If you hate red light cameras, read this..
 

Woman's Lawsuit Threatens To Remove Red-Light Cameras

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10927743/detail.html

From article..

----------------------------

AKRON, Ohio -- NewsChannel5 chief investigator Duane Pohlman has discovered a key lawsuit which may force cities to not only remove red-light cameras, but refund all the fines.

Pohlman said it all started because an Akron woman drew the line.

"I was angry enough to say, "I'm not paying this ticket. You know, they can do whatever they're going to do, but I'm not going to pay it," said Kelly Mendenhall.

In November 2005, Mendenhall got a ticket from a red-light camera. It stated she was going 39 mph in a 25 mph zone on Copley Road in Akron.

Mendenhall is married to Warner Mendenhall, an attorney known for fighting government.

"He said, 'Well, you're going to have to pay the ticket or I'm going to have to sue somebody.' I said, 'Well, I guess you're going to have to sue somebody,'" she said.

And he did, Pohman reported.

Warner Mmendenhall is now representing his wife in the case before the Ohio Supreme Court, challenging all red-light cameras in the state of Ohio.

"It is big brother absolutely," Mendenhall said.

The Mendenhall case challenges all red-light-cameras on constitutional grounds. He claimed the cameras and the tickets deny due process.

In the suit, Warner and his wife contend the cities have turned a criminal violation in to a civil matter with a sole purpose of making money.

"Cities cannot just take what are crimes and make them civil offenses. People cannot afford these fines. The fine my wife faced was $150," Mendenhall said.

In discovery, Mendenhall revealed thousands of mistakes, Pohlman reported.

Akron's cameras captured speeders 4,000 times, but because of problems or procedure, those tickets were tossed.

Pohlman caught mistakes in Cleveland, too. A ticket issued to the wrong plate, for the wrong vehicles and the wrong speed.

The red-light cameras are now facing a real legal challenge thanks to an attorney, Pohlman reported.

"The red light is a flashpoint of where we're going as a country, as a society about individual liberties," Warner said.

Since when does individual liberties include the right to break the law without paying the fine??

I almost shot Diet Coke out my nose when I read this:

"People cannot afford these fines. The fine my wife faced was $150"

LOL, the guy is an attorney and his wife can't afford $150 for speeding.

I'm absolutely against the cameras; however, the lawyer's complaint about not affording the ticket is hilarious. :D

not surprised by your response.

have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty" - in your world, a machine finds you guilty, you pay a fine, and thats the end of the story.

second, you need to understand what you read..
"People cannot afford these fines. The fine my wife faced was $150"

This says that people cannot afford these fines, which is true, $150 is a lot. .... you cannot conclude from the sentence that his wife cant afford this fine..

You don't understand, Rick. No one has the right to break the law under any circumstances. That is not the issue. The issue is the denial of due process. The burden should be upon the state to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have broken the law. It is our right as U.S. citizens to meet our accusers in court. Denying that right, and the right of due process is not acceptable even in traffic infractions.

The other issue of note is the so-called "civil infraction". "Civil" court was originally intended to settle disputes between citizens; hence the term "civil". It is not intended to be used by the state to prosecute citizens. The standards of evidence, and therefor the burden of proof, is purposely set lower as an aid to settling civil disputes.

The state has illegally labelled many infractions, including traffic infractions, as "civil" infractions. The state has sold the public a bill of goods on this, claiming it is in our best interest to not have criminal charges leveled against us for relatively minor infractions, such as traffic offenses. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real driving force behing the "lowering" of these infractions to "civil" offenses is because the state now enjoys almost no burden of proof in court.

I'm glad to see some one is finally challenging this pretense of "civil" infraction. Any time the state accuses the citizen of any kind of infraction, no matter how trivial, it should go to criminal court if the citizen disputes it. The full rules of evidence, the full burden of proof, should apply in any charges brought by the state against a citizen. To settle for less, to allow the state to carry on with this "civil infraction" charade, is a clear violation of the protections we enjoy as citizens from the state.

Very interesting.

Here is SoCal the City of Los Angeles is REALLY into this now. I work (currently) on a project in East L.A. Right around the corner from my office for the last 6 months or so there have been BICYCLE cops standing on the street corner waving to the curb cars that have no front license plate - ask me how I know! They are giving tickets out like popcorn and it is to support camera enforcement. No front license plate, they won't know who to send the ticket to...gotta get those plates on there! This is why I had to put a front plate on my 911 - which I HATE.

I think the idea of keeping people from running redlights is great, but the idea of Big Brother watching us turns me off more.

The reporter clearly doesn't understand the difference between red light cameras and speeding cameras. I wonder what else he doesn't understand.

Wow, you are able to state your position without ad hominem attack as usual, on-ramp :rolleyes:.

