Does this ruling end speed cameras and red light cameras?
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403565.html?hpid=topnews

Any legal eagles out there have an opinion?

It sure seems like they'll have to at least send a lab tech to each and every contested case now.

It might affect DUI and other criminal cases, but no chance on camera tickets. At least in AZ, when you contest a camera ticket, there is a witness in court against you. It's a rep. from the company that makes the cameras.

It sounds like it will affect drug cases far more than anything else. Maybe, if we are lucky, this will be another nail in the coffin of the "War on Drugs". If the lab tech has to show up for each and every minor possesion violation, they will quickly become overwhelmed and unable to support this requirement.

Rick, I don't see how a rep from the company passes muster as a "witness" in a traffic camera case. Doesn't a witness have to be present to, well, - witness - the violation? Of course with the rules of "evidence" being wha they are in traffic court, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that witness requirements have been similarly corrupted.

More likely governments will simply raise taxes to cover the new overhead costs of prosecution.

No way in hell they'll get rid of their "cash cow" cameras - especially not in times like these.

I'm not defending the practice. But a live human is a lot closer to being a witness than is a piece of paper.

The machine (red light camera, etc) is a recording instrument. The person is there to testify the instrument was set up correctly, properly calibrated, passed check tests, functioning normally, etc. Nothing weird about that.

Anyway, on first glance, the decision seems perfectly reasonable. Why shouldn't the party seeking to introduce a laboratory report into evidence be required to lay the appropriate evidentiary foundation by producing the laboratory technician to testify?

I agree, I'm surprised that hasn't always been the rule. Can't see how any written report can be admitted into evidence without proper authentication/foundation.

It HAS always been the constitutional right of the defendant to confront his accuser.

It is just one of MANY rights that were usurped by the government(s).