the violation. In addition, a ticketed motorist should be able to determine without
photographs whether or not he or she violated a parking regulation because the ticket is placed on his or her
vehicle, with the details of the violation, and he or she can then clearly see whether the citation is accurate.
DDOT

Recommendation:

That D/DDOT promptly write and implement policies and procedures, and train TCOs on
them, for photographing parking and moving violations. Further, to improve consistency
and uniformity between DDOTs and DPWs ticket writing processes, D/DDOT should
coordinate a review of the new policies and procedures by DPWs Parking Enforcement
Management Administration. That way, regardless of whether the ticket for a particular
parking violation is issued by DDOT or DPW, the photographic evidence presented to the
motorist will be consistent.

Agree X Disagree

Agree. DDOT will take corrective action to address training issues. DDOT is in the
process of implementing a refresher training course as a performance goal for TCOs. Under the
new TCO Performance Measurement Plan, when a supervisor identifies a deficiency in TCO
performance, refresher training will be mandatory for that TCO.

In regards to photographing violations, each TCO is currently trained on how to take
appropriate pictures in conjunction with writing tickets. When errors are found, the individual is
counseled on how to take appropriate and accurate photographs through a retraining process.
DDOT is currently working on updating TCO SOPs and training manual to address this issue.
However, it needs to be reiterated yet again that the parking photographic evidence program
was instituted mainly as a courtesy to motorists; it was not intended to change the evidentiary
requirements for establishing a prima facie case of a parking violation. DDOT will work with
DPW to ensure that uniformity of procedures is in place in regards to parking enforcement
where appropriate.

Are other DDOT quality assurance and management oversight practices sufficiently
stringent?

10. DDOT does not closely monitor transaction fees paid to Parkmobile, or track and
analyze Parkmobile complaint data.
DDOT Should Monitor Transaction Fees Paid to Parkmobile, Complaint Data
DDOTs primary mechanism for overseeing Parkmobiles work is to monitor the revenue
reported by Parkmobile.
96
According to the Parkmobile contract, the Districts contract
administrator is responsible for overseeing its performance, including: G.9.1.4 Reviewing
invoices for completed work and recommending approval by the CO [Contracting Officer] if the
Contractors costs are consistent with the negotiated amounts and progress is satisfactory and
commensurate with the rate of expenditure[]. The contract also states: C.5.3 The contractor
shall transfer all the funds collected through the program including the transaction fees to the
District and invoice the District monthly for the user fees collected during the month . . . .

96
A DDOT employee noted that Parkmobiles revenue is reviewed through reporting that Xerox submits daily to
DDOT. Xerox provides a daily report of coin deposits and credit card charges at meters in the District. It also
provides a separate report for Parkmobile pay-by-phone credit card collections.
DDOT

Although DDOT reviews the amounts of revenue collected from customers paying through
Parkmobile, according to a DDOT employee, DDOT has not audited the transaction fees paid to
Parkmobile.
97
DDOT should assess what is included in Parkmobiles transaction fee invoices to
ensure that the District is being charged appropriately. DDOTs contract with Parkmobile
originally estimated transaction fees in the amount of $600,000 per year being paid to
Parkmobile, but over time the level of electronic payment transactions increased substantially
and required the passage of emergency legislation by the Council to address the situation.

In addition to improved auditing of transaction fees, DDOT could better monitor
Parkmobiles work by tracking and analyzing customer complaints about the system. If someone
is dissatisfied with Parkmobile, he or she will likely call 311, DDOT, or Parkmobile to complain.
A complaint made to 311 or DDOT is documented in DDOTs IQ system and then forwarded to
the employee whose duties are applicable to the complaint, e.g., parking rates or signage.
Though the individual issue behind the complaint may be resolved, no one at DDOT tracks or
analyzes Parkmobile complaint data. One DDOT employee noted this gap in their oversight,
while another said a robust Parkmobile complaint tracking system is unnecessary because DDOT
does not receive a lot of complaints about the system. Furthermore, Parkmobile maintains its
own customer service line, so DDOT does not have access to any complaints that are reported
directly to Parkmobile.

Recommendation:
That the D/DDOT establish systems and assign responsibility for monitoring on a
monthly basis: (1) the transaction fees paid to Parkmobile and (2) the number and types
of complaints lodged with both the Districts and Parkmobiles customer service entities.

Agree X Disagree

(1) Agree. Since the release of the Report, DDOT has established a specified reporting
arrangement with the OCFO to review revenue deposit statements, automatically delivered from
Parkmobile's Merchant of Record, Heartland Services. On a monthly basis, the Merchant of
Record will be required to deliver a reconciliation report verifying that all associated
transaction fees from Parkmobile meter payment services match daily deposit totals. The OCFO
has assigned an Accounting Officer to closely monitor Parkmobile's reporting and will advise
DDOT on activities and discrepancies.

