October 19, 2010 by staff 

Racketeering, A driver who is using federal laws against organized crime to go after red light camera and speed camera program in Tempe, Arizona. Dan Gutenkauf filed its complaint last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and went on to land the same judge, Frederick J. Martone, who chaired the recent American Traffic Solutions (ATS) vs. If Redflex is currently on appeal. The suit names Redflex employees, police officers, politicians and judges as defendants.

“I feel that this trial is complete and I have spent much time in the last two years doing legal research, the taking of evidence and drafting of the complaint,” said Gutenkauf TheNewspaper. “And I have my win appellate court compels me to federal court.”

In his presentation, Gutenkauf carefully established the circumstances of his February 17, 2009 the trial in the Tempe Municipal Court before Judge Mary Jo Barsetti. Traffic assistant Bianca Gallego and Tempe police officer Aaron Colombe both stated he had no way of confirming if Dan Gutenkauf or his twin brother, Dennis, had been behind the wheel, on the basis of photographic evidence and that any attempt to identify was positive before the ticket was issued. Gutenkauf Both brothers are listed in an insurance policy for the van that was photographed.

Barsetti him guilty of Gutenkauf made numerous objections to the admissibility of the evidence provided by Redflex. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Eartha K. Washington reversed the ruling on appeal, and Gutenkauf received a refund check in December 2009 and 197 for good, but I wanted to recover additional Gutenkauf and 699 happened in the filing of the appeal. Tempe and 699 agreed to pay, but only if Gutenkauf signed a contract containing language that prevents him from filing a lawsuit against Redflex. Gutenkauf refused, knowing the company manuals direct employees of “subpoena issue” based solely on a match between the sex of the driver in the photograph and vehicle registration records, not the positive identification required by Arizona law .

“Matthew knew DEGRAW speed dating picture of compliance sent to Daniel Gutenkauf via e Redflex back office appointment schedule contained knowingly false statements, creating the false impression that the real driver was identified in a fraudulent scheme and artifice to obtain money from him by false pretenses, “said Gutenkauf presentation.

Gutenkauf argues that the police officer who certified the appointment violated the same law that requires positive identification before approving the bill. This violation, combined with its inability to cross-examine witnesses against him represents a deprivation of his constitutional right to due process, he argued. Tempe officials have not yet submitted a response.

Report to Team

Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.


Comments are closed.