6th Person Sent to Prison in Scheme that Brought School Bus Stop Arm Cameras to Montgomery County, MD. MCPS Fmr Dir Todd Watkins Met with Rick Sorrells in Dallas. @mcps @mocoboe

Reminder:  In 2015, MCPS former Director of Transportation Todd Watkins flew to Dallas and met with Dallas Schools Superintendent Rick Sorrells to discuss school bus stop arm cameras through the vendor Force Multiplier Solutions.  Todd Watkins signed MCPS to participate in this no bid scheme and it is still in use today.  After the company was investigated and 6 people connected to the scheme were convicted and sentenced, the company changed its name and became Bus Patrol America. 

Lawyer Sentenced to Prison for Concealing Bribes in DCS Scandal

By Scott Friedman • Published December 10, 2020 • Updated on December 10, 2020 at 3:53 pm

A federal judge in Dallas has sentenced an attorney to six months in federal prison for his role in the bribery scandal that spelled the end of Dallas County Schools, the agency that used to operate the school buses for Dallas ISD and a number of other local school districts. 

New Orleans lawyer Richard Reynolds is the sixth person to be sentenced in connection with an FBI investigation into the financial collapse of DCS, a scandal first uncovered in a months-long NBC 5 investigation.

Reynolds admitted he used his law firm to help facilitate and conceal some of the bribe payments made by school bus camera company owner Robert Leonard to Dallas County schools superintendent Rick Sorrells. Leonard and Sorrells are currently serving seven-year terms in federal prison, for their roles in the scheme which involved more than $3 million dollars in bribes and kickbacks which Sorrells spent on items including a Maserati, jewelry, and a luxury New Orleans vacation apartment, where NBC 5 Investigates found Sorrells in 2017.

The scandal at DCS stretched all the way to Dallas City Hall, where Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway admitted taking $450,000 in bribes, some of that in exchange for a vote that allowed the DCS bus camera program to continue operating. Caraway is serving a four and a half year...

Lawyer Sentenced to Prison for Concealing Bribes in DCS Scandal – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth (nbcdfw.com)

Bus Patrol America, BusPatrol, David McBain, Force Multiplier Solutions, Marc Elrich, Richard Hetherington, Todd Watkins, Tom Didone, Rick Sorrells, Richard Reynolds, Robert Leonard, Dwaine Caraway, Slater Swartwood Sr, Larry Duncan

School bus camera contract under review in Montgomery Co.

Montgomery County, Maryland, schools plan to renegotiate a contract to put stop arm cameras on its school bus fleet, and the county’s inspector general wants more documentation.

Megan Davey Limarzi, who was appointed inspector general in September, noted the current contract is “slightly unusual.”..

...Glass said he was confused by some of the terms of the contract, and cited redactions in the original agreement...

 https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2019/11/school-bus-camera-contract-under-review-in-montgomery-county/?fbclid=IwAR0vu6_dfe7MDlhQRg9o0GzqJ9IoUooKFEh_YMgR46R6rDxhEVENKx3KfRc

Today, the Public Learned that $9.3 Million is Unaccounted for in Exterior Bus Camera Citation Collection

At today's Montgomery County Council hearing on the bus cameras installed on the exterior of MCPS school buses, Montgomery County Police stated that the citations issued to date have generated $21.4 million in fines.

However, when tracking the citation fines paid to Montgomery County, it is only possible to account for $12,086,617.  

Which leaves $9.3 million in citation fines unaccounted for in the public documents that track the receipt of these fines.

The public also learned at the hearing that the revenue sharing deal that was supposed to be agreed upon by December of 2016 under the contract (shown below), still has not been finalized.  That puts incoming revenue in limbo, but where is the incoming citation revenue being held during these years of negotiations?  That question was not asked or answered at today's hearing.

Is the revenue in excess of the contract price being held by the vendor pending resolution of the revenue sharing agreement? 

