This is a bit confusing.

We have lots of red light cams where I live (nyc) and yes, I myself have received a ticket from one. Why? Um... because I went through a red light on the West Side Highway.

The photographs mailed along with the ticket presented very clear images of my car going through the intersection while the light was red. So, I paid the fine. Of course there are no points given on your license due to the fact that it does not know who is driving. The ticket is like a parking ticket. Your vehicle was here, it wasn't supposed to be, now pay the fine.

What's the next complaint going to be? Security cameras at banks or convenience stores, which help bust thousands of criminals a year, will be declared unconstitutional or unacceptable evidence?

The group cites a recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the cameras violate due process because car owners cannot confront their accuser in court since the accuser is a machine.

I admit I'm not a lawyer and certainly not a judge, but I feel like I'm missing something here.

In the example cited earlier... what about a security camera that captures a suspect's face? What about the cameras that caught the murder of a policeman in NYC this past week leading to the arrest of the 3 perps? What about cameras catching police brutality at protests?

The suspect in each of these cases is "unable to confront their accuser in court" aren't they? However, in those cases the evidence is seen as irrefutable proof. Here is a picture of YOU holding a gun in the clerk's face. Here is a picture of YOU pistolwhipping him. A case like that is a gift for a DA.

Now what? Cases will only be able to be tried if there is a human eyewitness? I understand the concerns of "too many cameras" but this is a very dangerous road.

We're talking about dismissing evidence that could convict, or exonerate people of very serious crimes.

DO NOT GET A DRIVERS LICENSE AND GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS...

The state can do whatever it wants in its contracts, however it can not violate the State Constitution when there is no Contract by the people giving up their Rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled long ago that a traffic citation must be issued by a Police Officer ina Police Officer uniform, any ticket mailed from a camera shot is already Illegal and most people know this and don't pay them. The states continue this process because 50% of the people still pay the tickets. There is nothing illegal with sending you a ticket in the mail and you paying it if you choose too. So choose NOT TO, or better yet send them a picture of the fine money. My father in law thought I was kidding til he did it, sent a picture of 40 dollars to them...

I o not have a drivers License and I will not take one, I prefer to use the roads as part of my American Rights, and I prefer not to give up those Rights for police Jurisdiction and other Rules.

I hear yeah Djarums and agree with all of your arguments as I too see them as you do. However it would appear this group wants to use their logic to get around the use of machines. Perhaps some day even challenge Breathalyzer test results in DUI cases. The later comment about the breathalizer is just my own opinion not thiers but it would seem to fit since they appeaar to want to challenge machines

No doubt states are going to challenge the state supreme court rulings and go onto SCOTUS where they will make the final verdict.

Originally posted by Djarums
Of course there are no points given on your license due to the fact that it does not know who is driving. The ticket is like a parking ticket. Your vehicle was here, it wasn't supposed to be, now pay the fine.

What's the next complaint going to be? Security cameras at banks or convenience stores, which help bust thousands of criminals a year, will be declared unconstitutional or unacceptable evidence?

There are no points put on your license because then the municipality that issued you the ticket would then have to split the proceeds from that ticket with the State. My main arguement with the red light cameras is the possibility of abuse. These cameras are installed and operated by an independant company, who gets a portion of each fine that is issued. There have been documentated cases where the amount of time that the yellow caution light is on has been reduced because the projected revenues used to sell the public on these cameras, wasn't being met. The link to the NMA's site in my previous post links to the reports on this.

Last year I was travelling in Ohio and a few weeks later I get a speeding ticket that was taken by a roadside camera. In this picture was my vehicle plus four others. I decided not to pay the fine and went back for the magistrate's hearing. While I was sitting in the waiting room I found out that the driver's of three of the other four cars were there for their hearings too. The company who operated the cameras had sent a ticket to every vehicle in the picture that they could get a license number for, even though their camera could only track one vehicle at a time. We had a discussion and agreed that who ever went first for their hearing, the rest of us would go along as "witnesses". It took about 15 minutes to get all four of our citations dismissed. I have to wonder how many times that this had happened in the past and the people involved just paid the citation and never looked into it?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The company who operated the cameras had sent a ticket to every vehicle in the picture that they could get a license number for, even though their camera could only track one vehicle at a time.

