Activist Group Considers 'Red-Light Cam' Lawsuits

Originally posted by Fallacy
...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.

Technically, as far as I know, yes, you can fight this Camera ticket in court, because you are not being allowed to confront your accuser. Your accuser is a street cam on X and Y street, and not present.

However, I am not a lawyer, and State Laws and Federal Laws may or may not be circumventing this or claiming that the camera is an accuser. So I would absolutely consult with a lawer before attempting this. But yes, as far as I know, you can take it all the way to the Supreme Court, but it presently would never get that far because the judge will typically dismiss the case, knowing full well you are right.

It's the exact same thing where, if you get a ticket from a traffic cop, and fight it in court, on your appointed day, if the cop doesn't show up to court, you can't face your accuser, and so the judge dismisses the ticket. I've gotten out of at least two tickets that way.

And a judge can't add charges to you except in the event of courtroom misconduct. Like, for instance, he can't say "Oh, well even though you got out of this speeding ticket, I see here on the video your left headlight is out, so we'll charge you with that," but he could say "I hold you in contempt of court for mooning the assembly."

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

Both are acceptable as evidence in support of an accuser's case.
Neither are acceptable as an accuser.

For instance, if you rob a bank, the branch manager files a police report, a grievance, that the bank was robbed. The police then gather evidence from the scene, including the video, and that evidence is used in support of your accuser's claim that, yes, he was in fact robbed, and that the evidence points to this criminal having done it.

If someone were to rob the bank, and no one filed a police report of complaint, even if it clearly showed your face on the camera, with no accuser, there's no one to bring a charge against you. This has been an impediment to many investigations against the mafia, for instance, where the police couldn't find anyone who wanted to file charges against them.

Now, going back to the traffic light.

If a cop sees you run a red light, and then pulls you over, writes you a ticket, and you take the ticket to court, AND he shows up on the court date, he can offer that video as ironclad proof that you did, in fact, run that traffic light as he is accusing you of. Normally it would be his word against yours, and weight usually goes to the police officer, but the traffic cam would be pretty tight evidence as opposed to testimony.

However, in the same situation, if the cop that pulled you over did not show up on the court date, the judge (at least in Texas) will dismiss the ticket, because you were denied the right to face your accuser in court. The other side basically "forfeited".

Now, consider the scenario yet again, only subtract the cop. You speed through an intersection. No one is bringing charges against you. There is, however, evidence that you committed a crime. But no one at the intersection cared enough to call the police and report it and bother taking you to court about it. When you receive that ticket in the mail, plead not guilty. Take it to court, and on the appointed day, ask to see your accuser, and why they are not present.

The reason is because your accuser is on the corner of X & Y street.

Now same situation above, but say you run a redlight, and, like an ass, you cause a collision between a a busload of kids and a pregnant mother, and you cause them all to die or be hospitalized in a wreck, because you couldn't be bothered to wait 2 minutes of your life and decided to risk getting a ticket. The survivors of the wreck (and/or the families of the deceased) may decide to bring charges against the son-of-a-motherless-goat that caused the wreck. They are your accusers, and the traffic cam is evidence.

Again, though, I'm not legal counsel. I would strongly advise consulting a lawyer before fighting a camera ticket, because I could be mistaken depending on where you live, or what's changed since my last ticket.

There are two people in a room. Person A murders Person B, and leaves his fingerprints and DNA all over the place. The cops use it to make a case against the murderer.

How is this different? All they need is an officer to appear in court to describe how the camera works.

Originally posted by jsobecky
There are two people in a room. Person A murders Person B, and leaves his fingerprints and DNA all over the place. The cops use it to make a case against the murderer.

How is this different? All they need is an officer to appear in court to describe how the camera works.

Are you asking how it's different legally or sensibly? There's a considerable difference, and they operate on two totally different axes.

Legally? I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and I simply don't have the knowledge to explain it adequately. I'm not 100% certain I even understand it myself. It's like software code, jsobecky. I can't tell you why ATS works, code-wise. I'm just not that 1337. I've got some inkling, due to some past experience, but if you want a real answer to this, you'd need to talk to a professional.

As far as sensibly? Well, because different people have differing views on the amount to which they want their lives ruled by law. Law is relative. If you've ever made a leap from one social or neighborhood caste to the next, you know this. At the very least, from being on ATS as long as you have, you should have a pretty good idea of what that means. Averaged out across the masses, it means "don't get caught" coupled with a "meh" attitude towards victimless crimes.

