WHAT IT IS

Chapter 422 outlines the enforcement mechanisms and penalties related to the city’s traffic laws. It covers everything from who can direct traffic to how citations are issued and enforced. The ordinance ensures that local traffic behavior aligns with broader state statutes while adding administrative procedures specific to Freeport.

WHAT IT MEANS

Here’s a summary of each section:

• 422.01 – Application of Code: This section clarifies that the traffic code applies to all city-owned streets, alleys, and public parking lots—basically any public space within Freeport. It also ensures that reckless driving or accidents occurring anywhere in the city fall under the ordinance’s jurisdiction.

• 422.02 – Unauthorized Directing of Traffic: Only authorized personnel, like police or city workers, can direct traffic unless it’s an emergency. This helps avoid confusion or unsafe instructions from well-meaning but untrained civilians.

• 422.03 – Priority in Control Methods: This provision sets a hierarchy—state law trumps local signage, and law enforcement directions override both. It prevents legal conflicts and ensures that emergency personnel have the final say.

• 422.04 – Citations: You can’t cancel traffic citations without going through legal channels, and failing to appear in court for a traffic citation is a violation in itself.

• 422.05 – Copies of Police Reports: Residents can request copies of police traffic accident reports—for a $5 fee.

• 422.06 – Registered Owner Liability: If a vehicle is found parked or driven illegally, the person listed as the registered owner is presumed to be responsible unless proven otherwise. This shifts the burden of proof onto the owner.

• 422.07 – Driver Responsibility: Regardless of who owns the car, if a driver violates traffic rules, they are personally responsible.

• 422.99 – Penalties: Fines range from $50 to $500 depending on the number of offenses, with escalating penalties for repeat offenders within a year.

THE GOOD

• Clear Hierarchy of Authority: Section 422.03 provides a smart and legally sound method for prioritizing traffic authority, ensuring compliance with state law and empowering law enforcement in emergencies.

• Accountability Mechanisms: Sections 422.06 and 422.07 promote driver and owner accountability. If a vehicle breaks the law, someone is responsible—which discourages reckless or negligent use.

• Legal Process Emphasis: The ordinance insists on due process (422.04), which is critical in preserving fairness and preventing political or administrative abuse.

• Affordability of Reports: A $5 fee for a police accident report is reasonable and provides transparency to involved parties and insurance companies.

THE BAD

• Assumed Guilt of Owners (422.06): The “prima-facie” clause can unfairly burden vehicle owners who weren’t behind the wheel. This is especially problematic in households or businesses with multiple drivers.

• No Clear Appeals Process: The ordinance outlines penalties but provides no detail on how a resident might contest them administratively outside of court—an issue for those who cannot afford legal representation.

• Lack of Clarity on Public vs. Private Property: While 422.01 excludes private property, the language around “all other public ways and public property” can be vague. Is a church parking lot public? What about a privately-owned alley with public access?

• Escalating Fines Without Community Intervention: The fine structure jumps sharply but doesn’t mention any diversion programs, educational alternatives, or community service options—potentially punishing lower-income residents without offering a path to correction.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

1. Clarify and Update the Language: Terms like “public ways” should be defined, and the ordinance should be brought up to modern legal and technological standards (e.g., digital citations, camera enforcement, etc.).

2. Provide a Clear Owner Dispute Process: Expand Section 422.06 to include a formal process allowing vehicle owners to dispute liability when they were not the person operating the vehicle during the violation. This could include submitting affidavits, proof of alternate drivers, or surveillance footage. Without this safeguard, innocent vehicle owners may be fined unfairly, particularly in shared household or business vehicle situations.

3. Introduce Graduated Penalties with Education: Rather than immediately escalating fines, consider implementing a tiered system that includes warnings, mandatory traffic safety courses, or community service for early offenders.

4. Create an Online Citation Portal: Transparency and accountability can be improved with an online system for paying, appealing, or reviewing citations—especially beneficial to younger and digitally-inclined residents.

5. Include an Oversight Clause: Add a provision that requires periodic review of enforcement trends and citation data by a third-party or public commission to ensure the system isn’t disproportionately targeting specific demographics or neighborhoods.

FINAL THOUGHT

Chapter 422 is a foundational part of how Freeport governs its roads and drivers. While largely sound, it reflects a 20th-century view of traffic enforcement and could benefit from modern updates that emphasize fairness, technology, and community rehabilitation over punishment. With just a few additions, the ordinance could serve as a model for other municipalities looking to balance enforcement with equity.

— Fighting4Freeport