2016 Montgomery County Boar... by Parents' Coalition of Montg... on Scribd

11/18 TODAY at 2PM Watch as Council Covers Up No Bid Contract That Violates Maryland Law. $18M+ Goes to Vendor, $0 to County. No IG Oversight. No AUDIT.

TODAY at 2PM Watch as Council Covers Up No Bid Contract That Violates Maryland Law. $18M+ Goes to Vendor, $0 to County. No IG Oversight. No AUDIT. https://t.co/QIsahemLzI https://t.co/ffGbcyATLs

— Parents' Coalition (@PCMC1) November 18, 2019

All Committee meetings are televised live, except those indicated below that are on County Cable Montgomery,
streaming live at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html
Videos are archived and available on-demand 24 hours after the meeting concludes.

MCPS Spends Operating Budget $$$ to Fly Administrator to Dallas to meet with ONE Vendor. Contract then Awarded to that vendor without RFP or Competitive Bids. Competitors out of luck. Teachers, buy your own supplies, Directors need Double Scoops at Baskin Robbins. @mcps @mocoboe @MoCoCouncilMD

Double scoop receipt, but no dinner receipt?

MCPS Expense report showing that MCPS spent $495.72 in 2015 sending the Director of Transportation, Todd Watkins to Dallas, Texas in to meet with one vendor. 

The vendor was then awarded a contract without a RFP and without any other vendor being able to bid on this $18 million+ procurement.

Is it standard practice for public school system administrators in Maryland to spend Operating Budget funds to fly to the location of vendors?  Do all vendors get this kind of attention?  

How many MCPS contracts are awarded to vendors without an RFP being issued and without competitors having any chance of bidding?  There are competitors in the exterior bus camera market, but MCPS and Montgomery County Police did not allow any of those competitors to bid on this $18 million++ procurement.  This one vendor was awarded this contract after MCPS sent an administrator to Dallas, Texas.  

Remember there is  no oversight over MCPS or the Board of Education.  The Montgomery County Inspector General will never evaluate this procurement.  The IG released a report in July that evaluated the Police departments participation in this procurement, but the report did not evaluate the actual contract or any of the contract award details because those details were done by Montgomery County Public Schools Interim Superintendent Larry Bowers.

By having MCPS contract with the exterior bus camera vendor, which was in violation of the Maryland law authorizing these cameras, the entire contract process escapes oversight or review because MCPS is not subject to the Montgomery County Inspector General's oversight and there is no required oversight at the State level.

Below is the Expense report for MCPS Director of Transportation Todd Watkins to travel to Dallas, Texas to meet with Force Multiplier Solutions contact. (Force Multiplier CEO and contacts are  now in federal prison for bribery and other crimes related to this company.) 

Did the (no bid) vendor take the MCPS Director out to dinner while he was in Dallas?  There doesn't seem to be a receipt for dinner on the first day of the trip to Dallas. 

2015 MCPS Todd Watkins Trav... by Parents' Coalition of Montg... on Scribd

2016 Montgomery County Boar... by Parents' Coalition of Montg... on Scribd

FBI News: Putting a Stop to Public Corruption Dallas Officials Lined Pockets with Proceeds from Stop-Arm Bus Cameras @mcps @mcpnews @mococouncilmd

Several years ago, the school transportation provider in Dallas added stop-arm cameras to their school buses to keep students safer and bring in revenue from traffic tickets.

Taxpayers ended up paying millions of dollars for the cameras—but they brought in little revenue.

The school transportation provider continued to buy the cameras because the camera company lined the pockets of multiple public officials. And as a result of an FBI and Internal Revenue Service investigation, those involved in the scheme are now serving prison sentences.

Robert Leonard Jr., CEO of the company that manufactured the cameras, paid several bribes to benefit his company, including $450,000 in multiple cash payments, trips, and other gifts to Dallas City Councilman Dwaine Caraway. In exchange, Caraway cast votes on the council in favor of the cameras.