It would be a very stressful, and mentally damaging world if your every move were watched, every day, and you always knew that there was always someone, or something, just watching and waiting for you to commit a crime that was a crime not because someone had a grievance with what you had done, but rather because someone uninvolved in the incident had said it was a crime. As rosy and angelic as most people want to imagine themselves, chances are every single one of us breaks a law occasionally without even thinking about it. Something minor you wouldn't even think about, like jaywalking when there's not a car to be seen or heard.

That is the "payoff" of giving the government even more power and leniency to charge you with a crime than it already has, and it's not even the next square down the slippery slope, it's the current one.



[edit on 7/17/2007 by thelibra]

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by jsobecky
There are two people in a room. Person A murders Person B, and leaves his fingerprints and DNA all over the place. The cops use it to make a case against the murderer.

How is this different? All they need is an officer to appear in court to describe how the camera works.

Are you asking how it's different legally or sensibly? There's a considerable difference, and they operate on two totally different axes.

Now I understand. You are actually arguing against the use of the cameras because you consider running a red light a victimless crime, eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that essentially what you are saying?

I surmised that from the post you made at the top of the page, where you presented the case of the scofflaw causing an accident.

Because otherwise, it is a no brainer as to whether the camera shot can be used as evidence. Of course it can. Are we in agreement on that point?

It would be a very stressful, and mentally damaging world if your every move were watched, every day, and you always knew that there was always someone, or something, just watching and waiting for you to commit a crime that was a crime not because someone had a grievance with what you had done, but rather because someone uninvolved in the incident had said it was a crime.

A crime is a crime because our laws define it as such, not because someone says it is so. Right?

And it might be stressful if you were being singled out. But you're not. The cameras take pictures indiscriminately.

What if the same guy ran another light where there is no camera. He crashes into you. It's his word against yours as to who ran the light. And you just might be returning from a cookout where you had a cold beer with your burger, but you were by no means drunk. But the officer that drives up to investigate the accident smells liquor on your breath...

The point is, I don't see it as infringing upon any of my rights. Seriously, my right to do what - run red lights? We're living in an age of the fastest technological growth in history, and much of this technology is going to be adapted to law enforcement purposes. And the criminals will use the same technology to evade the laws.

My problem with this is that both red light and speed limit camera systems are operated by private companies, not a law enforcement agency. This may sound like a minor issue, but it can have huge implications. Companies are primarily driven by profit. They have sold this system to a municipality based on the amount of revenue that these systems can generate. What happens when word gets out that this intersection or stretch of road has one of these systems? People are going to avoid these areas if possible or are going to be more careful in these areas. What effect is this going to have on revenues?

In my previous post I gave an example of what happened with my speeding ticket. The company operating these cameras sent a citation to all of the cars visable in the picture, when their system could only track one. It is a shame that traffic laws and their enforcement is more about generating revenue than safety.

Originally posted by cyberdude78

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.

They indeed did an episode with the red light cam and every one of the on the market products for defeating the camera, and they could not eliminate a clear readable picture no matter what they tried or how fast they went.

Originally posted by LockwithnoKey
They indeed did an episode with the red light cam and every one of the on the market products for defeating the camera, and they could not eliminate a clear readable picture no matter what they tried or how fast they went.

You can defeat these cameras quite easily. A pair of bright white lights mounted on both sides of the license plate will wash out the plate for the camera. If you put a rheostat on these lights they will even pass inspection.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Now I understand. You are actually arguing against the use of the cameras because you consider running a red light a victimless crime, eh?

No, that's not my argument, and whether or not running a red light is "victimless" depends largely on if anyone was affected. However, these are two entirely seperate entities to me.

My argument against the cameras is that, legally and ethically, I don't think a camera should have the legal right to bring charges against you. There must be an accuser that you can face in court. Cameras issuing tickets for running red lights are only an example of what this begins as.

As for running red lights being a victimless crime, that is entirely relative. Personally, I stop at every stop sign and count to three once at 0mph before accelerating, and I wait till the green light at every red light, even if there's no one there. However, if one day I decided to run a red light, didn't hit any person or car, and didn't even affect traffic due to a lack of either being present, then yes, it is technically a victimless crime.

