Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
A Police department is not going to willingly and knowingly violate state law for 9+ years.
City of Oakland Caught Red-Handed Using Photo Radar in Illegal Speed Trap
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
PRESS RELEASE
A motion to dismiss a speeding ticket that was administered via the City's "Photo Radar" program and served by mail, was filed in Oakland's Municipal Court today by Nancy Levine, an actress living in Oakland's Montclair District. The citation was issued when a photo radar system indicated that she was driving 37 miles per hour in a 25 mph zone.
The motion says that the defendant was cited for speeding on Thornhill Drive as a direct result of the city's operation of an illegal "Speed Trap." The motion refers to the city's Engineering Study (the data from which is used to establish speed limits) as "woefully absent of the sound engineering judgement found in the engineering body of knowledge."
The motion also goes on to criticize the use of the photo radar system: "The city, in their use of a high volume photo radar ticket writing machine is being rewarded for the illegal use of traffic control devices by turning this improperly engineered and posted section of highway into a profit center."
The controversial photo radar program has already been deemed by the State of Alaska as an Unconstitutional violation of the 6th Ammendment Right to Due Process. Likewise, the program has been tested and abandoned in Southern California.
Said Levine, "I believe the photo radar system to be a gross violation of my rights. I just want to see this practice abolished. It's a sham. My local beat cop even told me not to sign the ticket, if I hadn't already."
The entire case is:
OAKLAND-PIEDMONT-EMERYVILLE MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF OAKLAND, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State of CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff
vs.
NANCY ELLEN LEVINE, Defendant
Citation No. PR103933/01
CONCLUSION
The defendant has presented competent evidence that the City of Oakland was operating a "speed trap" as defined by law in VC 40802, subsection (b), in clear violation of VC 40801; and VC 40803, 40804 clearly states that the evidence against the defendant is inadmissible, and VC 40805 states that the Court is without jurisdiction to render a Judgment of Conviction.
Furthermore, the defendant has presented competent evidence in the form of the City's own traffic engineering study that she was operation at a "safe for conditions" speed under the prima facie rule.
Therefore, I ask that the case be dismissed.
Spent $120,000 defending his right to speed and LOST.
But These Meanies Are Not Letting Me SPEED, Your Honor !!!
Although this does seem to make sense on the face of it, several courts in British Columbia have disagreed. In fact this case went all the way to the British Columbia Court of Appeal who unanimously rejected Mr. Steads argument and ruled that the law allowing photo radar was absolutely legal and constitutional. His battle lasted from 1996 to 2001 when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear his case.
"Notwithstanding that court judgment, photo radar was so hated by the citizens of British Columbia that some say it helped to bring down the government. The elimination of photo radar was a key promise that was kept by the party that won. While the court case may have proved it was legal, photo radar was abolished in British Columbia in 2002."
Democracy wins every single time!
Isn't democracy WONDERFUL!
I doubt it.
There is still no evidence that opposition against photo radar is anything more than speeders just wanting to be allowed to speed.
However, photo radar is the topic here, and of course not a replacement for police, and further, is a violation of basic tenets of our constitution as shown time and again.
Please be very clear that I am not cheering for or against anything here, merely presenting my concerns, with proper supporting evidence, not quoted in part to potentially mislead, or changing the names of the links to express contempt for the opposing point of view.
Some may be surprised to hear that as a mature, safe and courteous driver, I ALWAYS drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions, and almost always within a few mph of posted speed limits in the proper lane without obstructing anyone else, as I believe one should always drive this way. Further, I NEVER speed in work zones or near schools or hospitals, EVER.
HOW can you say that with a straight face? I thought we already agreed that Fourth Amendment privacy rights have not been violated, due to the fact that no court has said that it has done so?
Nothing is more obvious than the fact that because no lawyer knows he will win the case, it has not even been CONTESTED.
Can't get more obvious as to WHY NOT, can it?
I have said all along that this violation is as yet untested in court, and until it is in due course, we won't know. Any attempt to show this as a valid argument because no lawyer has yet tested it in a court of law is a merely a facetious attempt at circular logic.
Once again, in plain English, here is a short summary of some of the many reasons photo radar is unconstitutional.
