If you hate red light cameras, read this..

[ewave]

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

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.

[Jim Richards]

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

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
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.

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..

[Jeff Higgins]

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.

[Dan in Pasadena]

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.

[wludavid]

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

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by on-ramp
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..

that's second grade comprehension - did you graduate from second grade?

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

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...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

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.

[legion]

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.

[wludavid]

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.

[the]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad


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...

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.

[daepp]

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.

[wludavid]

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.

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

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by legion
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.

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."

[the]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile


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.

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?

[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...

[Nathans_Dad]

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

[the]

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.

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.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

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.