Red Light Camera Ticket Thread!

[ilikefood]

I think it's time for people to start crowdfunding legal cases that challenge stupid laws and precedents. Things like the idea that you can get a ticket from a camera (and have no way to confront a witness), warrantless surveillance (cops using Stingray devices to eavesdrop on your cell phone conversations without a warrant), and civil forfeiture (where cops can take away your car, house, or money on mere unsubstantiated suspicion of involvement in a crime, and keep them even if you yourself have been cleared). I'd totally give money to a GoFundMe campaign to fight against any of these things (and many others).

 

[jdhu]

There already is a big fudge factor designed into the system, the yellow light.

Gabe I don't know what your argument is. Tickets are too expensive? Red lights cameras shouldn't exist? running red lights "just a little bit" is ok? This particular ticket is in error and should be dismissed?

+1. This comes across like OP simply being upset about a particular ticket.

If the issue is lack of a human witness, then arguably any footage (for example, an ATM camera depicting theft) is unreliable, unconstitutional, etc. That is an absurd result.

Not trying to be holier-than-thou. I had my license suspended for over 4 years, and it hindered me obtaining my professional license for a year. I made mistakes (no DUI, just speeding) and I remember feeling helpless at the time to avoid further fines, etc. (at some point over 4 years, you HAVE to drive). Anyway, point is I suppose..."man up."

 

[Gabe]

+1. This comes across like OP simply being upset about a particular ticket.

If the issue is lack of a human witness, then arguably any footage (for example, an ATM camera depicting theft) is unreliable, unconstitutional, etc. That is an absurd result.

Not trying to be holier-than-thou. I had my license suspended for over 4 years, and it hindered me obtaining my professional license for a year. I made mistakes (no DUI, just speeding) and I remember feeling helpless at the time to avoid further fines, etc. (at some point over 4 years, you HAVE to drive). Anyway, point is I suppose..."man up."

If I did something wrong, I say, prove it. That's all I'm asking for--a fair trial before the "people" take money from me and screw up my driving record for 3 years.

I just watched "The Big Short" last week. Thousands of bankers and brokers and the like put billions of dollars into their pockets while trillions of dollars disappeared from the global economy and millions and millions of people suffered (including many people reading this thread) from the mortgage meltdown and brutal recession that followed. Exactly one, that's right, ONE person went to prison in the US as a result.

And folks here are bent out of shape because I'm trying to avoid paying the fine for being accused of entering an intersection .3 seconds into the red?

I was just overseas for a week, and people in general think Americans are stupid, or war-mongering sociopaths, or both. I wonder why.

 

[Yakoo752]

There already is a big fudge factor designed into the system, the yellow light.

Gabe I don't know what your argument is. Tickets are too expensive? Red lights cameras shouldn't exist? running red lights "just a little bit" is ok? This particular ticket is in error and should be dismissed?

so true... except it's been proven that yellow lights can be designed to increase revenue. In fact some cities have intentionally deployed short yellows to do so.

Short yellow light times at intersections have been shown to increase the number of traffic violations and accidents. Conversely, increasing the yellow light duration can dramatically reduce red-light violations at an intersection. -

https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

If you don't think the system is designed to drive revenue, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[mbrick]

You don't have to give anyone else up.

IF they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was you driving, then your ticket will be dismissed.

 

[jdhu]

If I did something wrong, I say, prove it. That's all I'm asking for--a fair trial before the "people" take money from me and screw up my driving record for 3 years.

I just watched "The Big Short" last week. Thousands of bankers and brokers and the like put billions of dollars into their pockets while trillions of dollars disappeared from the global economy and millions and millions of people suffered (including many people reading this thread) from the mortgage meltdown and brutal recession that followed. Exactly one, that's right, ONE person went to prison in the US as a result.

And folks here are bent out of shape because I'm trying to avoid paying the fine for being accused of entering an intersection .3 seconds into the red?

I was just overseas for a week, and people in general think Americans are stupid, or war-mongering sociopaths, or both. I wonder why.