(2) Agree. DDOT will coordinate with the Parkmobile and the District's customer service
divisions (i.e., 311) to develop a schedule and procedure for documenting all complaints.

97
Xerox is DDOTs merchant of record and therefore deposits all coin and credit card payments, including those
from Parkmobile, into the Districts general fund. Xerox also remits transaction fees to Parkmobile.
APPENDICES


APPENDICES
APPENDICES
APPENDICES


Appendix 1: List of Findings and Recommendations

Appendix 2: DMV Annual Statistical Report to the D.C. Council

Appendix 3: Overview of Automated Photo Review Processes

Texas Ave., S.E. (excerpt)

Appendix 5: August 20, 2014, DDOT/MPD Response to Draft Report

Appendix 6: August 15, 2014, DPW Response to Draft Report

APPENDICES


APPENDIX 1
Appendix 1: List of Findings and
Recommendations

APPENDICES

List of Findings and Recommendations Presented in This Report

1. A January 2014 report to the D.C. Council, which was intended to instill public
trust that speed cameras are installed by the D.C. government to improve safety and
not just increase local revenues, justified the need for speed cameras at all 241
planned/proposed locations that were studied. However, at nearly half of those
locations, the 85
th
percentile speeda common traffic engineering benchmarkwas at
or below the posted speed limit.

(1) That the Chief of MPD (C/MPD) and the Director of DDOT (D/DDOT), to
bolster public trust in the Districts automated speed enforcement program,
critically evaluate the J anuary 2014 traffic safety study protocol and its results,
and request and document further justification prior to installing ATE equipment
at any of the planned or proposed locations addressed in the study.

(2) That the D.C. Council, following collaboration with MPD, DDOT, and outside
subject matter experts, amend the D.C. statute that authorizes the use of ATE to:
(1) require a robust justification, accompanied by traffic data, of the need for an
ATE device at a planned location; (2) within a reasonable period following
installation of the device, require a statistical analysis of the impact of the device
on traffic safety at the location; and (3) make all of these documents readily
available to the public on DDOTs website.

2. The D.C. Code and DCMR are silent with regard to other important ATE program
issues that should be addressed in the statute or regulations, such as the
confidentiality and retention of violation images, as well as limitations on camera
operations and the information captured by them.

That the D.C. Council, after conferring with MPD and DDOT, consider inserting
language in the D.C. Code to codify key ATE program elements, including, but not
limited to: 1) the confidentiality of and limitation on uses of all images and other
information collected by the Districts ATE program; 2) guidelines and timeframes for
the retention and destruction of all images and videos captured by the Districts program
equipment; 3) limitations on the number of cameras that can be placed in the District and
their hours of operation; 4) the requirement for a site-specific safety study prior to each
new camera placement; and 5) the requirement for a sign at every location where ATE
equipment is deployed.

3. Guidelines used by MPD reviewers to decide whether a speeding violation occurred
lack precision and, in certain situations (e.g., when multiple vehicles are captured in
an image), reviewers decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, which raises a
concern that some photo-enforced speeding tickets are issued without a conclusive
determination of the violating vehicle or that a violation has occurred.

APPENDICES

That the C/MPD: 1) instruct violation reviewers to not issue a speeding ticket in any
instance where the violation images capture more than one vehicle traveling in the same
direction; 2) write and implement a more precise multiple vehicles business rule that
clearly documents this policy; and 3) confer with ATS and its other technology vendors
to determine whether all currently deployed speed enforcement equipment can be used
more precisely, e.g., to target only one lane of travel at an enforcement location.

4. MPD issues a moving violation ticket even if the vehicle make and model
information on the registration does not match the vehicle captured in the violation
images. This practice can lead to the issuance of erroneous tickets; in similar
instances, other jurisdictions do not issue tickets.
Recommendations:

(1) That the C/MPD instruct MPD reviewers to not issue a ticket unless both the
vehicle make and model in the violation images match the make and model
information obtained through MPDs license plate search procedures.

(2) That the C/MPD ensure that MPDs violation review business rules and all
training materials clearly articulate this policy.

(3) That the D.C. Council insert language into the D.C. Code and/or DCMR stating
that if the make and model of a violating vehicle captured by ATE equipment
does not match the make and model of the vehicle identified by license plate
search procedures, then the District will not issue a ticket.

5. MPD officers who use handheld electronic devices to issue parking and moving
violation tickets need written guidance on capturing photographic evidence.

That the C/MPD: 1) mandate MPD officers increased use of handheld devices to
photograph and document parking and moving violations; 2) submit proposed rulemaking
to amend the DCMR to include provisions for when officers should capture photographic
evidence to document parking and moving violations; 3) create and promulgate internal
policies and procedures for capturing images and other information with the handheld
devices to better document parking and moving violations; and 4) train officers on any
new policies and procedures.

