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.
Once again, there is no "prosecution" in a civil case. And while you carry on about calibration records and "synchronization parameters" (whatever the hell that means) and whether the traffic light is functioning properly, the judge or hearing officer can watch the video and take notice of whether you ran the light or not and adjudicate accordingly. If the light is not working properly or don't meet code or the "synchronization parameters" are off, there will be video evidence of these facts right there in the video. That video evidence is actually a lot more persuasive both for or against a violation than the court simply taking an officer's word for it.
If the light is not working properly or don't meet code or the "synchronization parameters" are off, there will be video evidence of these facts right there in the video. That video evidence is actually a lot more persuasive both for or against a violation than the court simply taking an officer's word for it.
I didn't know they sent a DVD along with the citation. Usually its a few still images of the intersection. Will the courts have a high frame rate video with which we can review? If not, doesn't that imply that the court decision defaults to the side of whoever operates the cameras? Which, btw, are typically privately owned. Where are they? By the 6th Amendment I am entitled to have them (or someone on their behalf) before me as says the Supreme Court.
A different way of looking at it... why don't we see these cameras everywhere across the US? And why are they being removed in some places? Answer is simple, because they only work on those who comply.
I guess I am not the only one, the Ohio Court of Appeals seems to share the same feelings:
As does the Missouri Court of Appeals. Note page 3 of the Court's decision which reflects my concern earlier that there is not substantial proof that the accused was the operator of the vehicle during the alleged crime:
So are you going to represent yourself, get a lawyer, or a group like the ACLU to represent you while you fight your case up the appeals process? There's the principle of the whether they're constitutional, and the practicality of expending energy and money to fight the issue.
But hey, Lord knows this world needs people to fight the good and worthy fight against The Powers That Be.
I don't think a whole LOT of things are constitutional -- like making people buy health care -- or being able to pull them off the street hold them and not charge them -- FOR years, -- OR put them on a no-fly list and not tell them WHY. Personally, I'd save my energy for THOSE fights.
But one COULD, I suppose, argue that they're all related as in government run amuck. So you'd fight EVERY case no matter how 'trivial' it may seem? Although NO case of government encroachment on people's right is trivial.
So if you were to ever choose to fight a red light camera ticket all the way to the Supreme Court, I'd wish you luck with that.
I've been told, as others have said, that the photo and video -- are evidence taken as proof of guilt. One city work I KNOW couldn't have gone to law school actually used the phrase "prima facie evidence" when I call and first asked about it. I actually kind of chuckled to myself about it
So would you argue the camera calibration is off -- so the so photo showing your car in the intersection with a red light overhead -- wasn't taken when the light was red and you were there? The photo is just a still frame of video. I challenged one once -- not knowing how any of it worked. Got to the adjudicators office -- and he showed the video from which the photo was taken. The video shows the car approaching the intersection and what the car does IN the intersection. (Back then I didn't know the tickets were no points)
I guess I am willing to let them 'win" on this issue -- for a price. Because as long as these violations are no points and don't affect my driving record or insurance. I'm just not going to worry about it, and not expend energy on it. I'd just suck it up, pay and move on. So I guess I can "be bought" on this issue.
So are you going to represent yourself, get a lawyer, or a group like the ACLU to represent you while you fight your case up the appeals process? There's the principle of the whether they're constitutional, and the practicality of expending energy and money to fight the issue.
I believe that if there are enough cases out there declaring this type of enforcement un-Constitutional that they will gradually disappear. I mean, it is already happening. An anecdote: I spend considerable amount of time back and forth between two midsized cities. The larger city, does not have camera enforcement at all. They are economically depressed with these camera enforcement systems within their grasp yet they choose not to partake. Why would that possibly be? The other city HAD the cameras, they experimented with them in random locations, but now they are gone. Why did they leave? No doubt they were making the city money. Some things are worth making a stink over.
I didn't know they sent a DVD along with the citation. Usually its a few still images of the intersection. Will the courts have a high frame rate video with which we can review? If not, doesn't that imply that the court decision defaults to the side of whoever operates the cameras? Which, btw, are typically privately owned. Where are they? By the 6th Amendment I am entitled to have them (or someone on their behalf) before me as says the Supreme Court.
A different way of looking at it... why don't we see these cameras everywhere across the US? And why are they being removed in some places? Answer is simple, because they only work on those who comply.
I guess I am not the only one, the Ohio Court of Appeals seems to share the same feelings:
As does the Missouri Court of Appeals. Note page 3 of the Court's decision which reflects my concern earlier that there is not substantial proof that the accused was the operator of the vehicle during the alleged crime:
I can't speak for other jurisdictions but here in IL the hearing officer and the ticket recipient have access to a high-resolution video of the violation.
That's great that you can dredge up a handful of cases ruling that the cameras are unconstitutional (though some of the cases you found were based on procedural grounds that did not address the legality/constitutionality of the cameras themselves), and I could dredge up numerous cases where they have been court-tested and ruled legal/constitutional. And so could you if you were so inclined. To bring this back to the post that started it all... to the fellow who asks if there's away to avoid paying it, I stand by my answer of "probably not."
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.
And while you carry on about calibration records and "synchronization parameters" (whatever the hell that means) and whether the traffic light is functioning properly, the judge or hearing officer can watch the video and take notice of whether you ran the light or not and adjudicate accordingly. If the light is not working properly or don't meet code or the "synchronization parameters" are off, there will be video evidence of these facts right there in the video. That video evidence is actually a lot more persuasive both for or against a violation than the court simply taking an officer's word for it.
