Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this case, they would be correct. The vast majority of the people have absolutely no clue that they have the constitutionally protected right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" them under the Sixth Amendment. One cannot confront a device, therefore it is a threat to our freedom to use a device an attempt to enforce any law.
I realize that many do not give a damn about our constitutionally protected rights (particularly the fascist liberal freaks), but some of us still do.
You do realize that you can challenge in court right? A real live person must be there to defend the technology just like when you get a speeding ticket based on radar gun..Stop being irrational.
You do realize that you can challenge in court right? A real live person must be there to defend the technology just like when you get a speeding ticket based on radar gun..Stop being irrational.
Yes, a real live person who has a vested financial interest in seeing you convicted, and someone who is not a sworn law enforcement officer. Which makes any evidence they present unreliable at best. That is why every citation issued by device that was challenged in Alaska was tossed out by the courts.
At least our courts continue to defend our constitutionally protected rights, even when you will not.
Yes, a real live person who has a vested financial interest in seeing you convicted, and someone who is not a sworn law enforcement officer. Which makes any evidence they present unreliable at best. That is why every citation issued by device that was challenged in Alaska was tossed out by the courts.
At least our courts continue to defend our constitutionally protected rights, even when you will not.
My friend contested a red light camera ticket he got here in Denver. Turns out the cameras here actually record video when triggered. Not only did they have a picture of him in the car and the car in the intersection on red (what they sent him in the mail), the officer presented a complete video of him running the red light in court. He was very quickly found guilty.
My hometown has installed red light cameras everywhere. Not only do they check to see if you ran a red light (or yellow, or barely cross the line by a foot), but they also check your speed while going through the camera. Should this be illegal?
My friend contested a red light camera ticket he got here in Denver. Turns out the cameras here actually record video when triggered. Not only did they have a picture of him in the car and the car in the intersection on red (what they sent him in the mail), the officer presented a complete video of him running the red light in court. He was very quickly found guilty.
Your friend was denied his rights under the Sixth Amendment. He was not allowed to confront the witnesses against him. It was not the officer who appeared in court, he was merely the operator and did not issue the citation, but rather the camera itself that issued the actual citation. Had he been allowed to exercise his constitutionally protected right, he would have been acquitted.
Your friend was denied his rights under the Sixth Amendment. He was not allowed to confront the witnesses against him. It was not the officer who appeared in court, he was merely the operator and did not issue the citation, but rather the camera itself that issued the actual citation. Had he been allowed to exercise his constitutionally protected right, he would have been acquitted.
So evidence you can't confront and cross-examine is not admissible in courtrooms the way you read the 6th Amendment? That would mean only eyewitness testimony would be allowed since you cannot literally confront or cross-examine things that aren't human: no video surveillance tapes, no DNA, no fingerprints, no murder weapons - no physical or documentary evidence of any kind. That's an incredibly strange interpretation of the confrontation clause (and a very incorrect interpretation in my judgement and according to all the relevant case law).
The confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment exists to prevent hearsay evidence. And the courts have applied it to physical and documentary evidence too. If the State introduces any physical or documentary evidence, the 6th Amendment guarantees that the accused be allowed to cross-examine its meaning and validity - including up to calling experts to testify in refutation. My friend had every opportunity to cross-examine the officer (his accuser) as to the meaning and validity of that video tape. He had every opportunity to take the witness stand and say to the judge: "judge that wasn't me - that was my evil twin brother." He could have asked for a continuance and come to court the next week with an expert who would testify that the video was a forgery. Etc. In no way were his 6th Amendment rights violated.
So evidence you can't confront and cross-examine is not admissible in courtrooms the way you read the 6th Amendment? That would mean only eyewitness testimony would be allowed since you cannot literally confront or cross-examine things that aren't human: no video surveillance tapes, no DNA, no fingerprints, no murder weapons - no physical or documentary evidence of any kind. That's an incredibly strange interpretation of the confrontation clause (and a very incorrect interpretation in my judgement and according to all the relevant case law).
Except that the camera is not merely providing the evidence, it is also issuing the citation and that is what is being confronted, the camera's ability to accuse. Everything else you mentioned is evidence, and not making the actual accusation. So there is nothing to confront. But in the case of photo-radar, or red light cameras, they are not just providing evidence, they are also making the accusation by issuing the citation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
The confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment exists to prevent hearsay evidence. And the courts have applied it to physical and documentary evidence too. If the State introduces any physical or documentary evidence, the 6th Amendment guarantees that the accused be allowed to cross-examine its meaning and validity - including up to calling experts to testify in refutation. My friend had every opportunity to cross-examine the officer (his accuser) as to the meaning and validity of that video tape. He had every opportunity to take the witness stand and say to the judge: "judge that wasn't me - that was my evil twin brother." He could have asked for a continuance and come to court the next week with an expert who would testify that the video was a forgery. Etc. In no way were his 6th Amendment rights violated.
The officer was not his accuser. The officer did not issue the citation, the camera did. Therein lies the difference. Your friend was denied his Sixth Amendment rights because he was not allowed to confront the device that actually made the accusation by issuing the citation.
My friend contested a red light camera ticket he got here in Denver. Turns out the cameras here actually record video when triggered. Not only did they have a picture of him in the car and the car in the intersection on red (what they sent him in the mail), the officer presented a complete video of him running the red light in court. He was very quickly found guilty.
I received a ticket a few months ago, and it had two pictures of me (apparently) running a light. However, I was turning right after yielding to the traffic. The key evidence in my favor was two shots that were provided, taken about 3 seconds apart. The intersection is at an angle so you have to go farther to see the cross traffic than the camera would like you to. And after spending about 3 seconds at the light, I had moved on (the second shot) with no traffic in sight.
The case was dismissed on that ground. However, it was a nuisance and a waste of my time. The cameras at the intersection had generated nearly 100K in revenue over last year. I wonder how many people simply chose to pay fine assuming they were guilty, without noticing the tiny little time stamp below the photographs provided as evidence of them running it.
The good thing is, the cameras at the intersection are now gone, a move in the right direction. IMO, such cameras are pure nuisance. If they were meant to get prevent red light runners, I wouldn't have seen three accidents there while the cameras were installed.
They are revenue generators and they don't have a pension. All of the other baloney is just that...baloney. If they would be honest with people that catching speeders and red-light drive-throughs is a good way to make money for the town, without having to hire extra police, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
