Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

gee35coupe · July 2006

Following the links in the story produce the source.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1050.asp

The AJC is our major newspaper here in Atlanta.

There are other links along the left edge of the page.

snakeweasel · July 2006

This has NOTHING to do with the thread.

redmaxx · July 2006

Unless they have a search warrant nothing.

Do you think they are just going to drop it there? No, they are going to get their search warrant. Even though they don't have probable cause.

redmaxx · July 2006

I don't think that is an issue that has been reported on at all. Everyone here is concerned with plowing ahead, rights be damned because we are the red-light-running-capital. So, you can either believe me or not. You can either trust that these devices make NO mistakes, or not. It's very clear, from others posters that this violates Constitutional rights, so at that, they shouldn't be using them.

snakeweasel · July 2006

If they don't have probable cause they can't get a search warrant. To get the search warrant they would have to show the judge that it was actually you in the car and/or the driver is hiding in your house. Simple isn't it.

Thats enough of trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

redmaxx · July 2006

For example, in California, "speed traps" are illegal, and laying-in-wait with radar can be construed as a speed trap, while this is perfectly legal in some other states. Some states set all speed limits as maximum limits (i.e. any speed above that limit is illegal, no matter what), while others have some prima facie limits that are presumed safe but can be exceeded if the driver can prove them to be safe. Some states are certainly more radar-happy than others, and love to enforce those speed limit decreases with a bit more vigor than you'd find elsewhere.

I wonder if there is such a thing as an "obvious" speed trap? On a highway here they park inconspicous looking vehicles on the side of the road, but they have police officers inside with radar guns checking for speeders. For example, on one trip home I saw a mid 90s Tahoe parked on the side. As I got closer, I saw a light bar on top and as I passed, sure enough, there was a guy with a radar gun inside.

snakeweasel · July 2006

So, you can either believe me or not. You can either trust that these devices make NO mistakes, or not.

Its not about who or what to trust its the point that I would like to have proof before I make a wholesale comment that they are inaccurate.

It's very clear, from others posters that this violates Constitutional rights,

How in the world does it violate Constitutional rights? Last time I checked the Constitution didn't grant anyone the right to run a red light.

fintail · July 2006

They are mainly obvious here, especially in town but the WSP isn't exactly a sneaky organization. They are rarely unmarked, rarely out of sight from even like a quarter mile or more. They cherry pick the inattentive, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. Of course, I am sure safety trumps money...

redmaxx · July 2006

If they don't have probable cause they can't get a search warrant. To get the search warrant they would have to show the judge that it was actually you in the car and/or the driver is hiding in your house. Simple isn't it.

Thats enough of trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

If it were only that simple. In Avondale (near Phoenix) they send you an official, ticket-looking document saying you ran the red-light. They give you the option of:

A) Self-incriminating

Certifying exactly who was in the car at the time
C) Certifying that the car was stolen at the time

What if you don't know? What if you lent it to a friend, who lent it to a friend? It's bad practice, but you should not be responsible. If you don't respond within 30 days, they send out a process server. HOW can they send out a process server when they haven't verified who committed the offense? BTW - They don't get to check your picture from the MVD.

This is not a mole hill, this is them plowing straight over our Constitutional rights.

socala4 · July 2006

If they don't have probable cause they can't get a search warrant. To get the search warrant they would have to show the judge that it was actually you in the car and/or the driver is hiding in your house. Simple isn't it.

All that aside, the point is that camera tickets effectively force the driver into a situation in which he is guilty until proven innocent. The defendant is forced to prove that he isn't the driver, while other criminal charges force the prosecution to offer the burden of proof. That doesn't exactly jive with the spirit or the letter of the Bill of Rights.

redmaxx · July 2006

How in the world does it violate Constitutional rights? Last time I checked the Constitution didn't grant anyone the right to run a red light.

Last time I checked, you had the right to face your accuser and the right not to self-incriminate.

redmaxx · July 2006

Its not about who or what to trust its the point that I would like to have proof before I make a wholesale comment that they are inaccurate.

