Dash Cam Evidence of Red Light Runners? (Howe: insurance, crime)

[Soviet]

In August, my stepfather was involved in a traffic accident that was caused by someone else, requiring my stepdad to undertake an evasive maneuver that resulted in a minor single-vehicle crash with minor (but not insignificant) damage. The guy who caused the crash stopped and exchanged insurance information.

However, what ended up happening was that the guy's insurance claimed that they were not liable for anything & the guy clammed up. They didn't do anything, but our insurance (kind people that they are!) took care of everything.

Well, this ridiculous event motivated me to get a dash cam. I got the FineVu CR500-HD (if anyone wants to know) and it is absolutely fantastic! I love it! However, I have been capturing a lot of the city's incompetent motorists doing all sorts of ridiculousness. My question is, could my 1080p video be used as evidence by the SAPD to issue citations? Or would that be invalid, since I am a civilian?

Just wondering. Thanks in advance! Looking forward to the rain, you guys!

[sa dave]

Russian dash cam data of recorded accidents is wild. Did you get the dash cam idea from Russian family members?

[ged_782]

Originally Posted by Soviet

Well, this ridiculous event motivated me to get a dash cam. I got the FineVu CR500-HD (if anyone wants to know) and it is absolutely fantastic! I love it! However, I have been capturing a lot of the city's incompetent motorists doing all sorts of ridiculousness. My question is, could my 1080p video be used as evidence by the SAPD to issue citations?

Probably not.


You would have to be able to positively identify the driver of the vehicle. Bear in mind - many vehicles are being driven at any given time by someone other than the registered owner. The owner may claim to have no idea who was driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction, that a number of people have access to the vehicle, and any of them could even allow someone else to operate it. You would probably have to be present at the defendant's trial to be a witness for the prosecution, and positively identify the driver that committed the infraction.

That's why police stop offenders and issue citations immediately after witnessing an infraction, because it would be nearly impossible to positively identify the driver to issue a citation at a later time or date.

[Neshomamench]

You are dealing with misdemeanors. For a Peace Officer to arrest someone for a misdemeanor (a traffic ticket is an arrest, you just bond out on the side of the road with your signature) the act must happen within the presence and/or view of a Peace Officer.

What a Peace Officer must do to arrest for a misdemeanor that did not happen within his presence and/or view, is get a judge to issue a warrant. The judge will decide if probable cause exists.

You cant even prove who did it or when they did it, using equipment that is not recognized by the court or covered by a use policy by an agency.

No one is going to bother because there is not much they can do.

If you proved a particular place was a problem, Law Enforcement would increase enforcement there.....which isnt that what you go on and on about how much you hate?

[SnappyBob]

Originally Posted by ged_782

Probably not.


You would have to be able to positively identify the driver of the vehicle. Bear in mind - many vehicles are being driven at any given time by someone other than the registered owner. The owner may claim to have no idea who was driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction, that a number of people have access to the vehicle, and any of them could even allow someone else to operate it. You would probably have to be present at the defendant's trial to be a witness for the prosecution, and positively identify the driver that committed the infraction.

That's why police stop offenders and issue citations immediately after witnessing an infraction, because it would be nearly impossible to positively identify the driver to issue a citation at a later time or date.

This is why I think vehicle owners should be held responsible for the actions of people that they allow to use their vehicles. I have been thinking that a good way to punish bad drivers would be for law enforcement to use regular unmarked vehicles equipped with dash cams to observe and document unlawful driving. They would not even have to stop the vehicle, which is dangerous for everybody, but just log the license plate number and send a ticket or something else to get them into court to face charges. People do all sorts of things when, after checking their mirrors for police vehicles, they don't see any danger of getting caught. Stealth cars are not really all that stealth. They all have that police stealth look. I think it would be much more efficient and a lot less dangerous for everyone on the road.

[Torpedos]

don't bother. I asked the cops one time if I can go into a bar, the cops waits outside. I tell them which person has been drinking, when that person goes to the car the cop would stop them. Pretty simple right? nope. cant do that. cant assume people coming out of a bar have been drinking. sounds pretty stupid.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by SnappyBob

They would not even have to stop the vehicle, which is dangerous for everybody, but just log the license plate number and send a ticket or something else to get them into court to face charges.

There's a legal principle in this country about being able to "confront your accuser." I've seen it come up in the arguments against red light/speed cameras. I'm going to guess that's what prevents this from happening, because the technology to record video continuously is very inexpensive now.

Imagine the number of drivers who would be caught if there could be a computer algorithm monitoring and recording the Transguide camera feeds. Nobody would get away with anything on the city's major highways and the lines at the courthouse would be 50 people deep every weekday!

[SnappyBob]

[quote=Bo;32019294]There's a legal principle in this country about being able to "confront your accuser." I've seen it come up in the arguments against red light/speed cameras. I'm going to guess that's what prevents this from happening, because the technology to record video continuously is very inexpensive now.

Imagine the number of drivers who would be caught if there could be a computer algorithm monitoring and recording the Transguide camera feeds. Nobody would get away with anything on the city's major highways and the lines at the courthouse would be 50 people deep every weekday! [/quot

They have done this very sucessfully for years in drug cases. Undercover cop buy drugs from someone, documents it with evidence. Courts arrest suspect with a sealed inditement. Anytime you get a ticket you have the right to face your accuser. This would be no different.

[Neshomamench]

[quote=SnappyBob;32022235]

Originally Posted by Bo

There's a legal principle in this country about being able to "confront your accuser." I've seen it come up in the arguments against red light/speed cameras. I'm going to guess that's what prevents this from happening, because the technology to record video continuously is very inexpensive now.

Imagine the number of drivers who would be caught if there could be a computer algorithm monitoring and recording the Transguide camera feeds. Nobody would get away with anything on the city's major highways and the lines at the courthouse would be 50 people deep every weekday! [/quot

They have done this very sucessfully for years in drug cases. Undercover cop buy drugs from someone, documents it with evidence. Courts arrest suspect with a sealed inditement. Anytime you get a ticket you have the right to face your accuser. This would be no different.

Again, you have to take into account the level of the crime. Traffic citations are the lowest kind of crime and few people actively demand more tickets and few politicians run on a "more tickets" platform.

Drug crimes on the other hand are more serious crimes (heavier charges) people get real serious about drug enforcement and politicians can use drug stats for elections.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by Torpedos

don't bother. I asked the cops one time if I can go into a bar, the cops waits outside. I tell them which person has been drinking, when that person goes to the car the cop would stop them. Pretty simple right? nope. cant do that. cant assume people coming out of a bar have been drinking. sounds pretty stupid.

What you are advocating is illegal. That is why it cant be done. It simply does not work that way.

You can assume everyone coming out of a bar has been drinking, but it doesnt give you the legal reason to stop them.

DWI is a (often times) misdemeanor. In order to arrest someone (on the spot) for a misdemeanor it must happen in the presence and/or view of a Peace Officer. *You* (non Peace Officer) cant tell me and then me go get them. I would have to observe something myself that gives me a legal reason to make a stop.

The same thing happens 1000's of times a day when people call in a bad driver. Lets say we find the bad driver. If we dont actually witness something, it doesnt really matter what you saw if it was not a felony. We have to see it ourselves in order to act "right then." Yet people will get real silly mad over the fact that "they saw them (insert traffic violation), reported it, and then saw a cop "do nothing" about it.