When you receive the bill from photo radar, it will state what your violation is and that it is your burden to prove that you have not committed the offence. If you are not the driver of the vehicle, you are still responsible to pay the fine. The legal system in our country is founded upon the fact that you are "innocent until proven guilty". The way that this company has made a deal with the City to convict you and make it your burden to prove yourself not-guilty is one very obvious violation of your constitutional rights.
Another is that any private business who makes money by saying that you broke the law is of course going to have an interest in you breaking the law. In other words, for this business to profit, it has to say that you broke the law and that you must pay them. Without accusing you, they convict you. This is not a City or State municipality, it's a regular corporate company. It's no different then you taking your digital camera out on the side of the road, taking a picture of a car going by and then sending the registered owner a bill for speeding. The way they make their money is that they have made a deal with the City to send you a bill with City markings, instructing you to pay the City, and then the City gives them a percentage. Have you noticed that a regular speeding ticket for going 10 mph over the limit given to you by a cop is around $100.00, but the same speed violation from a photo radar 'ticket' is more like $150.00 to $200.00? The reason is that the large extra money you're paying is going to photo radar.
When you are given a ticket by a Police Officer, it states that you are not guilty and that you are only signing the ticket to show that you have received it. If you choose to set a Hearing, then it is the Officer's duty to prove to a judge that you committed the offence. There is a thing called "Due Process". The Officer has to show up in court, testify that he (or she) witnessed you committing the offence, and in the case of speeding, caught you with a means such as a radar gun that he has been trained to use and is within current calibration standards.
With photo radar, there is no Due Process. They go straight to conviction and make it your burden to prove otherwise. There is no City or State official to witness the offence, and the equipment used to record it is not owned and maintained by the appropriate law-making or legal statute system like a radar gun is. Since photo radar equipment is owned by a private company, then it is subject to defective calibration, malfunction, or even willful adjustment or tampering by it's owners so that it shows an offence being committed when there was none. They can "photo" you going 100 mph if they want to, they own the equipment and have a financial interest in it showing the results they need to make money. This new way of "law enforcement" is purely financially based, and the numbers are an overwhelming success for the cities who use it, and for photo radar.
Because I am on the side of what most people here think is a "privacy rights violation" let me say a couple of things.
I'm just as adamant as anyone else that:
Laws should reflect the will of the people.
And those laws should abide by the Constitution.
And that no police agency has the right to violate anyone's Constitutional rights.
And that nothing should be allowed which violates those rights.
I'm just as protective of my personal rights as anyone.
Where I apparently "part ways" with many on this board is:
I don't feel ( and it has been shown by repeated court cases ) that anyone has a right to "privacy" while in the public domain. So that alone eliminates the "privacy" complaint of the photo radar opponents.
I don't feel that getting a photo radar ticket is any different in DUE PROCESS than getting a human-issued ticket. Either way, to win your case, you have to PROVE to a judge that either you were not speeding or that your speed was legally justified. That eliminates the "due process" argument of the photo radar opponents.
The only conclusion that I can come to is that the REAL reason behind opposition of photo radar systems is that speeders want to be able to speed unimpeded.
Now, a separate issue, near and dear to the heart of grbeck, is that "speed limits on limited access highways are too slow" meaning that excessive enforcement is a sham.
I would agree that speed limits in some areas COULD SAFELY be raised. But on one condition: Enforcement, whether by human or machine, should take place at 5+ MPH or greater over the newly higher-set speed limits.
If traffic engineering study data shows that 85% of the drivers think a particular section of hwy should have a speed limit of 85 mph, then anyone going 90+ should get ticketed. No exceptions. Safe flow 85, then you should be satisfied going 85.
Give us higher speed limits where it is SAFE to do so, but enforce better to keep drivers in line better.
And so what if it is? Cities and counties have to pay money for signs, new stripe paint, traffic cones, etc. What's wrong with allowing WILLING lawbreakers to help pay for that?
However, it may not be fine for lots of other people who do pay taxes and thus have a say in the system. Similarly, I respect your right to hold the opinion that you see nothing wrong with such fund-raising from speeders. Other people do see huge problems with it. As simple as that.
Thank you for quoting the The British Columbia example. It is a fine example of "even it was legal in that jurisdiction" the people changed it.
And this scenario is playing out slowly but surely in a lot of places. This fact alone, in and of itself, is a fair repudiation of the stance that all issues with photo radar are so well settled that it must become accepted practice.