Ah, that's the disconnect. I'm not saying they are always wrong. This started when you made the comment that they only catch those that do something wrong. That just isn't true. Proof:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3476004

socala4 · July 2006

Last time I checked, you had the right to face your accuser and the right not to self-incriminate.

Unfortunately, the creation of the infraction system really got the ball rolling in favor of these revenue-oriented statutes.

Let's suppose that we decide that red light running is a serious offense, and that it merits a high fine (i.e. $350, which is close to what you'll pay in California.) If you're interested in justice, then it would be desirable to put a check-and-balance in the system by making sure that prosecuting these cases is costly enough that the state earns no profit from doing it. That way, the fine fits the crime, but the government doesn't have an incentive to hand out more fines.

In my mind, that means eliminating the infraction system, and restoring the right to counsel and a jury trial as was previously allowed. If the state had to pay for your lawyer and had to organize a jury (even a mini jury of 6, rather than 12) for every defendant, then you could charge these types of fines while feeling assured that the enforcement was not motivated by a desire for profit.

There is not much of a profit motive for prosecuting murderers, but shortening amber light timings to earn more ticket money holds a lot more appeal. As it stands now, the state makes a lot of money from these tickets, which taints its motives. And if you allow your rights to be eroded so easily at this level, it just lays the groundwork for a long slide downward in other areas as well. Ignoring rights in the name of safety or any other dogma is what tyrants do, not what a free people demand.

snakeweasel · July 2006

I would say respond to the ticket. If you lent your car to a friend let them know and let them sort it out.

snakeweasel · July 2006

Last time I checked, you had the right to face your accuser and the right not to self-incriminate.

And thats why you have a court date, so you can face your accuser. You still have the right not to self incriminate, you don't have to say "Yes I broke the law and ran a red light".

socala4 · July 2006

You still have the right not to self incriminate, you don't have to say "Yes I broke the law and ran a red light".

That's not quite right. Again, in other criminal cases, if the prosecution can't provide evidence that the defendant is the offender, then the case will be tossed.

With a camera ticket, the identification is presumed unless the defendant refutes it. Here, the defendant has a greater burden than does the prosecution, a complete contradiction of the constitution that imposes this obligation on the prosecutor.

redmaxx · July 2006

I would say respond to the ticket. If you lent your car to a friend let them know and let them sort it out.

You're missing the point. It's not a ticket, it's a sheet that you do not have to legally respond to. Like was said before you are now presumed guilty if you do not respond. If a real police officer was there, they wouldn't be issuing a ticket to the owner of the car, but the person actually committing the infraction! The point is that the ticket belongs with the person who committed the crime, not the owner of the vehicle that the crime was committed with.

redmaxx · July 2006

And thats why you have a court date, so you can face your accuser. You still have the right not to self incriminate, you don't have to say "Yes I broke the law and ran a red light".

You haven't looked into this much, have you? They don't assign a court date, they send out a notice asking you to snitch on who did it. If you don't in 30 days, they send out a process server.

snakeweasel · July 2006

I am not missing the point at all. Respond or not it is your choice, but if you were not driving the car why not just respond with who was? If you were why not fight it if you don't think you broke the law? It works the same way if a cop pulls you over.

redmaxx · July 2006

And thats why you have a court date, so you can face your accuser. You still have the right not to self incriminate, you don't have to say "Yes I broke the law and ran a red light".

And, should you get served and show up in court, you've just self-incriminated. They can now easily compare the photo to you. Get a lawyer you say? That is not the foundation of this country. The police are supposed to have reasonable proof that you did something wrong before accusing you.

redmaxx · July 2006

I am not missing the point at all. Respond or not it is your choice, but if you were not driving the car why not just respond with who was? If you were why not fight it if you don't think you broke the law? It works the same way if a cop pulls you over.

You just showed that you are missing the point. Tickets are SUPPOSED to be given to PEOPLE who do something wrong. Not the owner of the vehicle with which the offense was committed.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security..."

redmaxx · July 2006

It works the same way if a cop pulls you over.

No, if a cop pulls you over, the cop writes the ticket for the person who actually committed the offense. He doesn't look at the license plate and issue the ticket to the person who owns the vehicle. Do you understand this point?

socala4 · July 2006

It works the same way if a cop pulls you over.

