Abstract
Currently, there are five methods for citing traffic violations under road traffic management regulations: on-site citation, not necessary at the scene (non-intercept citation), ex officio citation, accident-related citation, and general public reporting. Among these, for “non-intercept citation ” and “general public reporting,” the notified party is neither subjected to a notification procedure nor given an opportunity to present their opinion before receiving the Notice of Violation. It is reasonable to infer that this lack of due process often leads to dissatisfaction among the notified parties. Therefore, if enforcement agencies attach clear evidence when serving the Notice of Violation—enabling the notified party to immediately recognize the situational context and the cause of the violation—public grievances could be significantly reduced. According to the 2023 Police Administration Statistical Bulletin, among the 14 key categories of automobile and motorcycle violations (such as illegal parking), “does not pause to allow pedestrians to cross first” and “operating the vehicle in dangerous manners” (excluding speeding over 40 km/h) are classified as dynamic violations. Evidence collection for these offenses is complex, particularly because the behavior involves two moving entities and requires capturing their interactive relationship within the environment. Consequently, proving that the notified party hindered traffic safety and order is significantly more difficult. This study presents two cases where administrative remedies were successfully applied: a non-intercept citation for “does not pause to allow pedestrians to cross first” and a general-public-reported citation for “dangerous driving.” In the first case, the enforcement agency used a mobile technology enforcement system to obtain video evidence and produced four screenshot photos to illustrate the dynamic behavior. The violator challenged the citation, citing logical inconsistencies and errors regarding the subject’s identity, which led the police agency to revoke the citation ex officio. In the second case, a general public used their vehicle’s dashcam footage to report the violator for arbitrarily forcing another vehicle to yield. The police generated two screenshot photos based on this report to issue the citation. The violator disputed the notice, citing a driving dispute between the two vehicles and claiming they were forced to stop at the roadside due to the reporter’s obstruction affecting their line of sight. Although the police initially upheld the citation, the adjudication authority ultimately revoked the ruling after an administrative lawsuit was filed. This study analyzes the entire remedy process of these cases, offering results that serve as a reference for citation and adjudication authorities.
Key words: Scientific instruments, Photographic evidence, Non-intercept citation, Administrative procedure