Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
You mean this one?:
In Harris v. United States, n287 the Court held that the observation of objects in
plain view does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as the officer has a right to be at the place of observation.
Where is the officer in photo radar?
or this one?
"People vs Rhoades in Illinois in 1979: Defendant parked in a retail lot did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the face of observations made by a nearby State Police trooper."
A retail lot is private property!
"Texas vs. Brown, 1983: The use of a flashlight will not activate constitutional protection under the 4th Amendment."
I assume you do know the difference between a flashlight and automatic photo radar!
But I cannot under any circumstances believe it's a violation of privacy when it occurs on a public road or highway.
Those are not private areas. You cannot expect legal privacy.
Exactly. There is NONE. That is what I have been saying all along. All other cases quoted do not apply to photo radar.
PS: What is a shitookus? Is that like a brain, or better? :confuse:
"Well, there you go again."
You quoted a "snippet" of the information and POOF it magically makes you look right when you are not !!!
Texas vs. Brown, 1983: The use of a flashlight will not activate constitutional protection under the 4th Amendment. Therefore, an officer's observation through the instrument of photography will not infringe on the personal privacy of the driver of a vehicle where the face of the driver is open to public scrutiny. The Supreme Court held that the standard of whether the Fourth Amendment should be applied largely depends on whether or not a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case of a driver, who is observed in the open view of photographic radar, he or she definitely cannot claim protection of the Fourth Amendment.
If you believe it is okay, then that's fine. But please do not dismiss other people's concerns as mere paranoia.
You may be willing to give up your privacy easier than other people and that is fine by me, but if an issue with as widespread as photo radar is to be implemented society wide, it will take a lot more thinkin' and stuff.
Was President Ray-Gun anything like the greatest Republican president of modern time President Reagan? I bet Ray-Gun used his shitookus, whatever that is, instead of his brain like I know President Reagan did!
Texas vs. Brown, 1983: The use of a flashlight will not activate constitutional protection under the 4th Amendment. Therefore, an officer's observation through the instrument of photography will not infringe on the personal privacy of the driver of a vehicle where the face of the driver is open to public scrutiny. The Supreme Court held that the standard of whether the Fourth Amendment should be applied largely depends on whether or not a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case of a driver, who is observed in the open view of photographic radar, he or she definitely cannot claim protection of the Fourth Amendment.
The part that you bolded is NOT part of the Texas v. Brown case, but an unjustified jump to a different conclusion with the express purpose of trying to justify photo radar.
You are wrong about that.
We are talking about "privacy violations in relation to use of photo radar" are we not?
Please respond Yes or No, then I will continue...........
My contention is that is is an important issue where all concerns, including those of privacy, have not been settled yet.
And they do not, as many cases not related to photo radar have already shown.
Am I in some sort of circular alternate universe? Why does it seem like I have to keep proving my point over and over in multiple ways before someone gets the drift?
Let me try and use Math:
Court cases unrelated to photo radar have shown that no expectation of privacy can be expected in the public domain + the fact that you are driving in the public domain when your photo radar ticket picture is taken = your privacy is not being violated by a photo radar photograph because you are in the public domain.
Your point cannot be proven by mere restatement of dogmatic beliefs. Hence your frustation my kind Sir.
Let's see better math:
Court cases unrelated to photo radar have shown that no expectation of privacy can be expected in the public domain + the fact that you are driving in the public domain when your photo radar ticket picture is taken = your privacy is not being violated by a photo radar photograph because you are in the public domain.
Your conclusion is plain wrong because you start out with a false premise: Why do you use unrelated cases to make the jump to photo radar?
Speeders are actually much better off being caught by photo radar than being picked up by a police officer. I wonder if speeders, who openly violate velocity laws, are more likely to have committed other offences than are law abiding drivers who obey speed limits and respect the rule of law of our land.
The math/logic in that post is correct.
To be proven incorrect, you would have to believe that a driver of a vehicle on a public road is NOT in the public domain.
And that's ludicrous to believe.
This land has no rule of law...it is rule of money and special interest groups. It deserves no respect - respect must be earned, not given out like candy at a parade.