I agree with you on some things. Tiered fines make some sense, and sure, a more common sense, "spirit of the law" approach sounds enticing.

I think what confuses your message is your bringing in constitutional issues, some issues with inequality, and now "war-mongering sociopaths." The fact that we use red light cameras...well, what's the connection to war-mongering?

ANYWAY, you have every right to go and fight the ticket, and to challenge the footage. What is the issue there, from a constitutional standpoint? Yes, some people commit more heinous crimes and get off. What's the connection to a ticket (isn't your larger point that those people should be appropriately punished?)?

I sped like a madman for years, but never had an accident, never hit another vehicle, etc. Where was the "harm?" Should I not have been punished?

 

[Gabe]

I agree with you on some things. Tiered fines make some sense, and sure, a more common sense, "spirit of the law" approach sounds enticing.

I think what confuses your message is your bringing in constitutional issues, some issues with inequality, and now "war-mongering sociopaths." The fact that we use red light cameras...well, what's the connection to war-mongering?

ANYWAY, you have every right to go and fight the ticket, and to challenge the footage. What is the issue there, from a constitutional standpoint? Yes, some people commit more heinous crimes and get off. What's the connection to a ticket (isn't your larger point that those people should be appropriately punished?)?

I sped like a madman for years, but never had an accident, never hit another vehicle, etc. Where was the "harm?" Should I not have been punished?

Yes, you were disobedient and should have snapped photos of your speedometer and turned yourself in to the nearest cop.

I love how folks on the Internets love to tell you to "take it like a man" when you "know you're wrong," and yet all these guys have motorcycles capable of exceeding the posted speed limit in every state. So they never break the law? Never expose themselves or anybody else to harm?

Anyway, I really should shut up about that. the war-mongering thing was an illustration of how ignorant and backwards outsiders see us.

The Constitutionality, as I stated here previously, is obvious--we have the right, under the 6th amendment, to face our accusers. I don't think the founding daddies were thinking of robotic speed cameras when they wrote that.

My point comparing this to the mortgage fraud crisis was that the "crime" I'm charged with is not just of minuscule import compared to those guys, the system is literally set up to automatically convict me with no trial or way to present evidence on my behalf, but the system that enforces securities law is set up to make it almost impossible to go to prison.

Where's the outrage over that?

 

[jdhu]

Yes, you were disobedient and should have snapped photos of your speedometer and turned yourself in to the nearest cop.

I love how folks on the Internets love to tell you to "take it like a man" when you "know you're wrong," and yet all these guys have motorcycles capable of exceeding the posted speed limit in every state. So they never break the law? Never expose themselves or anybody else to harm?

Anyway, I really should shut up about that. the war-mongering thing was an illustration of how ignorant and backwards outsiders see us.

The Constitutionality, as I stated here previously, is obvious--we have the right, under the 6th amendment, to face our accusers. I don't think the founding daddies were thinking of robotic speed cameras when they wrote that.

My point comparing this to the mortgage fraud crisis was that the "crime" I'm charged with is not just of minuscule import compared to those guys, the system is literally set up to automatically convict me with no trial or way to present evidence on my behalf, but the system that enforces securities law is set up to make it almost impossible to go to prison.

Where's the outrage over that?

So, in other words, when it happens to you, well cue the outrage.

Motorcycles are capable of exceeding the speed limit. So what? Maybe it's your all-over-the-place style of communication that leads to posts that annoy you.

If a securities law violator ran a camera-intersection, he'd be fined too. You are pointing out areas of imperfection in our legal system, but you are doing so in a well, "strawman" kind of way.

LOL at the 6th Amendment point. I asked earlier; wouldn't your viewpoint render all camera footage inadmissible (except those that were being operated manually, and thus had a witness behind the footage)?

 

[Gabe]

LOL at the 6th Amendment point. I asked earlier; wouldn't your viewpoint render all camera footage inadmissible (except those that were being operated manually, and thus had a witness behind the footage)?

No! You're confusing separate issues--admissibility of evidence (and there are admissibility issues, but we haven't delved into that), the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to face your accuser.

