Red Light Camera Ticket Thread!

[Yakoo752]

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.

I'm not so afraid of a surveillance state, today. 25 years from now? Who knows.

Hollywood has over dramatized the current potential of the US to "spy". Facial recognition software is shit and has been in development for 20+ years. The massive amount of data that a standard user creates is a mountain compared to what they are looking for (total needle in a hay stack)

As the Constitution sits today, I would agree that it would be hard pressed to find a claim against camera usage. Some have prevailed which only challenged the methodology of collection/issuance... so they change procedures

When you find corruption in 1 city photo enforcement system and you start finding it in others, I really think an ethics committee need to take a look at ALL of them.

 

[jdhu]

I'm not so afraid of a surveillance state, today. 25 years from now? Who knows.

Hollywood has over dramatized the current potential of the US to "spy". Facial recognition software is shit and has been in development for 20+ years. The massive amount of data that a standard user creates is a mountain compared to what they are looking for (total needle in a hay stack)

As the Constitution sits today, I would agree that it would be hard pressed to find a claim against camera usage. Some have prevailed which only challenged the methodology of collection/issuance... so they change procedures

When you find corruption in 1 city photo enforcement system and you start finding it in others, I really think an ethics committee need to take a look at ALL of them.

Yeah. I don't know too much about "spy" technical capabilities, but the "creep" aspect of surveillance worries me.

I think people need to stand up if they dislike red light cameras. In some cities, they've been phased out because residents disliked them (my hometown of Davis is an example). And, IF there's any corruption or misuse, then fees get refunded, so it's in a city's best interest NOT to allow any shadiness.

 

[HeatXfer]

snip:

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.

Gabe, question: Can the State, County or a City be considered the accuser? I'm thinking along the lines of 'Citizens United'.

 

[Gabe]

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.

And who has said that, anyway? Not me.

I really think you (and everybody reading this thread) needs to get a copy of "Fight Your Ticket & Win" by David Brown.

http://www.nolo.com/products/fight-your-ticket-and-win-in-california-fyt.html

I'm shocked at how many people going to traffic court expect the court to be lenient, or listen to their side of the story, or let them plead "no contest" or "guilty with an explanation," as if that will make any difference. The court may have leeway in your fine amount, but my experience watching dozens, maybe hundreds of traffic cases is that the court gives no shits whatsoever about your explanation, or your lovingly produced diagrams of how hard it was to see the stop sign or whatever.

The best way to beat a traffic ticket is to read this book and follow the directions. That means using criminal procedure to secure your rights as a defendant and prevent the cop from presenting any evidence or opening his mouth at all. If Johnny Cochrane could do it, so can you. You just need to know the magic words. They are in the book.

And if you hate red-light cameras and onerous law enforcement (we've all been slapped with one-mile-an-hour over the limit tickets by suburban cops, no?), you'll vigorously exercise your rights so that cops will focus on people who are actually dangerous.

 

[jdhu]

And who has said that, anyway? Not me.

I really think you (and everybody reading this thread) needs to get a copy of "Fight Your Ticket & Win" by David Brown.

http://www.nolo.com/products/fight-your-ticket-and-win-in-california-fyt.html

I'm shocked at how many people going to traffic court expect the court to be lenient, or listen to their side of the story, or let them plead "no contest" or "guilty with an explanation," as if that will make any difference. The court may have leeway in your fine amount, but my experience watching dozens, maybe hundreds of traffic cases is that the court gives no shits whatsoever about your explanation, or your lovingly produced diagrams of how hard it was to see the stop sign or whatever.

The best way to beat a traffic ticket is to read this book and follow the directions. That means using criminal procedure to secure your rights as a defendant and prevent the cop from presenting any evidence or opening his mouth at all. If Johnny Cochrane could do it, so can you. You just need to know the magic words. They are in the book.

And if you hate red-light cameras and onerous law enforcement (we've all been slapped with one-mile-an-hour over the limit tickets by suburban cops, no?), you'll vigorously exercise your rights so that cops will focus on people who are actually dangerous.

Didn't you say camera evidence, without human witness, violates the 6th?

Anyway, I have the book, and have still lost about 50% of my traffic trials. However, it's a good book, and yes, people who expect leniency or who admit to guilt in their opening sentence are in for a shock.

 

[dravnx]

I must be living wrong. I average 1 moving violation every 5 years and I've been driving for 42 years. Every ticket I ever got was deserved. I was either speeding or passed on a double yellow. Parking tickets don't count. That's the price I pay for all the times I didn't get caught.

 

[Gabe]

Didn't you say camera evidence, without human witness, violates the 6th?