The issues of photo radar as related to ordinary law abiding citizens as they go about their daily business are too important to give away on the basis of flawed logic masquerading as impeccable logic.
There is a small town in Illinois near WISC border that catches lots of violators during some summer weekends and without photo radar. Many of the perps are coming from the big city Chicago area. Busy highway goes through towm and is one of major routes to venue in WISC having rock concerts. Small town police deploy and nab many young people with open liquour and pot in their cars. Like shooting fish in a barrell. Photo radar would not catch this.
So, would some anti photo radar folks on this board have a problem with that procedure? (Blago welcome signs have been removed from the Tollway.)
EZPass in the Northeast is another similar system which is absolutely legal.
The line to get these wonderful new tracking devices starts over there in an alternate circular universe, not the good ol' US of A.
I will stand waaaaaaaaaayy over here wearing my tinfoil hat.
Or so I read on the internet somewhere.
In business 10 was Absolute Management authority and 0 was a personnel run company. As I became a manager I found the most successful managers and CEOs were men like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who were considered being on the management scale about a 5. That was a person that trusted their employees enough to allow them ownership of the jobs assigned to them. I never wanted to be like Donald Trump who was considered a 9-1 manager. Until this forum I don't believe I ever thought I would see a person I would describe as 10-0.
A police state is one that keeps its citizens under constant observation in order to control their actions because they feel they have the right to. we as a society have admitted that such observation is unpleasant based on what our courts have decided is house arrest. Constant monitoring is considered punishment. After serving you time under constant observation we are set free again. Free to live our lives un observed by the very government we are supposed to be in control of. It is one of the reason the founding fathers put in the bill of rights. Now in later years some seem to be willing to give up those rights that so many had fought and died for without another fight.
If Arizona is considering abolishing Photo Radar, as has been posted, and if one of the stumbling blocks is the cost of canceling the contract perhaps the state attorney might look into charging the executives of that private company for breaking the law in keeping the photos they were supposed to destroy of non speeders? As LARSB says a law is a law and I believe they should be fined whatever the contract cancellation costs to help off set the budget short fall. .
To be proven incorrect, you would have to believe that a driver of a vehicle on a public road is NOT in the public domain.
Anyone here believe that?
Being in the public domain is NOT a sufficient reason to give up all hopes of privacy, as you have unsuccessfully tried to prove by unrelated court cases by your own admission.
The vehicle is of cousre on a public roadway, but unrelated court cases CANNOT be the foundation of giving up rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.
You continue to fail to provide any evidence that justifies that leap of make believe dogma.
Please do carry on!
Freedoms are not unbounded. While we are free to do whatever in our own houses, we still cannot do certain things such as murder or injure a spouse, abuse a child, manufacture illegal drugs, and so forth. Similarly, we are constrained in things we can do in our own vehicles while on public roads. Against the law to have a loaded gun, open liquor, driving under the influence, driving while naked, etc. Of course, one has to be licensed to drive on public roads. That license "requires" adherance to all laws pertaining to operating a motor vehicle and having a vehicle meeting all technical requirements such as functional head lights, tail lights, windshield wipers, etc.
I would agree that a gps black box in vehicles to document miles travelled in order to impose fees/taxes is one step away from a police state. But, a properly functioning photo radar with failsafes, safeguards and only photographing speeders is not a police state. That is paranoia.
If photo radar was misused and was running continuously and documenting law abiding drivers, and then the license plate numbers, date/time were put in a giant data base, then that is a police state.
Privacy. “Although the issue of invasion of privacy is often raised by opponents of automated enforcement no privacy challenges have been raised in court. This is probably because the issue of privacy in a vehicle has been very well defined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules including, for example, to obey traffic signals.”
So THAT'S why we don't have a photo radar privacy case to reference.
Scaredy-Cat Lawyers don't think they can win that argument.
And they'd be right. No complaining speeder could win the privacy issue argument.
The law of privacy as defined by the Supreme Court relates to use of flashlight or the presence of a police officer and such like.
Further, traffic signals are not photo radar.
Please carry on!