A victimless crime that I'd be willing to bet cold hard cash that everyone here has broken at one point or another is the speed limit. Even 1mph over the limit is technically a crime, albeit a victimless one if you have not caused a grievance. In fact, on Texas freeways, if you insist on going the speed limit or less (55mph) you are much more likely to cause an accident when the flow of traffic is doing it's typical 70mph, and certainly going to cause more of a grievance with everyone doing 60-65.

So what happens when cameras are posted at every freeway overpass or exit sign, monitoring your car plates, calculating your speed, and issuing you a ticket if it determines you to be going even 1mph over the limit? You start watching the speedometer instead of the flow of traffic.

How about that inspection and registration sticker? Why not set up cameras to monitor those as well, and issue tickets automatically as soon as you pass your expiration month (another victimless crime).

How about forgetting your license? Why not have an RFID chip in every license, and a monitor on the freeways to ensure that every motorist is carrying their license, or they are issued a ticket.

Any of the lights out on your car? Any headlight or taillight covers cracked?

The question, jsobecky, isn't whether or not we should have the right to run red lights. The question is, how much ability do you want to give the state to invent, find, detect, and charge people with victimless crimes?

Originally posted by jsobecky
...it is a no brainer as to whether the camera shot can be used as evidence. Of course it can. Are we in agreement on that point?

As I said earlier, it can absolutely be used as evidence.
It is not, however, an acceptable accuser.

Originally posted by jsobecky
A crime is a crime because our laws define it as such, not because someone says it is so. Right?

All crime is relative.

Let's take it a step further. By not reporting a crime, you are accessory to the crime. Have you ever passively allowed crime to happen and not reported it? Of course you have. Unless you happen to have a notepad and pencil and are clocking people on the freeway who drive past the speed limit, writing down license plates and time logs of people who do a "California roll" through a stop sign, or calling the police every time you see someone cross the street outside of a crosswalk, then every time you witneess a crime being committed and fail to report it, you are yourself, committing a crime. What happens when video cameras start issuing you tickets for not reporting crimes the cameras show you were capable of witnessing?

That would be ridiculous, right? How can anyone possibly expect society to function if everyone is expected to be constantly watching everyone else, for the slightest misstep, and have to stop everything to report those missteps whenever they happen? Technically, sure, it's possible, and then you end up with a society like North Korea.

Now if you are at a secure nuclear facility, or in a clearance-only area at a defense contractors, and the powers that be say "while at work, be constantly on alert and report any and all infractions" then, yes, I could reasonably expect such measures to be in place. Global repurcussions could result from even one person failing vigilance in such an area. If you saw someone tossing back a beer before going on duty changing out plutonium rods, you would absolutely report them because you know their dumb ass might cause a meltdown otherwise, and be perfectly justified in doing so.

But if you were at your best friend's house and saw him toss back a beer before he mows his lawn with his riding lawnmower, are you going to pull out your phone and dial 911 to report him for DUI? Because he technically is operating a motor vehicle under the influence (riding lawnmowers count in Texas for DUI). I'm guessing you wouldn't. Would you call the police on his kid if you saw he had a burned CD? Probably not.

Why? Because Law is Relative. And yet by not reporting them, you commit a crime yourself. Will they then report you for not reporting them? No. Why? Because Law is Relative.

An accuser is someone who cares enough about the crime you are committing, to report it, then actually dedicate their time, their money, and their effort, and have the guts to face you and accuse you of the crime, in court, before a judge. This provides a necessary check and balance against the government being able to charge anyone, at any time, with any crime, and is part of the reason why, though it's not perfect, we have a much better justice system than most other countries.

Now, if you remove that check and balance, suddenly anyone, at any time, can be charged with any crime, including failure to report a crime, regardless of whether or not anyone was affected or had a grievance. Do you have any idea what that would do to the judicial system? To say nothing of what it would do to the American way of life!

Originally posted by jsobecky
...much of this technology is going to be adapted to law enforcement purposes. And the criminals will use the same technology to evade the laws.

Not everyone who breaks the law is a criminal. Let me list for you just a few of the idiot laws we have in Texas:

One must acknowledge a supreme being before being able to hold public office.

When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.

It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.

Up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos.

It is illegal to milk another person's cow.