I'd explain it all to you, but I think you should have to suffer through a year of Criminal Procedure classes (after lunch, with no coffee) like I did.

 

[Yakoo752]

What is the issue there, from a constitutional standpoint?

innocent until proven guilty - Even if I wasn't the driver of the vehicle, the match is made based on registration, age, and gender. If it appears to match, a ticket gets issued in my name and the only way out of it is to prove I wasn't driving.

My ticket for rolling a red right hand turn doesn't even have a complete image of the drivers face, it's profile only which isn't enough to properly identify someone. Since a full frontal within 5 degrees from center and/or a token image of the eyes wasn't captured, no ticket should have been issued (federal standard for identifying a person from an image). My drivers license photo looks NOTHING like me, yet a ticket was still issued because the driver looked 30ish and was male. Now I have to prove my innocence or pay a fine...

---what started as a joke 20 yeas ago when I got my first drivers license I've maintained. I've shaved my head, grown out a beard, grew my hair long, and a combination of all 3 so I almost never look like my DL photo...


inability to face my accuser

 

[jdhu]

No! You're confusing separate issues--admissibility of evidence (and there are admissibility issues, but we haven't delved into that), the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to face your accuser.

I'd explain it all to you, but I think you should have to suffer through a year of Criminal Procedure classes (after lunch, with no coffee) like I did.

Well, we may have discussed, but IAAL. So, it would be review to me (assuming I learned it the first time around).

Like it or not, courts have held video evidence not to violate the right to confront/cross examine. As others have pointed out, you can challenge the methodology, whether the camera/radar was calibrated, etc. How would you reconcile your view with use of video evidence generally? Violates the 6th, unless someone can testify in support? Footage from a 7-11 showing robbery, violates the accused's right to confront?

 

[jdhu]

innocent until proven guilty - Even if I wasn't the driver of the vehicle, the match is made based on registration, age, and gender. If it appears to match, a ticket gets issued in my name and the only way out of it is to prove I wasn't driving.

My ticket for rolling a red right hand turn doesn't even have a complete image of the drivers face, it's profile only which isn't enough to properly identify someone. Since a full frontal within 5 degrees from center and/or a token image of the eyes wasn't captured, no ticket should have been issued (federal standard for identifying a person from an image). My drivers license photo looks NOTHING like me, yet a ticket was still issued because the driver looked 30ish and was male. Now I have to prove my innocence or pay a fine...

---what started as a joke 20 yeas ago when I got my first drivers license I've maintained. I've shaved my head, grown out a beard, grew my hair long, and a combination of all 3 so I almost never look like my DL photo...


inability to face my accuser

Well, as we all know, "innocent until proven guilty," just doesn't apply in traffic court, in a practical sense. An officer's testimony is ALWAYS more believable than yours, due to his/her "training and experience."

The standard is reasonable doubt. If a photo or video shows a car registered to you, and 1/2 your face showing your hair color, general profile, perhaps eye color, well arguably, that's is sufficient evidence to meet "reasonable doubt" as to the identity of the driver.

 

[Yakoo752]

Well, as we all know, "innocent until proven guilty," just doesn't apply in traffic court, in a practical sense. An officer's testimony is ALWAYS more believable than yours, due to his/her "training and experience."

The standard is reasonable doubt. If a photo or video shows a car registered to you, and 1/2 your face showing your hair color, general profile, perhaps eye color, well arguably, that's is sufficient evidence to meet "reasonable doubt" as to the identity of the driver.

I agree with the first because when an officer pulls you over, he uses the tools and training available to him to identify you beyond a reasonable doubt. I've been pulled over without a license on me, luckily I recall my license number and just gave it to the officer. He ran it in his computer and I matched... tools available to him.

I disagree with the second as it's not an officer identifying anyone, it's a private company. What rigorous training standards have been employed? How we do as citizens verify accuracy of training, who is the oversight committee to ensure this? ps - the requirement is gender and age match. Nothing more. PPS - the car isn't registered to me at all. I just live at the address the car is registered to. Also, it's not my legal address...