PS: From the forewrod of this document is this:
It is important to explain the philosophy and strategy behind the ASE program through communica-tions and marketing programs, public meetings, and hearings. ASE should be described as a tool that can enhance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and that ASE will supplement, rather than re-place, traffic stops by law enforcement officers. The public should be made aware that ASE is used to improve safety, not to generate revenue or impose “big brother” surveillance. Saying this will not nec-essarily make it so in the eyes of the public, so it is important to explain how each element of the ASE program puts safety first and how controls are in place to prevent misuse of the system.
TRANSLATION: If you can put this over the eyes of the public, they will buy a bridge in Brooklyn, and pay you hundreds of millionsof dollars!
And if this were a court case, I would have clobbered your case already.
No hard feelings though. Good try !!!
I wish I could rate your feeble attempts as good, but please continue trying.
Identifying the driver is consistent with laws regulating traditional speed enforcement. This type of pro-gram may require less substantial changes to traffic laws in allowing the use of ASE. Programs that use driver identification may also have a stronger legal basis in the case of legal challenges. For in-stance, Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota found that the Minneapolis red light camera pro-gram, which held registered vehicle owners responsible for violations, did not presume the defendant’s innocence, in violation of the due process requirements of State law (State of Minnesota and City of Minneapolis v. Kuhlman, 2006). Although the automated enforcement program was permitted by a city ordinance, the court found that State law, which superseded the city ordinance, required a higher standard of due process than the automated enforcement program provided. Minneapolis’s red light camera program was suspended immediately following this ruling. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in a decision rendered April 5, 2007, upheld the district court and court of appeals decisions finding that the procedures used in the automated enforcement program violated State law.
TRANSLATION: You cannot assume that the registered owner of the vehicle needs to pay the fine or tell the citation authority who was driving. This is a violation of due process.
Wait, it gets better on the same page 11:
Although driver identification has many advantages, there are some limitations. First, it might be diffi-cult to issue a citation to someone driving a vehicle not registered in that driver’s name. Some jurisdic-tions that require driver identification cannot require registered vehicle owners to identify the driver at the time of the violation, if the driver was someone other than the registered owner (see Chapter 5: Matching violation information to driver and vehicle records). This can establish a system of unequal treatment where some drivers are essentially impervious to ASE. Although it might not be feasible to pursue all violators, there are procedures that can help to minimize the number of dismissed viola-tions (see Chapter 5: Violation notice processing and delivery and Chapter 6: Violation notice receipt and adjudication).
TRANSLATION: It is not a slam dunk. We will try to prsent contorted scanerios to justify the looting of innocent citizens disguised as the law, for their own safety! The bolded statement is good: Only the mindless lemmings will pay the fines. Who cares, right?
As I've said, I don't intentionally speed. I hope you have the same confidence in the big brother system when they are watching you take a shower so that they can fine you for using too much water.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Sorry you missed this one too.
I'm not sure your missing of the point is really your fault. Maybe you just CAN'T understand the concept of the FACT that the courts have ALWAYS ALWAYS fallen on the side of "there is no Fourth Amendment right that guarantees privacy in the public domain."
Until you understand that, you will keep arguing.
Nice to be a bulldog, but when someone takes the bone away, don't keep trying to eat it.
Thus far, you asked for court cases regarding privacy expectations in public domain.
I presented them. Several of them.
Then I proved that no one had ever successfully challenged a photo radar system based on Fourth Amendment privacy violations.
Then I presented AGAIN the fact that no one, even the fiercest opponents of photo radar, has successfully mounted a court case to whine, "That mean-old photo radar camera took my picture on a public road on which I was willingly driving and it violated my little old privacy rights, it surely did !!!"
Not sure what else I can do to prove I'm right. I think everyone here sees it but you.
Makes me glad to live in the good old US of A where we have that pesky bill of rights and stuff that makes most of that kind of jack-booted behavior illegal. (for now)
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
An excellent point and one which makes me even more OPPOSED to photo radar. Your example clearly states that the government proponents care nothing about safety but only about the money. Why else would they choose to let all the miscreants you mention run wild on the highway?