Homosexual behavior is a misdemeanor offense.

The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.


I guarentee you there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other laws, and not just in Texas, that are equally ridiculous. And it's a crime as well to not report people committing these crimes.

We are currently, very close to being technologically capable of creating cameras that can analyze identity, behavior, and cross-reference it against laws like these on the books, find the person's address, and mail them a ticket for the offense. We're not talking about something decades from now, but rather in our technical grasp. All it would require is a company to put it together, a government willing to impliment it, and a citizenry willing to accept it.

Is this the sort of world you want?

Please allow me to point out the flaw in your "the camera is not an accuser" theory.

Lets say a police officer pulls someone over on a deserted stretch of road with no-one else around. Before the officer can get out of his car, the suspect gets out with a high power rifle and shoots him through the windshield, killing him instantly. The suspects face and actions were clearly recorded on the dash-cam of the cruiser, but according to you, it is "inadmissible" as evidence because you cant question a camera. Is that right?

Originally posted by thelibra


We are currently, very close to being technologically capable of creating cameras that can analyze identity, behavior, and cross-reference it against laws like these on the books, find the person's address, and mail them a ticket for the offense. We're not talking about something decades from now, but rather in our technical grasp. All it would require is a company to put it together, a government willing to impliment it, and a citizenry willing to accept it.

Is this the sort of world you want?

Do you know a better way to get those idiotic laws removed than to have them challenged in court? I am still failing to see your problem with cameras. As long as your not out breaking the law willy-nilly, your fine.

How can you equate running a red light, placing peoples lives at unnecessary risk, to a a ridiculous law about drinking a beer?


[edit on 18-7-2007 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by jsobecky

The point is, I don't see it as infringing upon any of my rights.

I am not sure myself just what this gaggle of lawyers is up to but as I see it here is the premise or their arguement.

1. Camera takes picture placing onwers vechicle at the scene while running a red light

2. Camera has picture of license plate only not driver

3. Owner insists he was not at the wheel driving ergo his rights have been violated because he was wrongfully charged and will be fined for violating the law if found guilty. It is at this point in the court room the driver wants his right to face his accuser as guranteed by the US constitution, yet he cannnot because it is not in court but as libra put it on the corner of x&y






[edit on 7/18/2007 by shots]

So, since I wasn't in my car when the officer put a parking ticket on it, I shouldn't have to pay?

All I have to do is go to court and say "I didn't park there." right?

Please explain to me the double standard you are suggesting that says parking tickets can be assigned to cars , regardless of who parked them there, but speeding tickets can't.

What about ATM fraud ? Most ATM fraud occurs at late night so few people will see them.If the evidence about the person that withdrew your life savings was a camera picture from the ATM, should it be inadmissible?

What if one of these red-light cameras catches a road-rage situation where someone shoots someone else? Inadmissible?

What if my home security camera catches someone breaking into my house and stealing everything I own. Should he get off if arrested because the only witness is a camera?



[edit on 18-7-2007 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by Tiloke
Please explain to me the double standard you are suggesting that says parking tickets can be assigned to cars , regardless of who parked them there, but speeding tickets can't.

Lets make one point clear. I am not argueing against the cameras so stop assuming. If you reread my laast post I made that very clear I was refering to the possible premise the lawyers are using.

As for your example of a parking ticket well duh those are issued by humans when they placed the citation on your whindshield who can appear in court.

The Minnesota Supreme Court decided that the camera's are unConstitutional and threw them out of the State. The reason is simple: The camera scam ASSUMES that the driver of the car is the owner of the car. It shifts the burden of proof from the STATE to the DEFENDANT.

The owner must prove that he was not the driver and snitch on the person who drove his car or else pay the ticket themselves, and this is highly illegal. The state has the burden of proof, and that is as old as our nation and a necessity for a free nation. If WE have to start proving that we are innocent in criminal matters, as we do now in civil matters ( see Asset Forfeiture ) we are finished as a free country.

The basic principle, that the burden of proof lies upon the accuser, the State , is so enshrined in the law and so obvious that every state should follow suit and ban these awful things. I cannot imagine how a fundamental right in one state can be anything but a fundamental right is all states. Until the fascist LEO crrowd finds a way to guarantee that the driver is in fact the owner, then the camera's are only recording a vehicle acting a certain way, not a PERSON acting a certain way. THINGS cannot be charged criminally, people can.