The evidence seems to suggest that it is far from a settled issue. That is all I am saying. I do not know what the eventual outcome will be, but I will continue to trust our legal processes as part of the systems defined by our Constitution to work.
All that shows is that there are a lot of voters in BC who think speeding is OK.
Proves nothing else.
And NO, it's not a scenario which is "playing out slowly but surely in a lot of other places."
I have not seen an area in the USA where VOTERS have eliminated speed cameras.
It might have happened here and there, but it's not playing out in a LOT of places.
I believe that it will happen. And that is also why larsb wrote (direct quote: "The contest is Good (slowing people down) versus Evil (allowing people to drive as fast as they want) and the two issues ARE in a contest. The future of photo radar systems apparently are in the balance."
I am not worried that we as a society will find what works for us as a whole. Your quoted statement shows that it is you who is worried at being proven a minority opinion.
There is a good reason why the Highway Patrol in many states is run by The Department of PUBLIC SAFETY.
Speed enforcement has been, is, and always will be, a SAFETY issue.
There are all sorts of solutions and technologies that will continue to improve our lives. OBD-3-GPS is a case in point that I have mentioned before.
We just need to proceed with all due caution in the manner prescribed by our Constitution because we as a country have ALWAYS won over our problems, and I am sure we will continue to do so, including the problems of speeding affecting public safety as well as the issues with photo radar.
Semper Fidelis brother!
A Police department is not going to willingly and knowingly violate state law for 9+ years.
If that were true, then all camera tickets would be ceased immediately nationwide. Camera tickets are clearly unconstitutional. No ifs, buts, or bones about it.
You cannot question a camera in a court of law and there are no witnesses to call to the stand. Therefore, there is no accuser. End of story. Camera tickets are an unconstitutional sham and the lawmakers know it, but they break it anyway. Shame on the police departments that help enforce these camera tickets. In Escondido, they are trying to use photos for right turn on red tickets!!!! How outrageous is that!!! First of all, you'd need a video, not a photo to determine anything, secondly, it would have to be 1,000 frames per second so as to show they did not stop even for a 1/1000th of a second, and third, you'd have to have a side view of the wheel to make sure it doesn't stop rotating for as little as 1/1000th of a second, because after all, a stop is a stop whether it's 1/10 of a second or 5 seconds. Also, right turns on reds should be legal, as should left turns onto one ways on reds (regardless if your on a one way or two way). We need to stop the ridiculous right turn on red tickets being issues for revenue generation when the turth is more accidents are caused by people stopping at right turns than by right turn runners.
And post here too!
That is because your position doesn't care if the one getting the ticket was the driver or not. Due process involves addressing the "individual" doing the crime not the person sitting in their living room watching TV. The position of authority you advocate would drag that innocent person in to court to prove they were not driving the vehicle that was cited. That position can compound the problem if it mandates that to avoid being punished for the infraction the innocent person that may have allowed someone else to drive their car has to identify that person or receive the penalty themselves.
The very idea that if that person refuses to identify the other person it will cause them to receive the punishment themselves allows for an innocent person to suffer willingly while the guilty goes free. The very basis of our justice system is the presumption of innocent till proven guility. That determination is made after a trial where all evidence and testimony is weighed and a judgment is made.
If a father has given permission for his daughter to drive their car and that car is issued a speeding ticket is justice served if the father decides not to identify his daughter because she can't afford a ticket? would the same be true if that same father confessed to a robbery to keep his son out of prison?
These rights of due process were not written because we were a nation of sniveling crying babies. It was because many of our ancestors had come from nations where due process was denied. And that is one of the reasons our ancestors left the old world in the first place. And we were willing to dump tea and shed blood to protect the rights like due process and the presumption if innocence.
I like the idea of new technology and think it can be used to make a better place for us to live. But it is not a better place when we are being watched 24/7. We call that prison.
Are you crazy? Since when do you have to prove innocense? Maybe to traffic court referees that don't understand the law and the constitution yet, but in America, we are innocent until proven guilty. Officer's fib on the stand all the time, remember the first OJ trial? You do not have to PROVE you were not speeding or legally justified. The Officer/witness to violation has to PROVE you meet all the requirements of the violation and vehicle code you are accused of. That means they have to prove each and every element of the case.