The above confuses me to a point. Are you saying the camera companies are the ones who send out the tickets and not the police? That alone would seem to be unconstitutional since they are not police.

Originally posted by shots
The above confuses me to a point. Are you saying the camera companies are the ones who send out the tickets and not the police? That alone would seem to be unconstitutional since they are not police.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. The companies are under contract to the municipality to operate the cameras and to print and mail the tickets. In the case of my so called "speeding ticket", I recieved a copy of the picture from the camera and a citation stating that I could either mail a check for $254.40 and the citation, with the Guilty box checked and my signature or I could appear at the Magistrate's office on a certain date and time.

One more thing. Most traffic violations are not criminal acts, they are violations of the State's Motor Vehicle Code. When you obtain a driver's license you enter into a contract between you and the State that you will follow the Code. When you enter into this contract you also agree to waive some of your rights. This is the loophole that allows DUI checkpoints and the suspension of your license for refusing to take a breathalyser test.

Yeah products have been around to defeat the cameras since the cameras first came out.

Films that go over your plate, sprays, plastic panels. The goal of all of them is the same, when the flash hits the plate it reflects the entire flash back into the camera causing the surface of the plate to appear like a white glow, and certainly making the numbers unreadable.

The laws governing such things vary state to state.

Didn't they have an episode MythBusters that said they didn't work?

I don't know if that is correct or not though....why would they go tell people how to cheat cameras on TV.

Originally posted by enjoies05
Didn't they have an episode MythBusters that said they didn't work?

why would they go tell people how to cheat cameras on TV.

If they did carry one I assume as normal they used their own methods rather then the actual product so their results could vary from the ones sold on TV.

As to why they would tell peple on TV about it one could assume just like we do here to let others know what is going on in the world.

Originally posted by enjoies05
Didn't they have an episode MythBusters that said they didn't work?

I don't know if that is correct or not though....why would they go tell people how to cheat cameras on TV.

I believe that the episode you were referring to was concerning radar guns. It's near impossible to defeat those short of making a car that resembles an F-117. Defeating a camera though isn't all that hard apparently, I'm pretty sure that those films and such do indeed work.

Hopefully I can clarify the reason why "camera-issued tickets" are technically unconstitutional, but why bank cameras are allowed as evidence.

It all comes down to the accuser and witness.

In order for there to be due process and a fair trial, one must be able to "face their accuser in court". As in, a living, breathing person who is actively accusing them of the crime.

A camera can provide evidence in support of the accusation but cannot actually go up on the witness stand, delivery testimony, and accuse the driver of having committed a crime. Even in cases where there are no witnesses to link the suspect to the crime, there must still be an accuser for the trial to take place (ie. the bank manager, a detective, the people vs., etc).

A traffic-cam is not an accuser, yet is being treated as if it were, circumventing the whole rules of due process. It cannot be held up to cross-examination, blah blah blah. It's an inanimate object.

Hope this helps clarify things.

What's going to get REAL sticky is when AI are sophisticated enough to actually testify in court and be a legitimate accuser.

So let’s clarify this. I am most likely going to get one in the mail soon as all of my friends have. If I don’t pay they can’t do anything right. Also, if I would have to appear in court, would the judge make me pay even if I present the case and have evidence saying its unconstitutional? He or she would make some other case against me and use other legal mumbo jumbo and ultimately declare me guilty.

Originally posted by thelibra
Hopefully I can clarify the reason why "camera-issued tickets" are technically unconstitutional, but why bank cameras are allowed as evidence.

It all comes down to the accuser and witness.

Ok now tell us why a bank camera is accceptable and a red light camera not? Both are cameras are they not?