No, it doesn't. With a traffic stop, the officer has a right to demand your driver's license, which will identify you. That information will be used to determine your identity.

With a camera ticket, no one is stopped at the time of the alleged violation, and the registered owner of the car is presumed to be the driver, unless the owner specifically accuses another person.

If you are accused of murder, it's the prosecution's burden to establish that you were there, and you will be acquitted if they can't. With a camera ticket, being the registered owner is considered to be sufficient evidence, and you will be convicted unless you proactively prove otherwise. The camera ticket recipient has fewer rights than does the murderer in this case.

xrunner2 · July 2006

I wonder if there is such a thing as an "obvious" speed trap? On a highway here they park inconspicous looking vehicles on the side of the road, but they have police officers inside with radar guns checking for speeders.

One of sneakiest traps I have ever seen was on I65 in Kentucky some years back. Had a CB and was listening on 19 to truckers describing it. It mainly affected 4-wheelers and anyone without CB. Plain wrapper sedan was parked on shoulder with one side of rear jacked up and spare tire (guess full size) was leaned up against bumper. Trooper was in back seat shooting radar gun through a small view, because trunk lid was up, that he apparently had at bottom of rear window. A couple of chase cars were busy beyond his parked spot.

redmaxx · July 2006

One of sneakiest traps I have ever seen was on I65 in Kentucky some years back. Had a CB and was listening on 19 to truckers describing it. It mainly affected 4-wheelers and anyone without CB. Plain wrapper sedan was parked on shoulder with one side of rear jacked up and spare tire (guess full size) was leaned up against bumper. Trooper was in back seat shooting radar gun through a small view, because trunk lid was up, that he apparently had at bottom of rear window. A couple of chase cars were busy beyond his parked spot.

Very sneaky indeed. About once a month or once every other month, they crack down on the highway I drive every day. They use a similar system, one vehicle with laser and about a 1/4 mile ahead a stable of cruisers and motorcycles.

snakeweasel · July 2006

And, should you get served and show up in court, you've just self-incriminated.

Showing up in court to defend yourself is not self-incriminating. No court in this land will even suggest that. All that comment says is that you will say anything to try to make the point that red light cameras are bad.

The police are supposed to have reasonable proof that you did something wrong before accusing you.

Well there is photographic evidence that you went through a red light.

snakeweasel · July 2006

You just showed that you are missing the point.

I got the point perfectly.

Tickets are SUPPOSED to be given to PEOPLE who do something wrong.

So parking tickets should never be given out since it goes against the owner and we have no ideal if it was the owner who parked it there or someone else?

redmaxx · July 2006

Showing up in court to defend yourself is not self-incriminating. No court in this land will even suggest that. All that comment says is that you will say anything to try to make the point that red light cameras are bad.

Let's see...

1) Police have a photo from a red-light camera. Check.
2) Police DO NOT have MVD picture. Check.
3) Police do not know that the person they have accused is the person in the photo. Check.
4) You walk in the court room and now they have an OFFICIAL , LEGAL record of you and your picture. Check.

How is this not self-incrimination? The police have not done a single thing to prove that it was you there.

Well there is photographic evidence that you went through a red light.

You're not listening. All they have is photographic evidence that SOMEONE went through the light. Think "presumption of innocence, presumption of innocence." Now does my point make sense?

socala4 · July 2006

Showing up in court to defend yourself is not self-incriminating.

It effectively is, because you are unable to offer a mistaken identity defense unless you, the defendant, establish who the offender is.

That would not happen in a murder case. In that instance, the prosecution would have to go to town to prove that it was you, and not possibly someone else. You could claim mistaken identity without ever specifically identifying whoever else may have committed the offense.

Well there is photographic evidence that you went through a red light.

In a normal criminal case, if somebody allegedly filmed you, you could cross-examine that witness. You could also examine the equipment that they used.

In a camera ticket case, you cannot do this. At best, you get an "expert witness" (a cop) who interprets the data provided by the footage. The people who installed and maintained the equipment are not required to testify -- you'll never even know who they are. And if you want to examine the cameras or test them for reliability, you won't be able to do it. The deck is completely stacked against the defendant.

redmaxx · July 2006

So parking tickets should never be given out since it goes against the owner and we have no ideal if it was the owner who parked it there or someone else?