If they fail to prove or address all the elements of the violation, then the case has to be dismissed... legally speaking. HOwever, in the real world, since our judges in traffic court are so corrupted by the revenue they benefit from with all these ridiculous traffic fines and fees, you do have to basically prove your case 100% to be found not guilty. And even then some judges don't care or don't think you have the time or money or will power to appeal, so they will convict you anyway.
But due process does say you are innocent until proven guilty. So the officer needs to prove I was the driver of the car at the time of the violation, that the car that committed the violation was mine, and that I was driving it, and that my car was located and present at the time of the violation at the location of the violation. Also, they need to prove I comitted the violation.
The truth is that the traffic courts in California make a mockery of justice, and since most people's only experience with our justice system in the US (like myself) is with traffic court, they have absolutely NO FAITH in the police or the justice system, have a disrespect for law enforcment personnel, and it is no wonder to me why after sitting in many traffic courts watching trials including my own. It takes someone with millions of dollars to stake a $300,000 claim by taking it to the California Court of Appeals and getting unconstitutional laws overturned. Why should people have to go so far up the chain of command to get the Constitution enforced properly?? Maybe because cities know it'll take years and years for that to happen!!!!! And they can profit in the meantime.
No, a defendant does not have to prove innocence to a judge. It is the state's duty to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is where photo enforcement falls apart. There are no witnesses to place a driver behind the wheel, or to testify about road conditions or anything else. The fine is mailed to the car's owner, who may or may not have been driving. Even if the picture shows who was behind the wheel, there are a lot of people who look similar.
Nobody is crazy, and nobody has a monopoly on truth and wisdom. Tactics such as these only serve to undermine one's own arguments, and I am sure that nobody wants that.
Funny, because most police officers involved with accident investigations will tell you that 99 to 100% of accidents are not caused by speeding as a primary or main reason.
I think speeding enforcment has been, is, and always will be about justifying "their" own jobs. Their covering highway patrol, courts, referees, judges, clerks, and other related personnel (camara companies, redflex employees, radar manufacturers, insurance companies - the most crooked and dishonest of all are insurance people).
Revenue generation. How about we all pass a law that traffic enforcement will be nil for one month, all enforcment of traffic laws waived!!! I'll bet my bottom dollar that traffic will proceed to move just as smoothly as ever in that month, if not more so because people won't have to use 50% of their concentration on looking for highway patrol and can divert that attention to driving even more safely.
Given all types of drivers on our roads, one can make a case that some form of speed control is necessary.
However, the present forum is about photo radar as one possible means to help with these goals, and all issue related thereto only.
If the moderators are okay with this, we can extend the title of the forum in expressly include speed limits, but I am afraid that that will unleash such a flood of posts that it will be difficult to keep everything in line, as has happened multiple times at Edmunds with speeding and LLCs etc etc etc.
Luckily, that is not my call.
Also, I have a lot of experience in fighting the traffic court system in California in various counties. The experience has made me lose faith in the justice system and law enforcement.
I see guys getting convicted when an officer testifies the car that comitted the violation was white, and the defendant says they were driving a silver car (granted, they should have followed up with a picture submission and registration proving the car to be registered as silver), however, the judge found him guilty anyway and shouldn't have. His only question to the officer was "what color was my car?" Since the officer ddin't get it right, and the defendant did testify that there was a white car, and it did committ a violation, but it wasn't him, because his car was silver, I thought that to be a strong defense and surely provided reasonable doubt as to his guilt (I just wish he'd of PROVED his car was silver). I saw him in the parking lot later as I was leaving and his car was indeed silver; not even close to white!).
Also, a judge ruled in Ventura incorrectly against me and my motion for discovery. He claimed that I didn't have a right to discovery for an infraction case because their was no DA. However, the Penal Code in CA is very clear and explicit that all rules of the court for misdemeanor cases shall apply to infraction cases unless there is an express rule to the contrary.
There are express rules that you are not allowed a jury in infraction cases, that you are not allowed a public defender, that there will be no DA prosecuting. However, there is nothing specific or implied about not having a right to Discovery. His round-a-bout convoluted argument to deny my motion for discovery based on not having a DA to serve it upon is ridiculous in my view, and certainly not an EXPRESS rule or argument.