“They needed an ordinance to ticket drivers who were caught passing the camera,” said Special Agent Erik Tighe, who investigated this case out of the FBI’s Dallas Field Office. “Caraway was instrumental in making that ordinance happen. He accepted bribes to continue the program.”

Tighe and the investigative team used a combination of human sources and financial analysis to unravel the network of bribes.

“They just kept using taxpayer funds as a piggy bank.”

Erik Tighe, special agent, FBI Dallas

Caraway pleaded guilty to wire fraud and tax evasion charges and was sentenced in April 2019 to 56 months in prison. Leonard pleaded guilty to wire fraud charges and was sentenced in May to seven years in prison.

Ultimately, the taxpayer-funded transportation provider paid the camera manufacturer $70 million for the cameras. They continued to pay even though the cameras were bringing in less revenue than they cost.

According to court documents, the program caused “significant and ultimately debilitating debt” for the transportation provider, which eventually closed due to that debt, forcing schools to find another transportation option for students.

“They just kept using taxpayer funds as a piggy bank,” Tighe said. “It had a huge impact on the community. Thousands of people were affected by this corruption.”

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/corrupt-public-official-sentenced-082919

"the company began paying Sorrells' credit card bills and other debts in order to avoid direct cash payments, according to Sorrells' plea agreement. "

Former Dallas County Schools Chief Gets Seven Years for Role in Bribery Scheme

...The money didn't materialize — in part because of judges throwing out many of the tickets issued based on evidence from the cameras — and the district was stuck with the bill. Amid the fallout from the failed camera program and a series of managerial missteps, Dallas County voters approved dissolving DCS in November.

According to federal court documents, Sorrells began receiving payments from a company selling the district cameras in 2010. (Force Multiplier Solutions isn't mentioned in Sorrells' indictment by name, but it's the only company that sold stop-arm cameras to DCS, according to KXAS-TV.)

After DCS agreed to buy between 100 and 150 cameras from Force Multiplier Solutions in 2010, the company began to make payments to Sorrells through a series of shell companies set up by the superintendent.

Eventually, the company began paying Sorrells' credit card bills and other debts in order to avoid direct cash payments, according to Sorrells' plea agreement. Slater Swartwood Sr., the former owner of Force Multiplier Solutions, pleaded guilty in 2017 to federal money laundering charges related to the bribes paid to Sorrells.

"This defendant pocketed a whopping $3.5 million in bribes, simultaneously crippling the agency he was tapped to lead and undermining the public’s trust in city officials. The citizens of Dallas deserve better — and they should rest assured that we are committed to rooting out public corruption wherever we find it," U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox said in a statement...

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-school-bus-czar-gets-seven-years-in-corruption-probe-11728453

Man Who Met with MCPS and MoCo Police to Sell Them on Bus Camera Scheme Sentenced to 7 Years in Federal Prison

July 7, 2016, Montgomery County Council meeting presentation.

In August of 2015, the MCPS Director of Transportation and two people from the Montgomery County Police Department went to Dallas, Texas to meet with people from Force Multiplier Solutions and the Superintendent of Dallas Schools, Rick Sorrells.  After that meeting, MCPS decided to enter into a no bid contract with Force Multiplier Solutions for stop arm school bus cameras.

Today, Rick Sorrells was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison for taking more than $3 million in bribes connected to the bus camera scheme.

NBC Dallas reports on today's sentencing.

Ex-Dallas County Schools superintendent who had 'perfect life' gets 7-year sentence for taking bribes [Met with MCPS & Police in Dallas in 2015 to Sell Them on Bus Cameras]

...Despite his opportunities in life, Sorrells succumbed to the allure of something better: fancy cars, expensive jewelry and lavish trips. And it took $3 million in bribes to make it happen, prosecutors said.

"You just sold out the public for your own financial benefit," U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn said Wednesday during his sentencing hearing.

The judge gave Sorrells, 73, seven years in federal prison for a bribery scheme that led to the spectacular demise of the school transportation agency known as Dallas County Schools.

