Red Light Camera ticket - Should I PAy? (Houston, Arlington: vehicle registration, safety)

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by baytownb

Cameras don't cite, officers do. They also don't accuse you of violating the state law of running a red light but a city ordinance. Then they send the owner a notice of violation. If she wasn't the owner there wouldn't have even been a record. Even if she was the owner and your attorney would have requested the ticket her information would have been redacted. And even if you got an unredacted copy, showing her running the light issued in her name it would be inadmissible in your case because of the previously stated state law. But hey, at least there is the possibility she may have gotten a $75 request for revenue in the mail a few weeks later. That'l teach her.

I stand corrected for my wording. However I disagree with you based on what you posted.

Sec. 707.006. GENERAL SURVEILLANCE PROHIBITED; OFFENSE. (a) A local authority shall operate a photographic traffic control signal enforcement system only for the purpose of detecting a violation or suspected violation of a traffic-control signal.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person uses a photographic traffic signal enforcement system to produce a recorded image other than in the manner and for the purpose specified by this chapter.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Now where in this sec does it state that the Notice of Violation can't be used in a case with conflicting stories involving a law suit by the offender. If that is the case then the lawyer's who wrote up the Sec have really screwed up our civil rights to a fair trial and encourages frivolous lawsuits.

Hopefully she learned from that experience! She lost the case and totaled her car!

[baytownb]

It doesn't have to say it CAN"T be used in your case because it says it can ONLY be used for the purpose of detecting a violation. In your case it would not have been a LOCAL AUTHORITY (city) for the purpose of detecting a violation. It would have been you or your attorney, not a local authority, for the purpose of assigning liability in a civil case, not detecting a violation. Think about it, in the entire months leading up to and after the Houston election the camera company didn't once bring out someone that had won a case like yours because of red light camera footage that was used in their case, why not? over 4 years of camera footage at busy intersections and not one single example of what you are talking about happening? There ought to be hundreds of cases where the camera footage would have been used, but there isn't, it's illegal.

I also understand from friends at the PD that they had camera footage of a suspect fleeing a serious crime who ran a light under a camera but couldn't use it to place him at the scene. They were able to get him otherwise but it couldn't be used.

Originally Posted by TVC15

I stand corrected for my wording. However I disagree with you based on what you posted.

Sec. 707.006. GENERAL SURVEILLANCE PROHIBITED; OFFENSE. (a) A local authority shall operate a photographic traffic control signal enforcement system only for the purpose of detecting a violation or suspected violation of a traffic-control signal.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person uses a photographic traffic signal enforcement system to produce a recorded image other than in the manner and for the purpose specified by this chapter.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Now where in this sec does it state that the Notice of Violation can't be used in a case with conflicting stories involving a law suit by the offender. If that is the case then the lawyer's who wrote up the Sec have really screwed up our civil rights to a fair trial and encourages frivolous lawsuits.

Hopefully she learned from that experience! She lost the case and totaled her car!

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by baytownb

It doesn't have to say it CAN"T be used in your case because it says it can ONLY be used for the purpose of detecting a violation. In your case it would not have been a LOCAL AUTHORITY (city) for the purpose of detecting a violation. It would have been you or your attorney, not a local authority, for the purpose of assigning liability in a civil case, not detecting a violation. Think about it, in the entire months leading up to and after the Houston election the camera company didn't once bring out someone that had won a case like yours because of red light camera footage that was used in their case, why not? over 4 years of camera footage at busy intersections and not one single example of what you are talking about happening? There ought to be hundreds of cases where the camera footage would have been used, but there isn't, it's illegal.

I also understand from friends at the PD that they had camera footage of a suspect fleeing a serious crime who ran a light under a camera but couldn't use it to place him at the scene. They were able to get him otherwise but it couldn't be used.

According the sec you posted the city of Houston legally could not publicize the recordings or use them in any other manner...especially for political gains. If the videos can't even be used in a law suit case how can the city use them for political gain?

[baytownb]

that was a question that came up before, and a complaint was filed from what I understand, basically it came down to them saying "so sue me".

Originally Posted by TVC15

According the sec you posted the city of Houston legally could not publicize the recordings or use them in any other manner...especially for political gains. If the videos can't even be used in a law suit case how can the city use them for political gain?

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by baytownb

that was a question that came up before, and a complaint was filed from what I understand, basically it came down to them saying "so sue me".

