[50 Freak]

Hope to get an answer from a Cali LEO (preferablely from San Francisco).

Here gos.....

I got a ticket for a running a red light in SF. Problem is the ticket was issued via one of those red light cameras and the driver was not me. I was in the car but was slightly drunk. Had a friend drive as he was not inebriated. Problem was he is not a very close friend and I don't know much info (as requested by the ticket request) on him.

What do I do now???

The ticket says that the violation will stay on my record until I identify the driver, but I don't know if I can get all the requested info from the driver.

[Pilgrim]

Seeing that a DUI arrest for you would have cost you upwards of $5,000 (DMV figures in the drivers handbook), paying for the red light ticket seems a bargain.

Pay the bail, go to traffic school if you qualify, and pick your designated drivers more carefully next time.

[Coronach]

There should be a 'plead not guilty' option where you can go to court. I'd choose that one, and at trial just offer the prosecutor what limited info you know on the other driver ("Uh...his name was....Tim?").


Sorry, though, I'm not Cali LE.

Mike

[anchored]

So, the ticket presumes you're guilty unless you prove otherwise? Send back a copy of the 5th amendment.

[COHIBA]

take a jury trial and tell the court...
"i really cant remember his name. we were both pretty drunk and twisted up on pot. i think he said his name was earl... but he might have been sick"

[Mike Irwin]

The 5th Amendment and due process comes up quite frequently in discussions about red light and speed cameras.

As far as I know, every court that has addressed this issue says because there is photographic evidence of the incident, due process has been satisfied, same as video tape of shoplifters.

Also, as far as I know, if the driver can't be identified, it can't be treated as a moving violation, so no points should attach to your license (at least that's the way it works in Virginia).

The idea behind it is that it's your vehicle, you're responsible for how it's operated.

I'd agree, though, take the jury trial, but be prepared to lose. The court very well may not accept the theory that you didn't know who was driving your own car.

[scottgun]

So, the ticket presumes you're guilty unless you prove otherwise? Send back a copy of the 5th amendment.
This did happen in California, the constitution doesn't apply.

Pay it. What are you going to do, tell the judge, "I was drunk at the time, and not really sure who was driving" Plus, usually those camera tickets don't even go on your driving record.

Isn't technology great?

[CZ-75]

Might buy a polarized plate cover for the front plate. No need to make Big Brother's revenue collection schemes any easier.

[Brad Johnson]

There have been several people I know that have been issued "tickets by photo" and only one ended up having to pay the fine. By the way, this is Texas I'm talking about, not CA.

In each case they had an attorney write a nasty-gram to the ticketing office and demand that they identify the driver in the photo or drop all charges under threat of a counter-suit. With only one exception the cops were unable to provide an identifiable photo of the driver. The only one who paid was the single photo where the driver was clearly identifiable in the pic (and she was able to keep her record clean by taking deferred adjudication).

Brad

[Mike Irwin]

It sounds as if Texas is the aberation, then, Brad.

Most states that I know of, including Virginia and Pennsylvania, have no requirement for the driver to be identified or identifiable because there is no moving violation attached to a driver's record.

In that sense, it's treated the same as a parking ticket. It doesn't matter who drove the car to where it came to be parked, only that it was parked in apparent violation of the applicable traffic law.

To my way of thinking, there's ever so slightly more due process in the photo red light and speed cases because even thought you can't cross examine the camera, you do have photographic evidence and there have been cases where the photographic record has NOT supported the case at hand because of problems with the device or how it is calibrated.

With a police officer, unless the cop who pulls you over for running a red light has a video camera, it's your word against his.

[BrokenPaw]

What about the constitutionally-guaranteed right to face your accuser? Who is accusing you of the violation? Can that person prove that the photograph is not faked?

Take a picture of your car in an intersection with a traffic light[0][1]. Photoshop the picture into three pictures, one with the light being red, one with the light being yellow, and one with the light being green. Take the pics to court.

If the photo that is being presented as evidence against you does not show the traffic light in the same frame, ask them to prove that the light was red when the photo was taken. If the light is in the frame, produce all three of your pics and ask the state's attorney to identify the unmodified one, and to explain how he knows.

[0] How to do this safely and legally is left as an exercise for the reader.
[1] if possible, do this at an intersection where the lights are burned out, so that none of the lamps in the original photo are actually on.