 

[jdhu]

I disagree with the second as it's not an officer identifying anyone, it's a private company. What rigorous training standards have been employed? How we do as citizens verify accuracy of training, who is the oversight committee to ensure this? ps - the requirement is gender and age match. Nothing more.

I don't see why it matters whether it's a private company or public that produces the camera (will always be private). You can find out the training standards, the methodology, calibration, etc. all via discovery requests (many VC lawyers do this).

Philosophically, I kind of agree with you, but that ship has long sailed (is my point). I also think checkpoints are unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS more or less agreed while allowing them to be utilized.

 

[Yakoo752]

Philosophically, I kind of agree with you, but that ship has long sailed (is my point). I also think checkpoints are unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS more or less agreed while allowing them to be utilized.

sad but true

I'm not completely opposed to cameras but I do think there needs to be more oversight surrounding their usage.

 

[jdhu]

I agree with the first because when an officer pulls you over, he uses the tools and training available to him to identify you beyond a reasonable doubt. I've been pulled over without a license on me, luckily I recall my license number and just gave it to the officer. He ran it in his computer and I matched... tools available to him.

Not sure if this is your exact point, but I think court reliance on officer training/testimony as absolute evidence is horse shit. I've contested tickets with video evidence (clearly contradicting officer testimony), simple arithmetic calculations of speed, etc. and STILL lost simply due to "training and experience."

 

[Yakoo752]

Not sure if this is your exact point, but I think court reliance on officer training/testimony as absolute evidence is horse shit. I've contested tickets with video evidence (clearly contradicting officer testimony), simple arithmetic calculations of speed, etc. and STILL lost simply due to "training and experience."

wow

I'm actually not all that surprised, which is sad.

My statement was just on the identification of a driver. An officer uses the tools available to identify the driver and it's more than gender/age verification. In red light photo enforcement, an employee of a private company only uses gender and age to verify driver.

 

[jdhu]

sad but true

I'm not completely opposed to cameras but I do think there needs to be more oversight surrounding their usage.

Cool. I dislike red light cameras, and understand the fear of the surveillance state. But, I find it hard to argue that use of camera footage/photos somehow violates the Constitution.

 

[Gabe]

Well, we may have discussed, but IAAL. So, it would be review to me (assuming I learned it the first time around).

Like it or not, courts have held video evidence not to violate the right to confront/cross examine. As others have pointed out, you can challenge the methodology, whether the camera/radar was calibrated, etc. How would you reconcile your view with use of video evidence generally? Violates the 6th, unless someone can testify in support? Footage from a 7-11 showing robbery, violates the accused's right to confront?

Obviously the courts have upheld video evidence not to violate the right to confront/cross examine, because it's an apples and oranges thing. I know you're not being obtuse on purpose, but as I've already explained, admissibility of evidence is not the same issue as facing your accuser. The state can use admissible evidence of any kind, and I'm not saying the evidence isn't admissible (although the state has the burden of proving admissibility, you know).

So again, to be clear:

The state can use the video and still photos and other evidence gathered by this camera.
The state CANNOT prosecute me without giving me an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and face my accuser. If nobody shows up from the state to make the case for the state, the court must dismiss the case. That's what I'm banking on.

 

[jdhu]

Obviously the courts have upheld video evidence not to violate the right to confront/cross examine, because it's an apples and oranges thing. I know you're not being obtuse on purpose, but as I've already explained, admissibility of evidence is not the same issue as facing your accuser. The state can use admissible evidence of any kind, and I'm not saying the evidence isn't admissible (although the state has the burden of proving admissibility, you know).

So again, to be clear:

The state can use the video and still photos and other evidence gathered by this camera.
The state CANNOT prosecute me without giving me an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and face my accuser. If nobody shows up from the state to make the case for the state, the court must dismiss the case. That's what I'm banking on.

My language was imprecise, but I understand the difference between admissibility and right-to-confront.

Sure, many people bank on the State not showing up for court. Is that all this is about?

If someone does show up, testifies as to the methodology, calibration, then isn't that like an officer who testifies about his radar gun calibration? In other words, you've had the right to "confront" the radar gun?