6. PEMAs procedures and training materials are outdated and incomplete, and in
some instances the information/instructions in them do not comport with DCMR
parking enforcement regulations.

(1) That the D/DPW direct a comprehensive review and update of PEMAs SOPs and
Training Manual.

APPENDICES

(2) That the D/DPW use the updated documents as the basis for proposed changes to
the DCMR that incorporate more specific guidance on topics including, but not
limited to: (1) ticketing federal and District government and utility vehicles, and
(2) PEOs authority to void tickets while on patrol, so that District motorists and
other stakeholders better understand PEOs discretion while on patrol and the
ticketing procedures they are expected to follow.

(7) After reviewing a sample of 250 PEMA-issued tickets, the OIG concluded that
DPWs TicPix program too often fails to present motorists with the images required
by PEMA guidelines. These images are not only evidence of the violation for which
motorists were ticketed, but also the only assurance to the public that errors were
not made during the ticketing process.

(1) That the D/DPW take immediate steps to improve PEOs compliance with
PEMAs requirements for capturing photographic evidence of parking violations.

(2) That PEMA implement a written policy that any parking ticket for which the
required number of photographs is not available through DPWs TicPix website
shall be dismissed due to lack of evidence (unless the motorist is given a reason
why the required number of photos was not available in TicPix).

(3) That the D/DPW propose amendments to the DCMR that: 1) enumerate the
number and type(s) of photographs required for issuance of each type of parking
violation and made available through the TicPix website; and 2) document
PEMAs policy of dismissing any parking ticket for which the required number of
photographs is not available through TicPix.

(8) TCOs lack written instructions about key facets of ticketing operations, foremost
being how they should take photographs of violating vehicles, which has led to
glaring inconsistencies in TCOs ticketing practices. The OIG team also noted
numerous inconsistencies between DDOTs and DPWs ticketing operations.

That the D/DDOT promulgate new, comprehensive policies and procedures that address
situations commonly encountered by TCOs, including but not limited to: writing a ticket
for a vehicle parked at a broken meter; documenting a violation after a motorist drives
away before the TCO has finished writing the ticket; testing a meter before issuing a
parking ticket; and reporting a broken parking meter.

(9) TCOs are not required to take photographs that document parking and moving
violations, nor do they have written procedures describing the types and number of
photographs that would best support the violations they encounter.

APPENDICES

That D/DDOT promptly write and implement policies and procedures, and train TCOs on
them, for photographing parking and moving violations. Further, to improve consistency
and uniformity between DDOTs and DPWs ticket writing processes, D/DDOT should
coordinate a review of the new policies and procedures by DPWs Parking Enforcement
Management Administration. That way, regardless of whether the ticket for a particular
parking violation is issued by DDOT or DPW, the photographic evidence presented to the
motorist will be consistent.

(10) DDOT does not closely monitor transaction fees paid to Parkmobile, or track and
analyze Parkmobile complaint data.

That the D/DDOT establish systems and assign responsibility for monitoring on a
monthly basis: (1) the transaction fees paid to Parkmobile and (2) the number and types
of complaints lodged with both the Districts and Parkmobiles customer service entities.

APPENDICES


APPENDIX 2
Appendix 2: DMV Annual Statistical Report to the City Council

APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDIX 3
Appendix 3: Overview of Photo
Review Processes
APPENDICES

Appendix 3: Overview of automated photo review processes
There are two separate processes for reviewing photographic evidence of red light and
speeding violations. For MPDs first generation photo enforcement equipment provided through
ATS, ATS conducts the first round of review, MPD contractors conduct the second review, and a
sworn MPD officer conducts the third review. For MPDs second generation photo enforcement
equipment, MPD contractors conduct two reviews followed by a review by a sworn MPD
officer. These two processes are explained in the flowcharts on the following pages.
98

98
There are a varying number of sworn MPD officers who assist with photo review, normally between two and
eight officers. These officers are detailed to photo enforcement when they are on limited duty or no contact;
they come from all branches of MPD. Some officers are detailed to the photo enforcement office for a week, others
for more than a year.
APPENDICES

Review Process for Images Captured by First Generation (ATS) ATE Equipment

APPENDICES

Review Process for Images Captured by Second Generation (Sensys and Redflex) ATE Equipment

APPENDICES


APPENDIX 4
Texas Ave., S.E. (excerpt)

APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDIX 5
Appendix 5: August 20, 2014, DDOT/MPD
Response to Draft Report

APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDIX 6
Appendix 6: August 15, 2014, DPW Response to Draft
Report

APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


APPENDICES


Report: Ticketed Drivers Guilty Until Proven Innocent' in D.C.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report: Ticketed Drivers Guilty Until Proven Innocent' in D.C.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report: Ticketed Drivers Guilty Until Proven Innocent' in D.C.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

You might also like