I'm trying to follow what you posted.

Are you saying that the city of Houston filed a complaint and the camera company said "so sue me"

[baytownb]

no, not at all. Houston provided the footage to the camera company front group and I believe also used it in other sources. COH and ATS were both committing the misdemeanor. I know of a citizen that filed a complaint to HPD about Houston and The PAC and the response was they weren't going to investigate it. It's a case of "yea, so what are you going to do about it?" A complaint to the DA most likely wouldn't get investigated either. Your case would have been different anyway as you most likely would have faced a challenge on the evidence from the other attorney.

Originally Posted by TVC15

I'm trying to follow what you posted.

Are you saying that the city of Houston filed a complaint and the camera company said "so sue me"

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by baytownb

no, not at all. Houston provided the footage to the camera company front group and I believe also used it in other sources. COH and ATS were both committing the misdemeanor. I know of a citizen that filed a complaint to HPD about Houston and The PAC and the response was they weren't going to investigate it. It's a case of "yea, so what are you going to do about it?" A complaint to the DA most likely wouldn't get investigated either. Your case would have been different anyway as you most likely would have faced a challenge on the evidence from the other attorney.

Then this is the answer to your question.

Originally Posted by baytownb

Think about it, in the entire months leading up to and after the Houston election the camera company didn't once bring out someone that had won a case like yours because of red light camera footage that was used in their case, why not?

They legally could not publicize the footage for political gains during that election.

[baytownb]

Exactly, that was precisely my point. If what you were thinking could happen, that camera footage could be used in a court case between two parties in dispute about who ran a red light, the camera company and city would have pointed to their examples during the election as reasons to keep the cameras. They didn't because it hasn't happened because it is illegal.

Originally Posted by TVC15

Then this is the answer to your question.

They legally could not publicize the footage for political gains during that election.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by baytownb

Exactly, that was precisely my point. If what you were thinking could happen, that camera footage could be used in a court case between two parties in dispute about who ran a red light, the camera company and city would have pointed to their examples during the election as reasons to keep the cameras. They didn't because it hasn't happened because it is illegal.

How do you know it has not happened? Am I reading this wrong? I think you are saying that there are no videos in the entire 4 years that show someone running a red light and causing an accident. If they can't be used in a case then how do you know this?

I personally do not believe that...but since the videos can't be used in a case due the Sec you posted that also means the city of Houston can't show the public the videos for political gain hence why they were not used to gain votes in the election.

Even if they can't show the video...in my case I did not need a video because the physics were spot on...however her receiving the Notice of Violation would have prevented her from even considering trying to sue. She would have been stupid to try and sue me if she received the Notice of Violation for running the light at that intersection.

[baytownb]

I really don't know why we can't communicate, don't know if it's you or me or a combination. Let me try again.

Your belief was that if there was an accident like yours where both parties claimed the other ran the light and there was a RLC there that it would have been able to have been used in court to prove who actually ran the light, right?

My response was that it wouldn't be allowed to be used in court because it is illegal per the stated law.

Your response was that you didn't believe the law would prohibit the footage from being used in court for the purpose you were talking about

My response was that if what you were saying were true, then COH or ATS would have gotten one of these people who won their case because of the camera footage and used them in their campaign to save the cameras. There wasn't any of this therefore it is further evidence that the cameras can't and haven't been used for the purpose of assigning fault in a court case where two people disagree about who was at fault.


So where did it go off the tracks? No I am not saying there was never any FOOTAGE of an accident like we are talking about in the 4 years, in fact I specifically said the opposite that there must have been hundreds. What doesn't exist is ANY example of ANYONE WINNING their case because they were allowed to use camera footage to prove their case.

Originally Posted by TVC15

How do you know it has not happened? Am I reading this wrong? I think you are saying that there are no videos in the entire 4 years that show someone running a red light and causing and accident. If they can't be used in a case then how do you know this?

I personally do not believe that...but since the videos can't be used in a case due the Sec you posted that also means the city of Houston can't show the public the videos for political gain hence why they were not used to gain votes in the election.

Even if they can't show the video...in my case I did not need a video because the physics was spot on...however her receiving the Notice of Violation would have prevented her from even considering trying to sue. She would have been stupid to try and sue me if she received the Notice of Violation for running the light at that intersection.