Anyway, I have the book, and have still lost about 50% of my traffic trials. However, it's a good book, and yes, people who expect leniency or who admit to guilt in their opening sentence are in for a shock.

Nope, I don't think I said that, just that a video camera robot isn't an accuser, and the government needs to provide more than a piece of paper to make a case.

If you have the book and you follow the directions, you should do much better than 50%. Did you follow the instructions to the letter each time? Make all the motions? Recuse the traffic referee?

I'm amazed people think traffic court is some sort of unbeatable Stalinist show trial when it's really the easiest criminal case to beat. The odds are actually against the state, thanks to some vigorous motorist-rights group here in California. What I'm saying in this thread is we need to exercise those advantages lest we lose them and become someplace like Texas.

I wanted to add that I've beat 3 out of 4 traffic tickets in the last 22 months, and I didn't even go to trial once. The one I lost was because I put the wrong date on my calendar.

 

[jdhu]

Nope, I don't think I said that, just that a video camera robot isn't an accuser, and the government needs to provide more than a piece of paper to make a case.

If you have the book and you follow the directions, you should do much better than 50%. Did you follow the instructions to the letter each time? Make all the motions? Recuse the traffic referee?

I'm amazed people think traffic court is some sort of unbeatable Stalinist show trial when it's really the easiest criminal case to beat. The odds are actually against the state, thanks to some vigorous motorist-rights group here in California. What I'm saying in this thread is we need to exercise those advantages lest we lose them and become someplace like Texas.

I wanted to add that I've beat 3 out of 4 traffic tickets in the last 22 months, and I didn't even go to trial once. The one I lost was because I put the wrong date on my calendar.

I didn't follow the book to the letter. Thanks, I will do that in future (I just glanced at it and checked that I was doing the basics).

Traffic court might be the "easiest" to beat only because the State doesn't put much into it. From a burden of proof perspective, traffic court is a near-win for the State.

 

[Gabe]

I didn't follow the book to the letter. Thanks, I will do that in future (I just glanced at it and checked that I was doing the basics).

Traffic court might be the "easiest" to beat only because the State doesn't put much into it. From a burden of proof perspective, traffic court is a near-win for the State.

I think that's true, which is why criminal defense attorneys never want to get into a courtroom with a testifying cop. They frequently...well, I won't say they lie, as the LEOs and LEO-lovers will jump into my shit like monkeys on a peeled banana, but they could lie and it's their word against yours. I'm sure no cop, ever, ever, ever would lie to win a case.

That's why the "basics" are to make sure you never go to trial! It's like me getting into a boxing ring with George Foreman. As soon as the testimony starts, you're done. If you do go to trial, you have to use motions to keep them from testifying or presenting evidence. The whole Perry Mason thing where you expose the officer's lies by cross-examination just doesn't work.

 

[jdhu]

I think that's true, which is why criminal defense attorneys never want to get into a courtroom with a testifying cop. They frequently...well, I won't say they lie, as the LEOs and LEO-lovers will jump into my shit like monkeys on a peeled banana, but they could lie and it's their word against yours. I'm sure no cop, ever, ever, ever would lie to win a case.

That's why the "basics" are to make sure you never go to trial! It's like me getting into a boxing ring with George Foreman. As soon as the testimony starts, you're done. If you do go to trial, you have to use motions to keep them from testifying or presenting evidence. The whole Perry Mason thing where you expose the officer's lies by cross-examination just doesn't work.

Haha. OK, I need to actually READ the book then.

I'll say it. I've seen cops lie firsthand in court, in my own cases, and representing others.

Thanks again. I'll be reading that book word-by-word when the inevitable next occurs.

 

[Gabe]

Haha. OK, I need to actually READ the book then.

I'll say it. I've seen cops lie firsthand in court, in my own cases, and representing others.

Thanks again. I'll be reading that book word-by-word when the inevitable next occurs.

It's easier said than done, and it actually may be a better deal to just pay $250 to Ticket Defenders or whatever for most cases. I always try to do the TBWD and motions to get the case dismissed. If that fails, then I would have a pro represent me.

 

[jdhu]

It's easier said than done, and it actually may be a better deal to just pay $250 to Ticket Defenders or whatever for most cases. I always try to do the TBWD and motions to get the case dismissed. If that fails, then I would have a pro represent me.

I've always thought TBWD to be nothing more than a time-buying tactic. Motions, hmm. I definitely need to look into that. I've gone the "Perry Mason" route of providing video and other evidence and a read of the statute. Silly me.

I once LOST on a count of crossing over a solid white line, even though it was not prohibited (only "discouraged") by the federal manual that the CA statute specifically cites to. Won this on appeal, but jeeeez wtf.

