The Hearing Officer may consider only the defenses set forth below when offered by an alleged violator contesting his or her liability for an automated traffic law violation. The defenses shall be weighed by the Hearing Officer and shall only rebut the prima facie case established by the notice of liability insofar as one or more 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. This defense may be demonstrated through the submission of a certified copy of a report concerning the stolen motor vehicle or registration plates was filed with a law enforcement agency in a timely manner;
(B) The vehicle was an authorized emergency vehicle;
(C) The driver of the vehicle passed through the intersection when the light was red either to yield the right-of-way to an emergency vehicle or as part of a funeral procession;
(D) The facts alleged in the Notice of Violation are inconsistent or do not support a finding that a violation occurred;
(E) 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;
(F) The vehicle was leased to another and within sixty (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 this 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; and,
(G) The respondent was not the registered vehicle owner, lessee or renter of the cited vehicle at the time of the violation. (Ord. 3012, 12-6-2018)