Maybe the wisdom of the Minnesota decision will spread through the nation and we will see these spy cams less and less until they are gone for good. Gone for Good!! An apropos slogan for a bad idea: capturing images of a vehicle and assuming, not knowing, assuming that a particular person was driving it is a danger to our freedoms and a reversal of the presumption of innocence. WE do not have to prove we were not in the car, THEY have to prove that we were!!

Good riddance to bad policy!!

Oh, and TILOKE, the difference between a parking ticket and a red light violation is this: A red light violation is a ' moving offense ' referred to in different ways in various states, but it is an offense that puts points on your license and calls for JAIL time in most states in certain cases, which a parking ticket does not. In most states parking laws are INFRACTIONS, rather than CRIMINAL offenses, and even traffic offenses are in yet another category. It differs but in all states it is basically the same.

Why do you think that meter maids are unarmed and only write tickets? Because it is a different category of ' offense '. The cop's have the right to TOW a car that has an expired meter rather than writing a ticket, unless the local ordinances specifically prohibit such actions, and few do. MOVING VIOLATIONS are an entirely different matter under the law; running a red light is dangerous, deadly and can cause death and destruction and injury. A car that is parked in a space that has an overdue meter poses no threat to anyone, just a reduction in the revenue that the city collects.

Parking meters are revenue generators; tickets generate revenue also but the primary purpose of them is public safety and not just money making. Moving violations are first and foremeost SAFETY issues, with the fines being the lesser part of the whole process.

AND, a ticket for a parking meter violation is directed at the VEHICLE, not the owner!! The meter maid had no idea who owns the car, they do not routinly call in every tag they write a ticket for. The ticket has the TAG number and is basically an action against the car, not the person. That is why there is a space on the parking ticket to write your name and address, etc, before mailing it in with the payment, assuming one does not fight it. Since the laws are different for parking offenses , the state does not care WHO pays the fine or shows up in court claiming to be the driver of the car that day, it does not matter, as it is about the car and not the registered owner. See?

I hope this helps you to see that there are vast differences between moving violations and parking violations, and the presumption of innocence is much more important when facing penalties that exceed those for parking issues. If the state cannot PROVE that the owner was the driver, then the camera's are an affront to liberty and an attempt to reverse an age old law and right: the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent.

If a citizen has to snitch on his friends in order to get justice and not be charged for an offense that they did not committ, then the law is the enemy and must be done away with. Informing on friends to get a fair shake from the system is the type of government that the Bush cabal likes, for sure, but it is antithetical to a free society and only known previously in fascist and communist nations: East Germany before the fall, Russia, China, name any totalitarian society and they will have laws like this one that mandates informing to escape injustice.

Shame on anyone who could possibly support such Constitutiuon shredding and police state supporting tactics!! The PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE is a cornerstone of our democracy and should not be thrown away in the name of red light safety, or any other supposed threat. Take the cop's off the ' bust a kid with a joint ' detail and put their fat asses at a corner and have him write tickets for every one he sees run a light. That is the only way to know WHO was driving the car and WHO must show up for court and pay the fine or fight the charge. Any other way is bad for us and bad for the future. No good can come out of ANONYMOUS tickets being sent to the owner of a car; anytime the State assumes, a citizen gets screwed, thats for sure.

Good old fashioned see 'em and write 'em is the best way, the ONLY way to preserve our rights while being effective in reducing accidents ( and generating revenue!!).

Originally posted by Tiloke
...the suspect gets out with a high power rifle and shoots him through the windshield, killing him instantly. The suspects face and actions were clearly recorded on the dash-cam of the cruiser, but according to you, it is "inadmissible" as evidence because you cant question a camera. Is that right?

Nope. Because you have a dead body. That changes everything.
For one, there's a definite victim (the dead cop), for another, you have an accuser (usually a surviving family member, but in the case of a dead cop, I'm pretty sure the city or state can be the accuser), who brings the charges.

Again, a lawyer really needs to explain this difference, but there is a HUGE legal chasm of a difference between murder and, say, speeding. And as far as accusers go, generally in the case of murder, there will be an actual human accuser.

You are confusing "Accuser" with "Witness". These are not necessarily the same thing. They can be, but it cannot be assumed that they are, because you can have a witness to the incident who does not "accuse" the suspect of a crime, and you can have an accuser who was not a "witness" to the crime.

