If you hate red light cameras, read this..

[the]

Yeah, but the concept of reasonble speed laws doesn't fall under that category.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by the
No, it's not the same as with a real traffic cop, for the reasons I said above.

Most people violate the speed limit every day. Why not just issue tickets to everyone automatically by mail, and force everyone to appear in court to defend themselves? Hey, maybe you didn't speed today, or even drive your car today. That's fine, just tell it to the judge and he'll probably let you go.

That's not due process. You have a right to not be hauled into court on a criminal charge when there has been no reasonable evidence that YOU violated a law.

I believe a previous poster said that when you get the ticket you have the option of paying the fine or naming the driver of the car. Therefore, if you were sitting at home, you do not have to appear in court.

[on-ramp]

the next step to this madness is they will automatically deduct the fine from your checking account a few short hours after the machine takes the image of your car.

just watch, someone will find a way to do it.

HA HA

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I'm not saying the system doesn't have flaws. I'm simply saying that there is an opportunity for due process, just as there is with a real traffic cop. You may not like how the court operates, but that IS due process.

If someone could link to some info where these tickets have no opportunity to appear before a judge to contest the ticket I would be interested in looking at that info. I kinda find it hard to believe there would be no recourse offered...

Rick, you continue to miss the point. Traffic court is not the [i]due process[i/] we as citizens are gauranteed in disputes against the state. Due process involves the introduction of evidence by the state to prove your guilt. The word of the officer, with no physical evidence or corraborating witnesses would not be considered sufficient in most criminal cases.

Again, there is a reason the state has classified such offenses as civil rather than criminal. It could never prove guilt to the standards required in criminal court on these offenses. So yes, while you have the right to appear before a judge, the nature of the civil court vs. the criminal court denies one of due process. Merely appearing in court is not "due process".

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Yea, then you'll have the "right" to an administrative review to get your money back, but it'll take 6-8 months, a mountain of paperwork and of course will have to be done on your own time.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I believe a previous poster said that when you get the ticket you have the option of paying the fine or naming the driver of the car. Therefore, if you were sitting at home, you do not have to appear in court.

So the option is pay up or be an informer?

No, I don't like those options. If the state can't prove it was me driving, then it's up to them to prove who it was. If I wasn't driving, it's none of my business.

[the]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I believe a previous poster said that when you get the ticket you have the option of paying the fine or naming the driver of the car. Therefore, if you were sitting at home, you do not have to appear in court.

Those options are unacceptable.

Paying the fine for something you didn't do is of course not an acceptable option. Why should someone do that?

Being forced to name yourself or the driver is also unacceptable. You have Fifth Am. right against self-incrimination. You don't have to say SQUAT, against you or anyone else, that's your absolute constitutional right. It's the state's burden to prove their case, not yours. That why during criminal cases, the defendant just sits there silently the whole time.

That's why those 2 forced options are unconstitutional and unacceptable.

That's like saying "Well, you can either go to jail, or tell us who committed the crime." You may think that would be ok, but it *is* unconstitutional.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by the
You don't have to say SQUAT, against you or anyone else, that's your absolute constitutional right. It's the state's burden to prove their case, not yours.

That's not quite true. If subpoenaed, you do have to testify against someone. You have protection from incriminating yourself and your spouse but no one else.

However, short of having a subpoena served, you should not have to name someone. If the state wants to prosecute your 17 -year-old son who was driving, they need to have a case against him, and subpoena you to testify if they want your statement that he was driving.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Rick, you continue to miss the point. Traffic court is not the [i]due process[i/] we as citizens are gauranteed in disputes against the state. Due process involves the introduction of evidence by the state to prove your guilt. The word of the officer, with no physical evidence or corraborating witnesses would not be considered sufficient in most criminal cases.

Again, there is a reason the state has classified such offenses as civil rather than criminal. It could never prove guilt to the standards required in criminal court on these offenses. So yes, while you have the right to appear before a judge, the nature of the civil court vs. the criminal court denies one of due process. Merely appearing in court is not "due process".

It sounds like you have a problem with the entire traffic court system in general, not just red light cameras. If red light cameras offer you the same options as a regular traffic stop does, then perhaps you should be railing against traffic courts instead of just red light cameras.

It would seem that you would prefer a traffic fine to be a criminal offense, subject to the entire burden of proof of the law and punishable by jail time? Would that include being arrested for said offense and having to post bail or sit in jail to await your trial?

[gprsh924]

Im just glad that I dont own any of the cars I drive. They are all registered in my dad's name, so at least for a few more years, I can't technically get a ticket from any of these cameras.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by the
Those options are unacceptable.

Paying the fine for something you didn't do is of course not an acceptable option. Why should someone do that?

Being forced to name yourself or the driver is also unacceptable. You have Fifth Am. right against self-incrimination. You don't have to say SQUAT, against you or anyone else, that's your absolute constitutional right. It's the state's burden to prove their case, not yours. That why during criminal cases, the defendant just sits there silently the whole time.

That's why those 2 forced options are unconstitutional and unacceptable.

That's like saying "Well, you can either go to jail, or tell us who committed the crime." You may think that would be ok, but it *is* unconstitutional.

It seems like we are missing each other here. Let me see if I understand this system correctly:

1). You receive a red light ticket in the mail with a photo of your car running a red light.
2). You are given the following options:
Admit it was you driving and pay the fine.
If it was not you driving, provide the name of who was driving.
Appear in traffic court to contest the fine.