Civil vs Criminal. World of difference.

snakeweasel · July 2006

How is this not self-incrimination?

I would like to know how it is self-incriminating.

Showing up in court is not self-incriminating otherwise there would be no need to try a case.

Its not self-incriminating because you are not admitting guilt.

You're not listening.

I am listening, are you? Evidence is not always proof but something that can lead to proof.

My kid was accused of something like this, had the states attorney there and everything. I came down to the fact that no one could identify my son as the driver, he walked.

While I am not sure how it works there But I am pretty sure around here if they don't get a facial shot it works like a parking ticket. You may not have done it but since its your car your responsible.

snakeweasel · July 2006

World of difference.

It would be if we were talking different things, running a red light is a civil offense.

socala4 · July 2006

Its not self-incriminating because you are not admitting guilt.

I've explained this previously. It is a form of self-incrimination because your failure to specifically blame someone else is enough to confirm your identity to secure a conviction. The state is not obliged to prove that the owner is the driver, it is the burden of the owner to prove that he isn't the driver.

Perhaps this varies by state, but in my home state, this is the case.

socala4 · July 2006

It would be if we were talking different things, running a red light is a civil offense.

In my state, and I would venture to guess that in most states, moving violations are criminal matters, not civil matters. If you receive a federal ticket (in a national park, for example), that is also a criminal offense.

redmaxx · July 2006

It would be if we were talking different things, running a red light is a civil offense.

Like socala says, some states it is criminal. In AZ it happens to be civil, unless you are also speeding in excess of 20 MPH over the SL at the time. Then it becomes criminal.

gee35coupe · July 2006

YOU asked Redmaxx for a source. The sources were all over the link he provided. If the replied message was not directed at me...my bad.

snakeweasel · July 2006

Like socala says, some states it is criminal.

Well first off I have been ignoring Socal for the last few days so I have no ideal what he is saying. Secondly I would like to know what states treat it criminally if there is no accident.

snakeweasel · July 2006

I asked for a source that showed red light cameras showing violations where none happened. You gave a link saying that red light cameras don't decrease accidents (which has issues and is counter to studies that I have read).

edmtst234 · July 2006

It's a great suggestion.

socala4 · July 2006

Here's a reference to one judge who found the cameras to be unreliable:

Because there are no eyewitnesses, the photos in red-light-camera cases--which ACS [Affiliated Computer Services, a private operator of red light cameras] takes, digitizes and uploads to the sheriff’s office--must be like Caesar’s wife: beyond reproach. They are the only evidence a crime has been committed. But in San Diego in 2001, a judge ruled that they were “untrustworthy and unreliable.” ACS was discovered to have a contract with the city of San Diego that paid the company a kickback each time a motorist was convicted--50 percent of the fine. That, Judge Ronald Styn ruled, gave ACS a clear financial motive to issue as many tickets as possible. Because the company was operating virtually unsupervised, it tainted the photos to the degree that they were inadmissible as evidence, he decided, and he tossed out 300 tickets.

And this is what happened to a judge pro tem who acquitted a defendant for an alleged violation:

“There was one case that was really borderline, so I acquitted him. A few minutes later, a clerk came up to the bench and told me the traffic commissioner wanted to see me.” Calling a recess, [Judge pro tem Ed] Jaszewski found Commissioner David Foos waiting for him outside the courtroom. “Apparently, word had gotten back to him that I’d actually acquitted someone. He asked me if there was something about the red-light system that I was uncomfortable with or didn’t understand.” Jaszewski explained his concerns and brought up the San Diego case, which seemed to him to be right on point. Foos, he said, told him a Los Angeles court had reached a different conclusion and suggested he familiarize himself with that case. “It was all very diplomatic, but the intimation was pretty clear. I took his comments to mean that we just don’t acquit these people.”

"Red light, green cash"

redmaxx · July 2006

Well first off I have been ignoring Socal for the last few days so I have no ideal what he is saying. Secondly I would like to know what states treat it criminally if there is no accident.