[CZ-75]

BrokenPaw,

You'd probably win with the scenario you outlined, but $$$ is the factor here. Most folks either don't have enough to do what you suggest or would rather save the expense and hassle, even though they may come out in the long run with regard to insurance rate hikes.

[Mike Irwin]

Broken,

Technically, you are facing your accuser when you are presented with a photograph of the alleged violation.

It's the same as if you were to rob a store and be identified only by the video cameras.

Still, yours is a very interesting defense strategy. I don't know if it's been tried or not.

Since you bring it up, how about testing it for us? :D

[Heat Miser]

Take a picture of your car in an intersection with a traffic light[0][1]. Photoshop the picture into three pictures, one with the light being red, one with the light being yellow, and one with the light being green. Take the pics to court.

If the photo that is being presented as evidence against you does not show the traffic light in the same frame, ask them to prove that the light was red when the photo was taken. If the light is in the frame, produce all three of your pics and ask the state's attorney to identify the unmodified one, and to explain how he knows.I think this would work if you surprised the other side simply because they would not be prepared with the evidence chain. If they have seen this defense or were prepared, you are screwed. I worked at a place in Los Angeles right on the corner of a red light camera. When the film ran out, a tech from some company would come get it, but before he would live a cop would show up and sign a form for it and put a sticker over the case. Every court follows and accpets the normal evidence chain.

[gun-fucious]

the traffic light picture also has a digital read out of the cars speed, light status at cars entrance to the intersection and the status at the exit
plus date & time

i recieved one from DC due to a miss read of the plate number

i still had to defend myself even though i was not at fault

funny thing
there was no where on the form to check
"the government was in error"

my options were
Pay, ask for trial, ask for mail adjudication, or supply name of driver

in asking for a mail adjudication you are waving your right to a trial

i supplied documentation proving the car was not mine and 2 weeks later recieved notification that the fine had doubled

this form had a phone number on it that got the mess straightened out

[Dex Sinister]

One could always pick a name out of the obituaries and mail it back with the relevant information. Hard to fine a dead driver.

[This presumes you aren't supplying this information under penalty of perjury, of course.]

Dex

[TheeBadOne]

Are you advocating not taking responsibility for ones actions? :confused:

[bbrins]

My employer got one of those tickets for a vehicle that I'm pretty sure I was driving that day. It looked like the normal red light camera tickets I have seen(not mine), but the only thing that was different about it was that the fine was for $0.00. One more thing that the Gov't exempts itself from, I had gov't tags.

We do still have the right to face our accusers don't we? What about the officer that signs the ticket? If he/she wasn't on the scene to see it in person what caused you to run the red light, isn't that heresay, therefore not admissable in court?

[hammer4nc]

check out: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/index.htm

[Waitone]

Charlotte is making a fist full of money off intersection cameras. The system is pretty much the same. You wanna confront your accuser? Go ahead and try. Just pay the extortion and shut up.

The system is so profitable for the city that the state has under consideration a bill that would install speeding camera all over the state. It catches you speeding, snaps a picture, sends you the bill for $50. Pay it and no point accrue to you and the insurance company stays stupid. What is interesting is the state evidently will not administer the fine program but the camera contractor will. In other words the state of NC will contract out law enforcement functions to NGO's.

How many constitutional provisions are smashed with that little system?

[Dex Sinister]

Are you advocating not taking responsibility for ones actions?

I believe the original question was, "I wasn't driving, but don't know the info of the actual driver."

Not, mind you, that I necessarially believe that I am failing to be responsible for my own actions if I refuse to submit to a money-making scheme that the state invents, and subsequently decides I'm "guilty" of.

Dex http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

[Tamara]

Personally, I think electronic observation by the rurales (whether manned or unmanned, radar or red light camera) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

If you want to start pointing lenses, laser beams and radar emitters at me, take your probable cause to a judge and get a warrant, dammit. :fire:

[gun-fucious]

me wonders what would happen if a large group of redlight runners all had licence plates with the mayors tag number

[dustind]

I can't believe no one else posted this, but when you get something in the mail that you dont like, don't respond. It is just that simple, they wont follow up, and what do you have to loose by ignoring it? if anyone asks, you never got it. Until they start shipping in a manner that confirms delivery, it will never fail.

<rant> These cameras violate so many things(constitution, privacy, and otherwise) it isn't even funny, but i guess what ever makes money. Doesn't anyone ever stop and wonder where the money comes from?? Reminds me of a joke, asking a democrat where taxes come from, is like asking a child where babies come from. I will never get how taxing the people, to give money to the people solves anything, but thats socialism for you. :banghead: :cuss: </rant>

[Mike Irwin]

"Personally, I think electronic observation by the rurales (whether manned or unmanned, radar or red light camera) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

How so?

You're in public, in public view.

To the best of my knowledge, no court in the United States has agreed with that stance, even conservative leaning ones. Courts have continually held that video or pictorial evidence, even it collected electronically, is in support of the oath and affirmation requirement of the amendment.

That does cut both ways, though. I think this was reported on TFL, but I can't remember for certain.

A police officer, during an arrested in a public area, charged a news crew under what amounted to a wire tapping violation for recording his voice.

The court said "no way, Joe Donut, you were in public, fully aware of the presence of the news crew. Don't even try it."

The court recently ruled, however, that using an infrared camera to locate heat sources inside a structure without a warrant is, however, a violation of the 4th Amendment.

[Mike Irwin]

"I can't believe no one else posted this, but when you get something in the mail that you dont like, don't respond."

You're joking, right?

BAD advice.

In Virginia, if you ignore one of these, you will eventually end up with a bench warrant for your arrest, just as you would with unpaid parking tickets.

Plus, I think under the new system of registration and license renewal, you can't get your car registration renewed, your county property tax sticker, or your driver's license renewed.

Another point of Virginia law. The US Mail is considered to be sufficient delivery. Even if you say you never got it, that won't fly in court. That's the joy of having an extremely efficient mail system.

Ignoring junk mail? Good.

Ignoring an official summons? BAD.

As for the violation of privacy, how so? You're in public, driving on a public road. As I've said, no court, not even the conservative ones, have agreed with the concept that these devices violate privacy.

Simply put, they don't.

[Zundfolge]

I can't believe no one else posted this, but when you get something in the mail that you dont like, don't respond. It is just that simple, they wont follow up, and what do you have to loose by ignoring it? if anyone asks, you never got it. Until they start shipping in a manner that confirms delivery, it will never fail.

"Honest, officer, I never got the ticket."

"Yeah, well tell it to the judge buddy." (clicking of handcuffs)


ignore mail from big brother and you end up with a warrant for your arrest ... assuming you never get pulled over for something else, or give a cop a reason to run your ID and you may never get arrested (although at some point you have to renew your license ... lets see what happens on that day).

Also, you may find that failure to acknowledge the ticket and/or pay the fine will result in the amount owed increasing over time ... eventualy you owe the state thousands of dollars and then they decide to get interested in you.



The only real solution is to force government back under the rule of the constitution (which I don't expect to see in my lifetime).


EDIT
Damn ... instaposted by Mr. Irwin :neener:

[dustind]

Even if i am in public, having cameras on me to remember my actions violates privacy, plus the camera is aimed inside my car. I am starting to think we need to legalize heavy tinted windows. Does anyone think cameras watching you, even if its public, doesn't violate privacy? Its not just the watching, its the recording that really gets me.

I wonder how this affects motorcycles?

Strange that i can't ignore mail from big brother, but if i send something to them noncertified they can ignore me, oh-well. I have heard of that working before, but i guess you have to be careful. I suggest writting your represenatives to get it repealed.

[Mike Irwin]

"Even if i am in public, having cameras on me to remember my actions violates privacy..."

That's contradictory.

That's like saying that it invades your privacy for someone to look at you and remember what you did while you were in public.

By virtue of the fact that you walk into the world you walk into a forum where you are open to view.

As I've noted, no court, not even the Supreme Court, has agreed that your "privacy" is voilated by these devices if you take the actions while in public.

The concept harkens back to early English common law.

Your home is your castle, but on the streets, which belong solely to no one, you have left the protections of your castle, and you are among the publis, or general population, open to view by any of them, including the king's agents.

[Mike Irwin]

Oh, I'll also say this.

There are websites out there that list the location of every red light and speed camera in your area. You just have to find them.

You should also be cognizant of where they are located in your area.

I know where every red light camera is along my normal routes in Northern Virginia. I know that if I'm going west on Rt. 50 at Jaguar Trail, I'd better not be in such a freaking hurry that I run the red light there.

Same with westbound 50 at Rt. 29 at Fairfax Circle.

Simply put, if you don't speed, and you don't run red lights, you don't have to worry about the issue.

Living in Northern Virginia, the land of the impatient *******, I've absolutely no pity for anyone who gets nailed by a red light camera, having witnessed at least a dozen accidents caused by red light runners, and having narrowly missed at least one good T-boning by some jackass.

[TheeBadOne]

Well said.

[BrokenPaw]

[From TheeBadOne]Are you advocating not taking responsibility for ones actions?
I'm not, if that'[s who you were asking. I'm saying that I believe that these cameras are a violation of due process, since they fine the owner of the vehicle, not the driver. I bought my wife a car. I'm the owner. I only drive it rarely. If I got a red-light-cam ticket for a time I knew I was not driving, you can be sure I'd fight it. Why? Because I'm not the one who performed an illegal act.

Say your buddy needs to borrow your car. He's normally a conscientious driver, but he slips a neuron that day and hits and kills a kid. That's vehicular manslaughter. Is it *your* responsibility to suffer the consequences?

Is it the company (Bushmaster) who manufactured the rifle that Malvo used who is responsible for the people he killed?

Is it the car owner's responsibility that someone using the car violated a traffic regulation?[From Mike Irwin]Another point of Virginia law. The US Mail is considered to be sufficient delivery. Even if you say you never got it, that won't fly in court. That's the joy of having an extremely efficient mail system. Which is really a bummer for some of us. I live on the one mail route in Virginia that apparently makes up for the entire rest of the efficient mail system. I deliver my neighbour's mail to him more often than the mailoman does, because it's in my box. I recently got a bill that was dated a year ago (and that I'd had to argue with the company over, saying that I never got the bill -- turns out I was right; my mailman was holding on to it for some unfathomable reason). My wife's aunt sends us cards regularly. We get about half of them (which tells me she has the address right). I imagine the rest are sitting on someone else's mantle.
[From CZ-75]You'd probably win with the scenario you outlined, but $$$ is the factor here. Most folks either don't have enough to do what you suggest or would rather save the expense and hassle, even though they may come out in the long run with regard to insurance rate hikes. The software's free; all you need is a digital camera, or a friend with a digital camera, and a computer with a decent printer. You can rent computer time, FWIW, at Kinko's, if you don't own one.

If I ever decide to fight a radar-cam or a red-light-cam ticket, I intend to take a whole sheaf of photos to the court with me.

"Your honor, here is a picture of me running a red light. Here is the same picture, but I'm simply passing under a green light. Here is my truck, clocked by radar at 25 MPH. In this shot, I'm going a million miles per hour. Here's a [photoshopped]picture of my garbage can, clocked at 75MPH whilst running three red lights at once. Here's a bunny-rabbit with wheels." If I produce enough photos that are indistinguishable from unaltered ones, the state's evidence becomes less compelling.

And another thing. These cameras are controlled by software. The dipsticks that write software[0] sometimes forget details, screw up, make errors. How do *I* know that the red-light-camera does not have a time-boundary-issue where for 1 tenth of a second each day, the camera believes the light is red even when it's not? How does the court know? The software that controls the camera is as much a part of the evidentiary chain as the photo itself is. Is the state prepared to provide me with the source code for the camera's control program, so that I can properly evaulate its correctness? If the state will not, the evidence is not admissible. IMHO, of course.

-BP

[0] And I say this advisedly, since I am one of them

[Waitone]

The software that controls the camera is as much a part of the evidentiary chain as the photo itself is. Is the state prepared to provide me with the source code for the camera's control program, so that I can properly evaulate its correctness? A city in NC which has red light cameras recently had a lawsuit where the state DOT admitted in court that it shortened the yellow light cycle in order to increase the number of fines at that intersection.

[scottgun]

I have heard of the red light and speeding cameras capturing pictures of individuals traveling with a member of the opposite sex, other than their significant other. When sent to the driver's address, I'm sure it caused some bigger problems. How's that for a double whammy, busted for cheating and speeding.

They also recently changed their policy so that the company who makes the devices no longer gets a cut from every ticket. What's next the computer chip in your vehicle sending you an e-mail ticket with the speedometer exceeds x mph? Anybody ever read 1984?

We always joke on the way to the range driving past these things, what is the best caliber to use to blast the red light cameras to pieces.

[Pilgrim]

Might buy a polarized plate cover for the front plate. No need to make Big Brother's revenue collection schemes any easier.

CA Vehicle Code prohibits placing any cover over a license plate with the following exceptions:

Section 5201

(e) No covering shall be used on license plates except as follows:

(1) The installation of a cover over a lawfully parked vehicle to
protect it from the weather and the elements does not constitute a
violation of this subdivision. Any peace officer or other regularly
salaried employee of a public agency designated to enforce laws,
including local ordinances, relating to the parking of vehicles may
temporarily remove so much of the cover as is necessary to inspect
any license plate, tab, or indicia of registration on a vehicle.
(2) The installation of a license plate security cover is not a
violation of this subdivision if the device does not obstruct or
impair the recognition of the license plate information, including,
but not limited to, the issuing state, license plate number, and
registration tabs, and the cover is limited to the area directly over
the top of the registration tabs. No portion of a license plate
security cover shall rest over the license plate number.
(f) No casing, shield, frame, border, or other device that
obstructs or impairs the reading or recognition of a license plate by
a remote emission sensing device, as specified in Sections 44081 and
44081.6 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be installed on, or
affixed to, a vehicle.

[CZ-75]

What's next the computer chip in your vehicle sending you an e-mail ticket with the speedometer exceeds x mph? Anybody ever read 1984?

Europe, IIRC, has these some places for commercial vehicles. If I'm wrong, then it is an idea under VERY strong consideration and, I think, going to be implemented on ALL vehicles.

The software's free; all you need is a digital camera, or a friend with a digital camera, and a computer with a decent printer. You can rent computer time, FWIW, at Kinko's, if you don't own one.

Lawyers to argue the case aren't. My time, during normal business hours, isn't.

As to some of the other points you made, you'd need to invest time and effort in demonstrating that the camera isn't calibrated/synched correctly, perhaps money to invest in 3rd party opinions/certifications.

Judicial recognition is another thing to fight against, since this allows the court to accept a technology as valid, rather than unproven, shifting the burden of proof onto you. Doesn't always have a strong basis in actual fact, such as LIDAR, which is supposed to be more discriminating than radar, but at maximum ranges, the beam width is still enough to cover more than one lane of traffic. I'm sure that the courts, except in PRNJ, don't get this info when some prosecutor makes his case with the new technology to establish recognition.

[Heat Miser]

The court recently ruled, however, that using an infrared camera to locate heat sources inside a structure without a warrant is, however, a violation of the 4th Amendment. Then how about using a flash bulb to see inside your car? Same deal. The inside of your car is not a public place, and if someone or something cannot readily see inside it, you have an expectation of privacy and fourth amendment protection.

[TheeBadOne]

A reminder why there are traffic laws

From 2000 NHTSA traffic accidents report

Table 65
Related Factors for Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes

Failure to keep in proper lane or running off road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . 18,274 31.8%
Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted speed limit or racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,371 19.8%
Failure to yield right of way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . 4,802 8.4%
Inattentive (talking, eating, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . . 4,014 7.0%
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, or negligent manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . 3,385 5.9%
Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . 3,016 5.2%
Overcorrecting/oversteering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 2,000 3.5%
Swerving or avoiding due to wind, slippery surface, vehicle, object, nonmotorist in roadway, etc... . 1,852 3.2%
Drowsy, asleep, fatigued, ill, or blackout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 1,677 2.9%
Making improper turn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. 1,434 2.5%
Driving wrong way on one-way trafficway or on wrong side of road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . 1,152 2.0%
Vision obscured (rain, snow, glare, lights, building, trees, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . 1,050 1.8%
Other factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................8,604 15.0%
None reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . 21,070 36.7%
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . 912 1.6%
Total Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . 57,480 100.0%



These are only for Fatal crashes. Injury or property damage crashes are not included.

As you can see, major factors are:

#2) SPEEDING

#3) Fail to yeild right of way

[TRLaye]

Mike,
In Kalifornia we had a citizen charged with illegal wiretapping for taping his close encounter with a Highway Patrolman. It apparently was a violation of his "right of privacy".

However as a Police Officer I was allowed, nay encouraged, to tape my conversations with citizens during traffic stops. Seems that they didn't have a "right of privacy".

But then that's why the call it the Socialist Republic of Kalifornia.

Tom

[TheeBadOne]

TR, that case was dismissed.

[CZ-75]

#1) would appear to be "the will of God" for 36.7%

#2) is improper lane use.

#3) is speeding OR driving too fast for conditions (i.e., 55 during icing conditions would be legal by the posted limit)



Why does Germany manage to have around half the number of fatal accidents per miles driven despite the (much) higher speeds?

Speed kills, huh?

[winwun]

I'm not trying to steal the thread, but it's been pretty well covered by now anyway, and I have a question sort of along the same lines: If you forgot your driver's license and were stopped, could you be charged with driving without a license? You have a perfectly legal license, but it just isn't in your pocket. I realize the law says it has to be in "your posession", but I have a car, boat, house, dogs, 4-wheeler, etc that are "in my posession", but they aren't in my pocket. A woman would have her license in her purse on the seat, and if it was in the back seat I am sure it would be OK, and if it was a station wagon and the purse was in the back, it should be OK. If She was driving an 18 wheeler and her license was in the back of the trailer, it would probably be OK. The officer could call in and verify that a legal license does exist, so why the need to "have it on your person" It isn't glued to my skin, and depending on how many clothes I'm wearing, it could be anywhere about me. Why would the Officer have the power to determine just how far away the license can be and still be legal? Speaking of the power of the officer, they can choose to ignore, release, warn or whatever, anyone they see breaking the law. Who gives them this arbitrary power?

[Sergeant Bob]

Europe, IIRC, has these some places for commercial vehicles. If I'm wrong, then it is an idea under VERY strong consideration and, I think, going to be implemented on ALL vehicles.

COMING SOON! to a commercial vehicle near you!

[TheeBadOne]

If you forgot your driver's license and were stopped, could you be charged with driving without a license?
In some states, yes.

The officer could call in and verify that a legal license does exist, so why the need to "have it on your person"
If I know your name and date of birth I can pretend to be you. RE: see False Name/DOB

Why would the Officer have the power to determine just how far away the license can be and still be legal?
By state statute (law, passed by your sate law makers)

Speaking of the power of the officer, they can choose to ignore, release, warn or whatever, anyone they see breaking the law. Who gives them this arbitrary power?
You do. There are qualifications. You may get a warning for 5 over the limit, but not armed robbery, or murder. If you feel the law should be black and white call your local PD and tell them. Write an editoral to all your local papers that you feel no warnings should be given out at all. Make sure you sign it with your name as required by media rules.

[Sergeant Bob]

A reminder why there are gun laws


California GUN DEATHS PER
IN 1998 100,000 PEOPLE

HOMICIDES 1573 5.39
SUICIDES 1702 4.73
FATAL GUN ACCIDENTS 52 .18
OTHER GUN DEATHS 75 .22



GUNS DEATHS 30,708 11.32
NATIONWIDE

[TheeBadOne]

Exactly. Glad to see we agree.

[ahenry]

Winwun,
I'm not trying to steal the thread, but it's been pretty well covered by now anyway, and I have a question sort of along the same lines: If you forgot your driver's license and were stopped, could you be charged with driving without a license? You have a perfectly legal license, but it just isn't in your pocket. Well I once got a ticket for no license when I couldn’t find it in my wallet. The trooper wanted to check a boat I was hauling and apparently it was secured adequately because he didn’t give me any other tickets (speeding, unsecured load, whatever). He also didn’t say that he just letting me go with a warning for something, so I believe not having my license on me was my only infraction (it was certainly the only one I could come up with). Anyway, I went to the court clerk a couple of days later and showed her my license and the ticket was dismissed. I just had to pay a 5-10 dollar court cost.

[Mike Irwin]

Heat Miser,

No, it's not the same thing.

You don't live in your car (hopefully).

Some states DO recognize that motor homes and the like are "homes" for Constitutional reasons, and the living section is protected under the 4th Amendment, but the area you drive from is not protected.

[Mike Irwin]

"Which is really a bummer for some of us. I live on the one mail route in Virginia that apparently makes up for the entire rest of the efficient mail system. I deliver my neighbour's mail to him more often than the mailoman does, because it's in my box. I recently got a bill that was dated a year ago (and that I'd had to argue with the company over, saying that I never got the bill -- turns out I was right; my mailman was holding on to it for some unfathomable reason). My wife's aunt sends us cards regularly. We get about half of them (which tells me she has the address right). I imagine the rest are sitting on someone else's mantle."

And you've never spoken to the postmaster of your local post office, or the district delivery manager, about your "service"?

If you haven't , you should immediately do so.

Years ago my parents and their neighbors got a carrier fired for lousy performance.

[Mike Irwin]

"A city in NC which has red light cameras recently had a lawsuit where the state DOT admitted in court that it shortened the yellow light cycle in order to increase the number of fines at that intersection."

Now THAT folks is an enormous problem.

In Virginia, though, the standard procedure is to either leave the yellow cycle the same, or to actually lengthen it slightly, when installing a red light camera.

[Heat Miser]

Heat Miser,

No, it's not the same thing.

You don't live in your car (hopefully).

Some states DO recognize that motor homes and the like are "homes" for Constitutional reasons, and the living section is protected under the 4th Amendment, but the area you drive from is not protected. That makes sense, but still the police cannot search your vehicle just for fun, they have to pass various tests or be given your ok to do so. The funny thing here is that just 10 minutes ago I am reading the Chicago Sun Times (I live in Chicago) and the City has put up cameras 2 intersections. I am all for the red light cameras, I am just opposed to the laws that can be passed saying you are responsible for your car even if not driving it. That is ridiculous and only continues to happen because we are not complaining to our legislators enough.

The red light running is out of hand here for two reasons, 1) The various transportation departments cannot ever get light timing right, causing left turn red light runners to completely block the next cycle/direction's left turn signal.... and 2) Here in Chicago the patrol police do no write traffic tickets unless it is truly aggregious or you just piss them off. My Cop buddy says "thats for the traffic cops to do, I only do radio calls." Since the traffic cops are only assigned to Lake Shore Drive, it is impossible to get caught. The CPD does not even put radar guns in the police cars. Just the few "traffic" cars.

[George Dickel]

A number of years ago I looked at one of the recording devices in commercial vehicles in Europe. A relative of my wife was a truck driver and the vehicle had a recording device that used a paper disc that recorded speed, time driven and time stopped. Neither the driver or the company had access to the disc, only the police had a key that could open it. When stopped by the police they would pull the disc and if the driver had exceeded the speed limit he would be issued a ticket, same with driving more hours than allowed. As I said that was number of years ago and it is more than likely electronically recorded now. I never encountered a truck speeding on the autobahn so it was quite a deterrent.

[Zander]

Speed kills, huh?Nope, but speed differential does. ;)

Especially concerning vehicles driven by those absolute fools who camp in the far left lane of the freeway while other drivers buzz around them like so many angry yellowjackets.

After all, the speed limit's 70mph and they're doing 68mph, so what's the big deal?

Try that nonsense on the autobahnen and you'd better be prepared to pull out your wallet.

[CZ-75]

Try that nonsense on the autobahnen and you'd better be prepared to pull out your wallet.


Rechtsfahren is a good idea and I'd wish they'd spend half as much time on enforcing it as they do on speeding. I'd expect it to pay greater dividends for traffic safety.

Instead, static speed limits, well under the capabilities of modern cars, are deemed as effective safety measures, rather than dynamic limits that can increase for conditions when proper flow patterns are maintained. I'd say that lawmakers think about teens, old folks, and money when setting speeds, but not necessarily in that order.

On a local stretch of interstate w/ numerous fatalities, the state has massively increased the number and shifts of troopers, but the deaths actually increased, in spite of tens of thousands of tickets written.

[standingbear]

i know someone that got a speeding ticket by one of those cameras.they didnt find it very funny(we did) when he took a picture with a kodak camera of some money and mailed it to them.he eventually paid the fine,mostly in small change to spite them.just pay the fine and then see if you can recover the money from your friend later.

[Mike Irwin]

Heat,

No, they can't SEARCH your vehicle, but they can "plain view" or "eyeball" the interior of your vehicle.

If you have something in plain view, I believe a search is then warranted under probable cause.