Sorrells, the agency's former superintendent, took the illicit payments from the owner of a Louisiana camera company. In exchange, Bob Leonard's company received $70 million in contracts to provide surveillance cameras for the agency's school buses...

...Lynn said Sorrells was the most culpable player in the "sordid scheme."

"You were supposed to be a faithful servant to your community," Lynn told him. "You are at the top of the pile. This happens because of you."..

...The camera system was expected to bring in significant revenue by collecting fees from motorists ticketed for driving around school bus stop arms.

Dallas County Schools even bought thousands of extra cameras from Leonard's company and tried to sell them to other Texas school districts. But the promises of extra revenue never came true...

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/08/07/ex-superintendent-perfect-life-will-now-spend-7-years-federal-prison-taking-bribes

Rick Sorrells (met with MCPS and Police to sell bus camera scheme) is Still Assisting Feds with One Ongoing Matter

Judge Barbara Lynn is having a sidebar conversation with lawyers about whether Sorrells cooperation with the feds can be publicly discussed. Prosecutors daily there is “at least one ongoing matter” where Sorrells is involved in assisting. @NBCDFW pic.twitter.com/qPJfuSRd01

— Scott Friedman (@ScottNBC5) August 7, 2019

Rick Sorrells Sold @mcps on Bus Camera Scheme. Today Rick Sorrells arrives for his sentencing in federal court. Facing up to 10 years in prison for taking $3M+ in bribes/kickbacks. @NBCDFW .@mcps .@mocoCouncilMD @KateRyanWTOP @Marc_Elrich @mcmdcao

In August of 2015, MCPS Director of Transportation, Todd Watkins, and two representatives from Montgomery County Police went to Dallas, Texas to meet with Rick Sorrells.
https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2019/07/how-did-mcps-school-buses-get-cameras.html

Today Mr. Sorrells is in court for his sentencing for actions related to this bus camera scheme.

Former DCS Superintendent Rick Sorrells arrives for his sentencing in federal court. Facing up to 10 years in prison for taking $3M+ in bribes/kickbacks. @NBCDFW https://t.co/xRM242UnJw pic.twitter.com/48Pso2xXK0

— Scott Friedman (@ScottNBC5) August 7, 2019

Bribing for camera cash: So in 2015, Montgomery officials traveled all the way to Dallas to meet with Force Multiplier execs, including Leonard. "The Montgomery contingent was really high on Force Multiplier..."

...Montgomery had started a bus camera program in 2014, contracting with Xerox Corp., but the initiative did not receive much funding. So in 2015, Montgomery officials traveled all the way to Dallas to meet with Force Multiplier execs, including Leonard. The Montgomery contingent was really high on Force Multiplier, saying in a memo that it had a “technologically superior project” and noting that less than 2 percent of the fines sent out were contested in court.

“In exchange for free installation on all MCPS school buses, [Force] would retain all fine revenues in order to recoup its investment,” reads the memo. “MCPD indicates that [Force] will need to recoup approximately $18 million in fines to break even on their initial investment. At this point, [Force] and the county will negotiate a revenue-sharing plan.”

They lauded the “savings” of some $800,000 annually due to not having to replace some safety equipment. They admitted to skepticism, saying Force’s offer to “absorb 100% of the cost of equipment and installation…. seemed too good to be true.”

They didn’t, of course, know about the shenanigans in Dallas. But if a deal seems too good for even cash-happy public officials, wouldn’t that sound more alarms?

Montgomery moved ahead with the program, even after news of the bribery scam broke. Force Multiplier’s assets moved into a new company, BusPatrol, which officials claimed is totally different. But it lists the same local address in Lorton, Va., as Force Multiplier had. BusPatrol CEO David Poirier was the registered agent for Force, and other former Force employees also work for BusPatrol.