California. There are probably others, but I don't need to look them up. You've got California, and a situation in AZ where it would be criminal.

socala4 · July 2006

A bit more from the article above about a camera ticket case that went to a California appellate court, where the defendant had his conviction reversed:

ACS’ camera-maintenance logs were hearsay, a three-judge appellate panel unanimously agreed. They never should have been admitted. All they showed, wrote Judge Maryanne Gilliard, is that someone at some point in time did four minutes of maintenance on some cameras.

“The system appears to involve technology that has not been established as reliable in any published cases,” Gilliard wrote. “It is unreasonable, as a matter of law, to assume that logs showing four minutes of weekday maintenance would be all that is necessary to ensure that the system reliably worked.” Because no one from ACS bothered to appear at Bohl’s trial, she wrote, he’d been deprived of his right to cross-examine his accusers. The conviction was reversed, and she ordered the ticket dismissed.

socala4 · July 2006

Not quite a complete answer, but this link from NHTSA provides a list of allowable penalties by state.

This list indicates that jail is a possible sentence in 18 states, which alone tells you that speeding is a criminal and not a civil matter in those particular states.

In California, speeding is an "infraction", which ranks it as a criminal offense below a misdemeanor -- the defendant can't be jailed, but can be assessed fines and does not have the right to appointed counsel or to a jury trial. Parking tickets are a civil matter in this state, but moving violations are not.

Comprehensive answers can be found at this link from NHTSA: State By State Analysis. You'll have to open a PDF file for each state to find out the answer.

redmaxx · July 2006

:surprise: :surprise: :surprise:

I was shocked at the attitude of everyone in the "justice" system in that article. It was oozing with the presumption of guilt. Even after defendants showed proof that they could not be convicted, they were wrongfully done so. Terrible. :mad:

stickguy · July 2006

I recall reading that one jurisdiction (I assume Phila, since that's where my local news comes from, and they recently put in cameras) faced this criminal vs. civil issue. basically, the system was deemed illegal, since there was no cop involved, and no proof who was driving. So, they made it a civil offense of some kind, analagous to a parking ticket.

I think this probably works to the drivers favor. Yes, they pay a fine, but I don't think it can count as points on your license (or at least it shouldn't).

It really can't be treated like speeding, since they have to establish who was driving, and issue the ticket to the person, not the owner. Say your kid had you car and got snagged. WOuld it make sense to issue the speeding ticket to you?

socala4 · July 2006

It was oozing with the presumption of guilt.

Yep, and oozing even more with greed. I haven't received a ticket in years, but still, I'd prefer to just pay a higher registration fee and be assured of being left alone than have this tax camera mounted at every intersection. It's just taxation levied in the name of public safety.

heel2toe · July 2006

When they first installed red light cameras in the DC area in the late 90's the Washington Post did an article detailing how the cameras are paid for using a fairly even (near 50-50) revenue sharing arrangement with the supplier (which I believe was a division of Lockheed Martin).

So not only are they tax cameras, but they also benefit a private company as much as they do the government entity...

210delray · July 2006

...this topic is headed for the "read only" files, and durn quick too!

gee35coupe · July 2006

I don't see where anyone here has said anything to merit closing.

socala4 · July 2006

Civil vs Criminal. World of difference.

On this point, I should add that I'm actually opposed to making any moving violation a civil matter.

Making these violations into civil cases is really for the convenience of the state, not the defendant. With such a low burden of proof being required to find for the prosecution ("preponderance of the evidence" versus the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal cases), it effectively guarantees that the state can collect a fine, and not bother with the normal procedural requirements of a trial.

And then, if you object to the result, you have little in the way of appeal rights, and if you don't pay, they ruin your credit rating by sending you to collections.

Overall, it's a losing situation for the average citizen, who is just going to be subjected to more fines because of this. I'd support a move in the opposite direction -- prosecuting all moving violations as misdemeanors, with the rights to a jury and court-appointed counsel that is possible in a "real" trial. With that amount and expense required by the state, they'd have little choice but to simply issue fewer tickets, because they couldn't possibly keep up with the effort and expense.

Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles