OT: Questions about camera red light tickets???

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.

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

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

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"

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.

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

Click to expand...

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?

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

Options

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Are you advocating not taking responsibility for ones actions?

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?

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

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?

Are you advocating not taking responsibility for ones actions?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

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: </rant>

"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.