Did Force Multiplier execs donate to the campaigns of Montgomery County officials, as they did the Dallas officials who have been taken down?..

https://medium.com/@kevinjshay44/bribing-for-camera-cash-5a50f1d02c16

"County has spent aproximately $750,000 from its operating budget for positions related" to the School Bus Camera deal. But County gets Zero from Fines.

Here is the link to the 30 page Montgomery County Inspector General's Report (link to WTOP story) on the MCPS/Police School Bus Camera Program.

"...Based on this statement, from the inception of this contract, we estimate that the County has spent approximately $750,000 from its operating budget for additional MCPD positions related to this program.4 Although over $10 million of ticket revenue has been transferred to the vendor, neither the County nor MCPS (based on the contract) has received any ticket proceeds from this program... " (Page 2)

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2020/mcpd_mcps_bus_cameras_adv_memo_28_jun_2019.pdf

Breaking: Concerns raised about deal that put cameras in Montgomery Co. school buses

Montgomery County, Maryland’s inspector general has issued a report that raises concerns about the agreement that put cameras — including exterior stop-arm cameras — in county school system buses.

Under the 2016 agreement, first with Force Multiplier Solutions, now with Bus Patrol America, Montgomery County Public Schools had cameras installed in the entire fleet — all 1,387 buses — at no cost.

In return, the revenues generated from violations when drivers pass school buses would go to Force Multiplier Solutions. That would remain the case until the bus camera company recovered the cost of installing the cameras, estimated at $18 million...

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2019/08/montgomery-county-inspector-general-raises-concerns-about-deal-that-put-cameras-in-school-buses/

MCPS Bus Camera Program Does Not Comply with Maryland Law

The Maryland law authorizing the placement of cameras on the exterior of school buses is clear. 

The law requires: 

1.

MD General Assembly

But instead, the Montgomery County Board of Education entered into a contract with Force Multiplier Solutions, Inc. to place school bus monitoring cameras on school buses.

The legislature had been clear that the placing of school bus monitoring cameras was to be done by law enforcement agencies, not county boards of education. 



2.


Bus camera citations in Montgomery County are mailed out by the vendor, not by a law enforcement agency.  



3.

Car owners who receive a citation under the MCPS program are directed to make their payment to a website:  alertbus.com

That website is owned by Force Multiplier Solutions and is used by their customers to pay school bus camera citations.  It is not a site controled by Montgomery County.  Fine money from various jurisdictions goes to that website. 


Note that 100% of the fine money from MCPS bus cameras goes to the vendor. $0 goes to the County or MCPS even though both agencies must hire additional staff to process these citations.  The original intent of the authorizing legislation was that revenue from bus camera fines could be used to fund safety education campaigns. That is not happening in Montgomery County because the County does not get one penny from these fines.

* * * * * * * * *

Here is the full text of the current Maryland law:

§ 21-706.1. Report of violations witnessed by school bus operators

West's Annotated Code of MarylandTransportationEffective: June 1, 2019

West's Annotated Code of Maryland

Transportation

Title 21. Vehicle Laws--Rules of the Road (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle 7. Special Stops Required (Refs & Annos)

Effective: June 1, 2019

MD Code, Transportation, § 21-706.1

§ 21-706.1. Report of violations witnessed by school bus operators

Currentness

Definitions

(a)(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.

(2) “Law enforcement agency” means a law enforcement agency of a local political subdivision that is authorized to issue a citation for a violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law or of local traffic laws or regulations.

(3)(i) “Owner” means the registered owner of a motor vehicle or a lessee of a motor vehicle under a lease of 6 months or more.

(ii) “Owner” does not include:

1. A motor vehicle leasing company; or

2. A holder of a special registration plate issued under Title 13, Subtitle 9, Part III of this article.

(4) “Recorded image” means images recorded by a school bus monitoring camera:

(i) On:

1. Two or more photographs;

2. Two or more microphotographs;

3. Two or more electronic images;

4. Videotape; or

5. Any other medium; and

(ii) Showing a motor vehicle and, on at least one image or portion of tape, clearly identifying the registration plate number of the motor vehicle.