They called me back, reviewed it with me, and were nice and honest enough to dismiss the ticket w/o even having for me to go to court!!
My big issue is, how could Redflex and some officer have signed off on this ticket based on the video???? They must really be pushing the most borderline and grey of cases in order to make more money in the hopes that most people won't bother to contest.
This is where I got my "how many frames per second is the video" defense idea. Along with the need for a side view of the wheel to verify it didn't stop for as little as 1/100th of a second. I think 1/100th of a second is enough for reasonable doubt.
The officer said that technically a violation had occurred even though I may have stopped because I passed the white line by about a car length. I said but you can't see with traffic to your left for incoming traffic w/o crossing the limit lines. He responded with the idea that the traffic lines are painted in their specific locations based on engineering and survey partially due to sight lines, and that if you need to creep forward to be SAFE, you should stop before the line, then proceed forward and stop again where you can safely see and yield to traffic before taking the right turn.
As the law is currently written, I can live with that interpretation and idea. HOwever, I believe the laws should be changed to make right turn on reds legal, as they are harmless and EVERYONE does the "california" stop/yield.
However, your big issue does not seems to be very big. As long as a police officer was able to review the evidence based on your side of things, as well as whatever Redflex told him, rightly or wrongly, his judgement is what made all the difference.
And all it took was a phone call. I could see how even that might be difficult for some people to accept, but we do live in an imperfect world.
What I would not have liked is you getting a summons and going straight to court without a sane police officer involved in the process.
And if you use your experience to convert your indignation into actual work to get the law changed, then that is all that matters in the long run.
I almost didn't call the PD, because I didn't think it would work or be benefiicial. I am glad I did take a free swing though, because it saved me time and money of having to go to court.
See, I believe in CA both a Redflex employee and PD officer have to review the video evidence, and sign-off that it is a legit violation before you get the ticket with large fine mailed to you. I'm questioning how this video got passed 2 people (one biased camera company guy, one law enforcement) without being thrown out? Why did it take a phone call from me to speak with a different officer than probably the one who confirmed the ticket in the first place?
Also, I'm glad the PD gives you the option to call them or make an appointment to review the video in person at their offices. You can review the video online too.
Also, I had a cousin-in-law visiting from Bolivia, South America.... I was gonna say he was the driver, since he has no license in CA and would be out of the country shortly, I don't think they would extradite him over a $400 ticket. :P
Matters of law are much too important to be allowed to be influenced by matters of money. Think of all the mess we have in Washington because of the lobbyists trying to perverting our legal processes.
However, that, as they say, is another story and not part of this forum.
The problem with creeping up to the intersection after stopping at the white stop line is that the driver behind you will assume that you have left and tag your rear taillight.
That happened to me three times in a couple of years before I learned to ride my brake creeping out where I could see traffic.
1,000 messages in here and I think we've heard from most of the regulars. So ... are there any lurkers who would like to add their comments? We'll try to keep this a flame free zone as much as possible. Thanks!
However, just like I was preaching to others, those matters are not related to photo radar, at least not directly. Traffic enforcement is a HUGE issue, and Photo radar is only a small part of it I think
So why don't I take my own medicine here and shut myself up about these issues, and go on with the rest of my day?
I've been meaning to ask if it would make any difference to people if the private sector was removed from the equation and only cop shops ran the radar units and kept all the money in the public sector.
You'd still have the privacy and record abuse issues, but you'd take the business (if not the profit) element out of it.
The profits still there, but its going to the cops and radar manufacturers and video camara makers and court rooms and judges instead of a private company.
All that fine and fee money pays for those nice mahogany wood lined court rooms and those ever fancier and more expensive radar guns, and those nice cruiser vehicles, and more money for the department for raises, and on and on.
If the Gov't gets rich, the govt' employees do benefit somewhat, though perhaps partially indirectly. I think it's a vicious cycle... they spend more money on better radars, people spend more money on newer radar detectors, then they spend money replacing their old tech, and then new tech has to be bought by consumer again.
I wouldn't be suprised if the radar gun manufacturer's started making radar detectors soon. Or video camara enforcement makers started making detection equipment.
Have there been any reports of groups putting bullets into traffic cams? Maybe taking the "law" into their own hands? How about a sling shot with a 1" rock?