By your example, if I'm on my way to blow up a federal building and speed by the photo radar I get a free pass to continue on my way. If an officer pulls me over and finds my car full of TNT I'm busted.
Thank you for pointing that out. You photo radar supporters can talk to the hand or any other body part you wish. DOWN WITH ROBOT RADAR!!! :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
And yet it has been use for purposed it was never intended. In one case it was used to break a murder suspect's alibi but it is more routinely used by divorce lawyers to track cheating spouses.
It's the POTENTIAL uses for these technologies that scare me. :surprise:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Well, let the people who read this forum decide here, and elsewhere in the courts as appropriate and let the system work.
I will respect your right to present your point of view, and I will continue to present mine. The important part is that we are not in a contest. I will hope that the people who read your point of view at least have a counter-point to consider to help thier own thinking, and then let them decide what they may.
Your view are fixed, I do know that. But they are very dangerous if left unchallenged. Hence my role. And please note that I have maintained my discussion without the use of words like shitookus, whiners, dogs or bones.
I hope that you will rise at least to a sufficient level of polite behaviour rather than ridiculing others' points of view with derogatory terms.
And yet TWO states are proposing just that! :mad: OR aand MA have plans on the table just waiting for the public to look the other way.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Pay attention the next time you drive on a limited access highway. Count how many vehicles pass you as you drive the speed limit.
The simple fact is that most drivers exceed the speed limit, unless it has been set at least 80 mph. Last time I checked, only Texas had set a limit set at that speed, and that is only for some roads.
I would suggest that these troglodyte crowd spend less time being offended, and more time learning about cars and driving, so that they can drive better.
larsb: If you believe that so strongly, I suggest you get a custom-made bumper sticker that says, "Anyone driving less than 10 MPH over the limit is UNSOPHISTICATED and knows NOTHING about SAFETY."
We don't need bumper stickers to announce their ignorance to the world. Their actions show it.
larsb: Driving 10+ miles over the limit is safe and improves safety?
That's pretty "out there" dude.
What improves safety is keeping up with the flow of traffic, and on most limited access highways (except for those in urban areas), the MINIMUM speed is 75 mph.
larsb: And I have never heard of a law setting "de facto" speed limits.
That's because your knowledge stops at "there are two numbers on a sign, everyone must obey them." Informed drivers have moved beyond that level of "thinking."
You can't seem to make a valid argument without insulting my intelligence.
If you really think I'm like that, then you have not paid attention to what I have said.
Easy to say, "Oh, because you are an idiot you cannot understand" but in reality that does not fly, not in this case.
I think there are two different discussions going on here...
1. Photo radar violates a civil liberty, personal freedoms, or fails to allow you to meet your accuser in court, etc
2. Speed laws are mostly dumb.
It seems like your discussion falls into the second category for the most part, and while there is a lot of agreement with the sentiment, I don't know that its the same discussion Mr or Mrs V and Mr or Mrs L are having.
I do not think we are discussing speed limits since that is not the topic of this forum. We are discussing photo radar, and all matters related to it.
Also, my hope is to have participation from all those reading this forum, with discussion of all points of view. I hope nobody resorts to name calling and boorish terms hoping to badger the other point of view into submission since this is not a war on an enemy.
It is us together who make up society, and as free citizens of the greatest country on earth, we need our participation to determine how we are governed, not somebody telling us how it should be because they are certain it is good for us.
All experiences related to implementation of photo radar have shown that it is impossible to make it work while protecting constitutionally enshrined protections.
Taking a bunch of unrelated cases, as proven above time and again, and then jumping to justifying photo radar is like saying: "Since the pope is Catholic and I am a good Christian and I know it is God's will that thou shalt not speed therefore 24/7 blanket monitoring of all people is okay".
Photo radar is a complex issue that needs to be looked at very carefuuly.
In some cases, yes, they are dumb. I have no problem to drive 15-25mph in a school zone, on a small city streets & etc. Speed limit 55mph on an empty highway at summer time is D U M B!!! US needs better driving education, higher speed limits. 85-95mph will be good speed limit for any modern car.