(5) “School bus monitoring camera” means a camera placed on a school bus that is designed to capture a recorded image of a driver of a motor vehicle committing a violation.

(6) “Violation” means a violation of § 21-706 of this subtitle.

Contents of report; warning to owner of vehicle

(b)(1)(i) If a school bus operator witnesses a violation, the operator may promptly report the violation to a law enforcement agency exercising jurisdiction where the violation occurred.

(ii) The report, to the extent possible, shall include:

1. Information pertaining to the identity of the alleged violator;

2. The license number and color of the vehicle involved in the violation;

3. The time and location at which the violation occurred; and

4. An identification of the vehicle as an automobile, station wagon, truck, bus, motorcycle, or other type of vehicle.

(2) If the identity of the operator of the vehicle at the time the violation occurred cannot be established, the law enforcement agency shall issue to the registered owner of the vehicle, a warning stating:

(i) That a report of a violation was made to the law enforcement agency and that the report described the owner's vehicle as the vehicle involved in the violation;

(ii) That there is insufficient evidence for the issuance of a citation;

(iii) That the warning does not constitute a finding that the owner is guilty of the violation; and

(iv) The requirements of § 21-706 of this subtitle.

School bus monitoring cameras

(c)(1) A school bus monitoring camera may not be used in a local jurisdiction under this section unless its use is authorized by the governing body of the local jurisdiction by local law enacted after reasonable notice and a public hearing.

(2) If authorized by the governing body of the local jurisdiction, a law enforcement agency, in consultation with the county board of education, may place school bus monitoring cameras on school buses in the county.

Recorded images by school bus monitoring cameras

(d) A recorded image by a school bus monitoring camera under this section indicating that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed a violation shall include:

(1) An image of the motor vehicle;

(2) An image of at least one of the motor vehicle's registration plates;

(3) The time and date of the violation; and

(4) To the extent possible, the location of the violation.

Civil penalties

(e)(1) Unless the driver of the motor vehicle received a citation from a police officer at the time of the violation, the owner or, in accordance with subsection (h)(5) of this section, the driver of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil penalty if the motor vehicle is recorded by a school bus monitoring camera during the commission of a violation.

(2) A civil penalty under this subsection may not exceed $500.

(3) For purposes of this section, the District Court shall prescribe:

(i) A uniform citation form consistent with subsection (f)(1) of this section and § 7-302 of the Courts Article; and

(ii) A civil penalty, which shall be indicated on the citation, to be paid by persons who choose to prepay the civil penalty without appearing in District Court.

Information sent by by law enforcement agencies

(f)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, a law enforcement agency shall mail to the owner liable under subsection (e) of this section a citation that shall include:

(i) The name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle;

(ii) The registration number of the motor vehicle involved in the violation;

(iii) The violation charged;

(iv) To the extent possible, the location of the violation;

(v) The date and time of the violation;

(vi) A copy of the recorded image;

(vii) The amount of the civil penalty imposed and the date by which the civil penalty must be paid;

(viii) A signed statement by a technician employed by the law enforcement agency that, based on inspection of recorded images, the motor vehicle was being operated during the commission of a violation;

(ix) A statement that recorded images are evidence of a violation; and

(x) Information advising the person alleged to be liable under this section:

1. Of the manner and time in which liability as alleged in the citation may be contested in the District Court; and

2. That failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability in a timely manner is an admission of liability and may result in refusal or suspension of the motor vehicle registration.

(2) The law enforcement agency may mail a warning notice in place of a citation to the owner liable under subsection (e) of this section.

(3)(i) Before mailing a citation to a motor vehicle rental company liable under subsection (e) of this section, a law enforcement agency shall mail a notice to the motor vehicle rental company stating that a citation will be mailed to the motor vehicle rental company unless, within 45 days of receiving the notice, the motor vehicle rental company provides the law enforcement agency with:

1. A statement made under oath that states the name and last known mailing address of the individual driving or renting the motor vehicle when the violation occurred;

2. A. A statement made under oath that states that the motor vehicle rental company is unable to determine who was driving or renting the vehicle at the time the violation occurred because the motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the violation; and

B. A copy of the police report associated with the motor vehicle theft claimed under item A of this item; or

3. Payment for the penalty associated with the violation.

(ii) A law enforcement agency may not mail a citation to a motor vehicle rental company liable under subsection (e) of this section if the motor vehicle rental company complies with subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection and subsection (h)(5) of this section, a citation issued under this section shall be mailed no later than 2 weeks after the alleged violation.

(5) A person who receives a citation under paragraph (1) of this subsection may:

(i) Pay the civil penalty, in accordance with instructions on the citation, directly to the county; or

(ii) Elect to stand trial for the alleged violation.

Certificates alleging violations

(g)(1) A certificate alleging that a violation occurred, sworn to or affirmed by a duly authorized agent of a law enforcement agency, based on inspection of recorded images produced by a school bus monitoring camera shall be evidence of the facts contained in the certificate and shall be admissible in any proceeding concerning the alleged violation.

(2) Adjudication of liability shall be based on a preponderance of evidence.

Defenses

(h)(1) The District Court may consider in defense of a violation:

(i) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, that the motor vehicle or registration plates of the motor vehicle were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control or possession of the owner at the time of the violation;

(ii) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, evidence that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and

(iii) Any other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent.

(2) In order to demonstrate that the motor vehicle or the registration plates were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control or possession of the owner at the time of the violation, the owner must submit proof that a police report about the stolen motor vehicle or registration plates was filed in a timely manner.

(3) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in the citation shall provide to the District Court evidence to the satisfaction of the District Court of who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, including, at a minimum, the operator's name and current address.

(4)(i) The provisions of this paragraph apply only to a citation that involves a Class E (truck) vehicle with a registered gross weight of 26,001 pounds or more, Class F (tractor) vehicle, Class G (trailer) vehicle operated in combination with a Class F (tractor) vehicle, and Class P (passenger bus) vehicle.

(ii) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in a citation described under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph may provide to the District Court a letter, sworn to or affirmed by the person and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, that:

1. States that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and

2. Provides the name, address, and driver's license identification number of the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(5)(i) If the District Court finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence under paragraph (4)(ii)2 of this subsection identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the clerk of the court shall provide to the law enforcement agency issuing the citation a copy of any evidence substantiating who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(ii) On the receipt of substantiating evidence from the District Court under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, the law enforcement agency may issue a citation as provided in subsection (f) of this section to the person that the evidence indicates was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(iii) A citation issued under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph shall be mailed no later than 2 weeks after receipt of the evidence from the District Court.

Failure to pay civil penalties

(i) If the civil penalty is not paid and the violation is not contested, the Administration may refuse to register or reregister or may suspend the registration of the motor vehicle.

Civil penalties for violations

(j) A violation for which a civil penalty is imposed under this section:

(1) Is not a moving violation for the purpose of assessing points under § 16-402 of this article and may not be recorded by the Administration on the driving record of the owner or driver of the vehicle;

(2) May be treated as a parking violation for purposes of § 26-305 of this article; and

(3) May not be considered in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage.

Procedures for issuance of citations, trials, and collection of penalties

(k) In consultation with law enforcement agencies, the Chief Judge of the District Court shall adopt procedures for the issuance of citations, trials for violations, and the collection of civil penalties imposed under this section.

Credits

Added by Acts 1988, c. 199. Amended by Acts 2011, c. 273, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2011; Acts 2012, c. 124, § 1, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2017, c. 683, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2017; Acts 2017, c. 744, § 1, eff. July 1, 2017; Acts 2019, c. 429, § 1, eff. June 1, 2019.