Because you're in public, on a public street, sitting in your car and are viewable through the windows, there's no privacy issue attached.

"I am just opposed to the laws that can be passed saying you are responsible for your car even if not driving it."

Well, as I explained above, you don't get points on your license if you can't be identified as a driver, no penalty attaches to the insurance, etc. I'm pretty certain that all states are like that.

It's not treated as a moving violation in those instances. In that sense, it's the same as an expired meter ticket, parking in a handicapped spot, in front of a fire hydrant, etc.

Even if you weren't driving the car and parked it where the violation occurred you, as the registered owner, are still responsible. The ticket comes to you, and if it's not paid, it's your keister up the creek.

You're responsible for your property and how it is used.

[Mike Irwin]

George,

I remember those devices.

There were also indicators on the wheels of tour coaches that popped up if the driver had been speeding.

The coach in which I was riding in 1983 on a group tour of Europe was stopped in either Germany or Austria and the driver issued a citation!

[Mike Irwin]

"Speed kills, huh?"

A friend of mine is a cop. He passed on two saying regarding speeding related fatalities...

Speed's great, deceleration's the bitch, and

He died from an acute case of steering wheel poisoning.

[Mike Irwin]

"Instead, static speed limits, well under the capabilities of modern cars, are deemed as effective safety measures, rather than dynamic limits that can increase for conditions when proper flow patterns are maintained."

Well, there's another, even MORE critical factor in there...

The apalling condition of many of our nation's highways.

My Father is a civil engineer, and started his career in 1956 as a highway engineer in the middle of the interstate construction boom.

He got out of it in the 1976s, just as the interstate work was drying up.

In his words, the interstate highways were built to last, but they were NOT built to be neglected.

Quite frankly, I routinely travel highways where I'm SERIOUSLY concerned that the posted speed is too high for the condition of the road surface.

[Heat Miser]

It's not treated as a moving violation in those instances. In that sense, it's the same as an expired meter ticket, parking in a handicapped spot, in front of a fire hydrant, etc. That makes sense as well. Now if I can just tell the "Chicago Department of Revenue" (Thats what they call the meter maids here!) that I didn't park my car there, it was Bob Smith, no wait it was John Doe, oh hell, I was drunk occifer I don;t know.:rolleyes:

[Russ]

I had a Toyota I bought new and drove for 10 years in the PRK and I never installed the front license plate. Even if you get caught with it off, it's a fix it ticket, no fine. Unless they are getting the rear plates too, that's one way to avoid it. In alot of states, no front plate is provided or required.

[Hemicuda]

Now, guys and gals, the US mail system IS a great way to get outta those tickets...

you see, I have a home address (where I DO NOT get mail...)

it is REQUIRED that the "home" addy is on my CCW permit and my drivers license...

both places ALSO have a "mailing" address which is a P.O. Box... I have had this SAME P.O. Box since 1981... (I was 11, when my mom got it, and when she gave it up, I kept it)

I got a mailed ticket from a parking violation my cousin got in MY car... and they mailed it to my address REGISTERED to me at the secretary of state, only thing is that they CONSTANTLY forget that theres a seperate mailing addy...

when I was pulled over, (in my small hometown) and my name came up W/ a warrant, all it took was the Judge noting that ALL the states paperwork had BOT addresses, CORECTLY labled, and that ALL correspondence had been sent to the address CLEARLY marked as "living address ONLY!", even though a "mailing address" was printed RIGHT NEXT TO IT!

Judge laughed at the warrant, and dismissed the case summarily... stating that if they couldn't read THEIR WN FORM, than they didn't need to collect any fines...

I TO THIS VERY DAY, keep my mailing addy and my living addy SEPERATE!

[Russ]

Hemicuda,

Did you have to spend the night in jail before you saw the judge? If you did, you more than paid the ticket in my book!

[Mike Irwin]

Hemi,

Woudn't work in Virginia, I don't think.

I think the "point of receipt" mailing address needs to be on the driver's license, but I'm not 100% certain.

[gun-fucious]

what is most bothersome about the trend towards red light based revenue streams is the possibility of budgetary shortfalls being offset by digital highwaymen

Once they get the 3rd level of technology installed in cars,
your car will debit your account as you speed.

Just consider it a usage tax on foreward progress