 

[TerryM]

...4 traffic tickets in the last 22 months...

 

[VicTim]

And who has said that, anyway? Not me.

I really think you (and everybody reading this thread) needs to get a copy of "Fight Your Ticket & Win" by David Brown.

http://www.nolo.com/products/fight-your-ticket-and-win-in-california-fyt.html

I'm shocked at how many people going to traffic court expect the court to be lenient, or listen to their side of the story, or let them plead "no contest" or "guilty with an explanation," as if that will make any difference. The court may have leeway in your fine amount, but my experience watching dozens, maybe hundreds of traffic cases is that the court gives no shits whatsoever about your explanation, or your lovingly produced diagrams of how hard it was to see the stop sign or whatever.

The best way to beat a traffic ticket is to read this book and follow the directions. That means using criminal procedure to secure your rights as a defendant and prevent the cop from presenting any evidence or opening his mouth at all. If Johnny Cochrane could do it, so can you. You just need to know the magic words. They are in the book.

And if you hate red-light cameras and onerous law enforcement (we've all been slapped with one-mile-an-hour over the limit tickets by suburban cops, no?), you'll vigorously exercise your rights so that cops will focus on people who are actually dangerous.

Thanks

 

[Gabe]

I've always thought TBWD to be nothing more than a time-buying tactic. Motions, hmm. I definitely need to look into that. I've gone the "Perry Mason" route of providing video and other evidence and a read of the statute. Silly me.

I once LOST on a count of crossing over a solid white line, even though it was not prohibited (only "discouraged") by the federal manual that the CA statute specifically cites to. Won this on appeal, but jeeeez wtf.

The most satisfying thing to do in traffic court is to recuse the traffic referee. Everybody gets to do it, no paperwork or magic words necessary. Just say, "i want a different judge because I don't like you," and they MUST let you go in front of an actual criminal judge. Of course, it could be an out-of-the-frying-pan situation, but the look on the referee's face alone makes it worth it.

Yeah, and the red-light cam makes 5!

Can I borrow your car?

 

[Smash Allen]

And who has said that, anyway? Not me.

I really think you (and everybody reading this thread) needs to get a copy of "Fight Your Ticket & Win" by David Brown.

http://www.nolo.com/products/fight-your-ticket-and-win-in-california-fyt.html

I'm shocked at how many people going to traffic court expect the court to be lenient, or listen to their side of the story, or let them plead "no contest" or "guilty with an explanation," as if that will make any difference. The court may have leeway in your fine amount, but my experience watching dozens, maybe hundreds of traffic cases is that the court gives no shits whatsoever about your explanation, or your lovingly produced diagrams of how hard it was to see the stop sign or whatever.

The best way to beat a traffic ticket is to read this book and follow the directions. That means using criminal procedure to secure your rights as a defendant and prevent the cop from presenting any evidence or opening his mouth at all. If Johnny Cochrane could do it, so can you. You just need to know the magic words. They are in the book.

And if you hate red-light cameras and onerous law enforcement (we've all been slapped with one-mile-an-hour over the limit tickets by suburban cops, no?), you'll vigorously exercise your rights so that cops will focus on people who are actually dangerous.

For anyone who is interested in getting this, you can buy the book in .pdf format. List price is $20.99 but use "RW2X4X" as a coupon code and it should give you 20% off for a total of $16.79. Small price to pay if it gets you out of a ticket

 

[TerryM]

Can I borrow your car?

Uh,...no. But I have a bicycle you can borrow.

 

[Gabe]

For anyone who is interested in getting this, you can buy the book in .pdf format. List price is $20.99 but use "RW2X4X" as a coupon code and it should give you 20% off for a total of $16.79. Small price to pay if it gets you out of a ticket

You can also get it in Kindle format, which may or may not entitle you to free updates.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...l-who-pushed-red-light-camera-deal-convicted/

On Tuesday, a federal jury in Chicago found a former city transportation official guilty on all 20 counts of mail and wire fraud, bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and tax evasion charges.
John Bills, who was the managing deputy commissioner at the Department of Transportation, helped steer a lucrative city contract to Redflex, the embattled Australian red-light camera vendor. He faces decades in prison but won't be sentenced until May 2016.

 

[corndog67]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...l-who-pushed-red-light-camera-deal-convicted/

Redflex had the contract with the City of Santa Maria. There were numerous complaints about bogus tickets (which were right about $500), and finally, if my memory can be trusted, someone on city staff got a ticket in the mail. The city lost a whole buttload of money, a whole bunch tickets got tossed out of court, and I think they had to refund a bunch of fines to people that just paid them or lost in court previously. And sued Reflex.