Your assertion is that no system should exist because you should not have to be troubled to explain why your car was running a red light with someone driving. I guess I would say to that, if that is your position, what is your position on a traffic stop? It could be mistaken identity. It could be your evil twin driving. The officer could be out to get you and completely lying about it. The officer could be on drugs and have hallucinated the entire thing. Should you be bothered to explain these things as well??

My position is this: I drive to work every day. I drive my kids around in my car every day. I am passed by idiots driving 90 on a 65 freeway, zipping in and out of traffic every day. These people are either going to kill themselves or kill someone else. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday. With my kids in the back, I think a law that helps reduce the instance of speeding and traffic law violation while still providing an outlet for defense of the claim is a good thing.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Here in CA (and probably other states), traffic infractions were moved years ago under a seperate court - they're not criminal cases and they're not civil cases, they're some weird sort of hybrid "civil infraction" sort of case. As such, this cleverly sidesteps Constitutionally-mandated due process (they conveniently decided that it wasn't necessary for cases of this type).

The system is a sham. It's a racket designed for nothing more than extorting money from people and feeding it to gubmint bureaucrats. It's a joke.

[Superman]

Few traffic infractions are criminal offenses, whether the camera sees you do it or a policeman. Traffic infractions are "civil" and as such, the standard of evidence is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard is "preponderance."

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
It sounds like you have a problem with the entire traffic court system in general, not just red light cameras. If red light cameras offer you the same options as a regular traffic stop does, then perhaps you should be railing against traffic courts instead of just red light cameras.

You are absolutely right, Rick. Not just with traffic court; I have a problem with the state accusing citizens of anything and relieving itself of the burden of proof required by criminal court. It is quite simply illegal for the state to do so under any circumstances.

The "preponderance of evidence" rule in civil court is in place to help citizens settle disputes among themselves, when there has been no criminal activity. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in criminal court, and must remain the standard when the state is accusing a citizen of wrongdoing. Or in this case, the standard to which we must return.

It would seem that you would prefer a traffic fine to be a criminal offense, subject to the entire burden of proof of the law and punishable by jail time? Would that include being arrested for said offense and having to post bail or sit in jail to await your trial?

"Criminal offense" does not necessarily have to equate to "punishable by jail time". It does not necessarily equate to being arrested, either. That is merely all a part of the state's brainwashing that has been so successfull. The penalties for any given offense do not need to change when the offense is re-classified as "criminal" vs. "civil". The state sets the punishment in either case. Granted, "criminal" sounds much more ominous and intimidating than civil; that is how the state would like to keep it.

Again, allowing the state to classify its charges against a citizen as "civil" only serves one purpose. It allows the state to try the case in the wrong court; a court whose rules are not suited to sorting out the truth in a case involving an accusation against a citizen by the state. The state should not be allowed to continue this; it is illegal and runs afoul of the very protections from the state that we, as U.S. citizens, are supposed to enjoy.

[the]

Originally posted by wludavid
That's not quite true. If subpoenaed, you do have to testify against someone. You have protection from incriminating yourself and your spouse but no one else.

No, it's totally true.

The accused can never be forced to testify against yourself or anyone. You've seen it on TV, "You have the right to remain silent." As the person against whom the ticket is issued, you are the accused.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Good resource, good commentary, good discussion on the traffic court rip-off here:

http://ticketassassin.com/autoenf_toc.html

[speeder]

I hope that lawsuit succeeds, anything to send the out-of-control government reeling backwards into the ropes can only be a positive thing these days. We need more legal challenges to over-stepping laws and procedures, people have just become so used to "big brother" type behavior that they are numb to it.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by speeder
I hope that lawsuit succeeds, anything to send the out-of-control government reeling backwards into the ropes can only be a positive thing these days. We need more legal challenges to over-stepping laws and procedures, people have just become so used to "big brother" type behavior that they are numb to it.

+1,000.

And that's exactly what the gubmint bureaucrats want. The old "frog into boiling water" scenario where if you try to put the frog into a pot of hot water, he'll jump out. If you put him in a pot of cold water and gradually turn up the heat, he'll eventually allow himself to get cooked.

When are we collectively going to start (1) waking up and (2) doing something about this kind of crap?

[skipdup]

Originally posted by the
Further complicating it, in many states, these cameras are run by private companies, with no law enforcement involved in the issuance of the tickets at all.

That needs to be stated again.

Also, that the company gets a portion of everything collected.

Also that the companies will vary the red light times, in order to generate more revenue.

Also that accident rates increase at camera locations.

The whole system deal is just wrong.

[fintstone]

I have fought tickets that were undeserved...and lost every time. Ultimately it is your word against the policeman or the camera/machine. When provided with differing versions, the judge has always agreed with the policeman. You are always guilty, until proved innocent..or worse. It is a stacked deck when the witness and judge both come from the same establishment and their sole goal is collecting revenue. If there are two witnesses, you and a policeman...why is his account always superior? For example, one Saturday morning, an animal control officer knocked on my door and gave me a ticket for having a "dog at large." At the time, my dog was was there locked in my back yard. At the court hearing, the officer claimed that on the previous Thursday, he had found a small, black (with some white), mixed breed dog loose in front of my neighbor's house. He said the neighbor told him it was mine, but he would take care of it and return it to me. Several of my neighbors had small, black (with some white), mixed breed dogs. Mine was a solid black, purebred toy poodle. It was behind a six-foot privacy fence that was padlocked. I took this to court based on principal. I explained all this to the judge, produced evidence of my neighbor's dogs, the different markings and breeding of my dog, and that mine was locked up at the time. The animal control officer offered no evidence. The judge ruled there was a preponderance of evidence and upheld the fine, plus added court fees...and made it clear that taking this to court wasted his time and I was lucky he did not fine me more.