The following are the only defenses available for an alleged violator contesting his or her liability for a violation, which shall be weighed by the Hearing Officer and shall only rebut the prima facie case established by the notice of violation insofar as one or more of the following defenses are established by a preponderance of the evidence:
(A) The motor vehicle or registration plates were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control of or in the possession of the owner at the time of the violation, which may be demonstrated through the submission of a certified copy of a report concerning the stolen motor vehicle or registration plates filed with a law enforcement agency in a timely manner; and
(B) The driver of the vehicle passed through the intersection in spite of a red light either to yield the right-of-way to an emergency vehicle or as part of a funeral procession; and
(C) The license plate number or other source of identification of the vehicle cannot be determined; and
(D) The operator of the vehicle received a uniform traffic citation from a police officer at the time of the violation for the same incident as captured by the automated traffic law enforcement system and either paid such citation or successfully contested said citation; and
(E) The vehicle was leased to another and within 60 calendar days after the citation was mailed to lessor, lessor submitted to the municipality the correct name and address of the lessee of the vehicle identified in the notice of violation at the time of the alleged violation, together with a copy of the lease agreement, the lessee’s driver’s license number and any additional information that may be needed.
(F) The facts alleged in the notice of violation are inconsistent or do not support a finding that a violation occurred.
(G) The respondent was not the registered vehicle owner, lessee or renter of the cited vehicle at the time of the violation.
(Ord. 2204, passed 1-8-2015; Ord. 2293, passed 4-7-2016)