Correct me if I am wrong here, when you recieve your ticket in the mail, is there an option to contest the ticket in court? When you receive a ticket from a police officer, you have the option of paying the ticket up front or appearing in court. Is this not the same? If it is, how is that denial of due process? Even a second grader could figure that out...

Guys, guys, guys. . .

Although I admire your obedience and obvious subservience to our well-thought-out cannon of laws brought into being by our highly-dedicated and impartial public servants over the past years I have to disagree.

Stupid laws should be ignored or challenged. Unconstitutional laws most certainly should be challenged, and overturned.

The "hot buttons" that lawmakers use as excuses to bash the citizenry over the head with legislation lately are "public safety" and "think of the children". Whenever I hear either one being used by a politician as justification for some new law or policy, I cringe. You just KNOW it's bull droppings.

Speed laws exist to generate revenue. Red light cameras, speeding cameras and roadside smog sensors exist to generate REVENUE. The altruistic and "safety" benefits are side benefits, that's all. They're fruits of the poison tree, so to speak - despite the convenient rationalizations to the contrary that would be proffered forth by the Nanny State sympathizers and their ilk.

Good, get rid of the cameras and all the other crap. You're lucky enough if you can find a road to drive more than 39 mph on these days anyway. If you're so fortunate, I say pedal to the metal and enjoy it.

Most red light/speeding camera tickets do not give you the option to contest the ticket in court because it is a civil fine and not a criminal violation. You are given the option to pay the fine or name the driver who committed the offense.

Even in traffic court, when challenging a ticket issued by a police officer, is just a gussied-up civic court. You are guilty until you can prove your innocence. The police officer is taken at his word and you're a liar until you can produce evidence that he's wrong.

There is a big difference.

When an officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket, he takes your license, verifies your identity, and gives YOU that ticket. Because he saw YOU commit the infraction. He does not issue a ticket to the registered owner of the car, because the registered owner of the car is completely irrelevant for a moving traffic infraction.

There is nothing illegal or improper about letting someone drive your car, the car you have registered in your name. Your kids, wife, friends, etc. can all legally drive it. People do it all the time, and it's perfectly legal.

The prob with redlight cameras is that you could be sitting at home, while your wife or brother is running a red light. But YOU get a ticket mailed to you. Now you have to appear in court to defend yourself, when there was no cause to give you the ticket in the first place. No law enforcement officer saw you do anything. In fact, no one could have possibly seen you do anything, because you DIDN'T do anything. But there you are, being forced to pay up for something you didn't do, or be hauled before a judge for something you didn't do and there was no reasonable probable cause for your being forced to appear.

That is constitutionally suspect, IMO.

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 is also consitutionally suspect.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if at least some aspects of the current system are found to be unconsitutional. In fact, I'm sure the way the system is worked in many states will be found unconstitutional.

In my area, red light camera tickets are $390. I can;t see how many can afford these fines, and nor do I think the punishment is commensurate with the crime.

And the contractor gets a cut of every fine collected. If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

Not according to this website:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Shoppers/Driving_Tips/Driving_Tip_Fight_a_Photo_Radar_Ticket.S172.A8394. html

"Here are some tips to keep in mind when it comes to dealing with automated ticket generators - and some ways to beat them at their own game:

You are still innocent until proven guilty. If you get a ticket in the mail accusing you of running a red light or "speeding" and think it's unjust, fight it. As with a ticket issued by a real live traffic cop, you are entitled to your day in court and to confront the witnesses and evidence arrayed against you. Call or go down to the court with jurisdiction (this information must be provided with the summons) and request a trial date, just as you would contest a "normal" ticket - and fight it in the same way, by disputing the claims made by the camera, supported by evidence of your own and by demanding that the state produce the evidence by which it hopes to convict you of the offense at issue. The National Motorists Association (www.motorists.org) has a superb ticket-fighting kit that can help you here, as well as general advice on their Web site."

Well, that might be a bit of an overstatement.

I don't think many would say there should be NO speed laws anywhere. That would be insane, and would actually lead to more abuse and more revenue.

You'd have to have *some* restrictions. 100 mph through a residential, full sideways drift around the corners?

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...

I'm curious. How many of you were for the NSA wiretap program and are against red light cameras?

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.

Problem is, we can no longer trust government to put checks on itself to keep legislation reasonable. Yes, I agree - going 100 mph through a school zone should be illegal. So should driving drunk. So should a lot of things. The problem is when it crosses the line of what's "reasonable" and enters the realm of "over-legislation for purposes of revenue extraction". I'd bet probably a full 90% of new laws fall under the latter category.

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

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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

http://ticketassassin.com/autoenf_toc.html

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?

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.

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.