If you destroy the equipment often and frequently, surely the cities will run out of money to replace the stuff and it will begin to be less cost effective for them to break the Constitution. Vandalism could do some "good" in this case. Not that I advocate "breaking" the law.
You will see that the courts have never declared Photo Radar a Fourth Amendment violation.
You will see that the process to "beat" a photo radar ticket is even LESS complicated than beating a human-issued ticket.
You will see that the main opponents of photo radar are mostly people who want to get away with speeding.
And you also said:
"EVERYONE does the "california" stop/yield. "
Not me, my friend. I STOP when I'm supposed to stop. People who do the Cali-stop are on my personal peeve list.
I'll use another outrageous exaggeration to explain this point. What if someone is driving your car and is cited by the photo police. You get the ticket and you can't or won't tell who the driver is. The police throw your children in jail until you talk.
Would you have a problem with that? Why would it matter, the police are just trying to do their job?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
If I knew, I would tell.
So it would never come to "kids in jail" time.
I don't have to tell the court who was driving my vehicle; why should I?
I'll turn in the person that comitted the violation in my vehicle if you pay me half the fine perhaps!! LOL!
But otherwise, it's none of the government's business who I let drive my car.
Actually, it becomes their business when a crime is committed.
Would you say the same thing if they committed a murder? A robbery? A kidnapping?
Would it be none of the guvmint's business then?
( I know there are degrees of crimes, don't try to explain it to me. )
But the point is, would you not be "harboring a fugitive" if you refused to identify a criminal act committed by the driver of your car?
Would you say the same thing if they committed a murder? A robbery? A kidnapping?
Would it be none of the guvmint's business then?
( I know there are degrees of crimes, don't try to explain it to me. )
But the point is, would you not be "harboring a fugitive" if you refused to identify a criminal act committed by the driver of your car?
I knew you were gonna go there, so let me address that.
First off, as far as I know, no crime has been committed. You are innocent until proven guilty. Are there any witnesses? A video or picture is not a witness in this day and age of Photoshop and video alterations capable of being done by a 4 year old on an Apple computer or PC. Also, where and who is the victim?
Give me a special effects artist and CGI programmer and a picture of you and I could show you murdering someone too.
Secondly, I don't want the goverment wasting tax payer dollars trying to prosecute people with lousy circumstantial unverified evidence such as a video no one took (no cameraman) or a picture no one shot (again, no operator or camera person).
Now, if you want cops to sit on street corners with video camera's shooting traffic, that would be somewhat legit and admissible in court and we could do that. More waste of taxpayer money if you ask me. But if a cop isn't operating, supervising, and controlling the camera or videocamera, then I don't want it used in court.
Auto-enforcment doesn't work, isn't verifiable, and is really hearsay evidence.
If I knowingly let someone without a license drive my car, isn't that against the law?
Why should I have to incriminate myself by admitting who I let drive my car when the 5th amendment exists?
Just as if you were in court to defend a human-issued ticket, you would be in court to defend a photo-radar-issued ticket.
1. Well, if you know who the person is and you are defending a photo radar ticket mailed to you, then common sense would say "I need to tell the court who it is."
2. If you willingly, knowingly gave your car to someone whom you knew was going to use it to do something against the law, then you have an issue not related to photo radar.
I have two questions for the forum: Why was this amendment needed in the first place, and how does this apply to our present discussion? I do have some thoughts about both of these questions, but I will give an opportunity to others here to air their views first according to the rules of civil discussion please.
You could surely plead the 5th when fighting a photo radar ticket. And the judge could say, "defendant, since you have no serviceable defense, then you are guilty as charged" and that would be that.
And you have no problem with that even if the person was not guilty? Must we be forced to prove we are not guilty or do they have to prove we are? Your position is not the law I grew up with in school. Your position scares me.
"Mr. security guard. Did you find the bomb that was discovered at the Atlanta Olympics? Did you plant it? If you take the fifth that will be that and the crime is solved." No I didn't is not a serviceable defence you need to prove you didn't? Prove a negative? "Guilty as charged." Yep that pretty much sounds like a police state.
If you are not going to incriminate yourself by speaking, why bother plead the Fifth?
In my experience, pleading the Fifth has usually meant "I'm hiding something."