Remember, the accuser doesn't have to have been present at the time of the crime, or even a witness to it. The accuser can also be someone who was wronged by the actions of the criminal. This is why you can press charges against people who rob your house even if you didn't see them do it. The suspects are chosen based upon physical evidence, but you would still be the one acting as the accuser.

Originally posted by Tiloke
Do you know a better way to get those idiotic laws removed than to have them challenged in court?

Can you think of anything more detrimental to the justice system than to suddenly multiply its already overstuffed caseload by a factor of 10? 100? 1000? If you want to bring the entire justice system crashing to a halt, this would be an ideal way. Otherwise, it's best to let people continue go about their daily lives, and then, if someone ever does get charged with one of those ridiculous laws, THEN they can fight it in court.

Originally posted by Tiloke
I am still failing to see your problem with cameras. As long as your not out breaking the law willy-nilly, your fine.

This is the absolute worst train of thought imaginable for an American to have. The idea that if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear, is both dead wrong and a sheeplike acceptance of inevitable tyranny. I don't want cameras everywhere because frankly, I don't want government to have that much power over the people. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Tiloke
Also, how can you use a hypothetical situation to try to prove your point. If you have to make up outlandish scenarios to try to get your point across, you really have no point.

You'll have to be more specific in this. I doubt I laid anything out that is remotely outlandish, except for the "idiot laws" I listed, and I made my point long before those.

Originally posted by Tiloke
So, since I wasn't in my car when the officer put a parking ticket on it, I shouldn't have to pay?

I think you're missing the point entirely.
The police officer is both a witness and an accuser.
He sees you (or your car) in violation of the law, writes a ticket, and you are expected to pay.

If you choose to fight the ticket in court, and the officer fails to show in court, you were not allowed to face your accuser in court and thus, the ticket is dismissed.

Originally posted by Tiloke
All I have to do is go to court and say "I didn't park there." right?

Technically, Yes. You can do that with any and all tickets you get, always. I think you've forgotten that the burden to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you committed the crime, falls upon the accuser, not the accused.

Why don't people do that? Because it's a pain in the butt, you have court fees, probably lawyer fees, and judges can (and generally will) levee a heftier fine than if you just plead "no contest".

Originally posted by Tiloke
Please explain to me the double standard you are suggesting that says parking tickets can be assigned to cars , regardless of who parked them there, but speeding tickets can't.

You're going to have to phrase your question better. I never said you can't ticket a parked car or a speeding driver. I said a camera cannot act as an accuser in a court of law.

Originally posted by Tiloke
What about ATM fraud ? Most ATM fraud occurs at late night so few people will see them.If the evidence about the person that withdrew your life savings was a camera picture from the ATM, should it be inadmissible?

Ooookay, someone isn't reading posts now. I've explained several times that there is a huge difference between "EVIDENCE" and an "ACCUSER". Reread my previous posts, and pay attention to that part.

Originally posted by Tiloke
What if one of these red-light cameras catches a road-rage situation where someone shoots someone else? Inadmissible?

See above. The presence of a dead body changes everything. There is a definite victim, and a definite accuser (the survivors, or anyone who can press charges on behalf of the deceased). The camera would be used as EVIDENCE to support a case against the suspect. The camera itself, however, cannot bring charges against an individual.

Originally posted by Tiloke
What if my home security camera catches someone breaking into my house and stealing everything I own. Should he get off if arrested because the only witness is a camera?

No, because presumably YOU would be the ACCUSER and your video footage would be EVIDENCE in support of your charge that he robbed your house.

Originally posted by thelibra

The camera itself, however, cannot bring charges against an individual.

Yet that is exactly what is happening in the cases with speeders and those runnning red lights isn't it? It is the camers not humans who are taking the pcitures, yet the company or police whatever are mailing out tickets

For clarification the word individual in this case would be the owner.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by thelibra

The camera itself, however, cannot bring charges against an individual.

Yet that is exactly what is happening in the cases with speeders and those runnning red lights isn't it? It is the camers not humans who are taking the pcitures, yet the company or police whatever are mailing out tickets

Exactly. And this -might- be a slippery way that some states are getting around the "right to face your accuser in court". Again, a lawyer would really need to clarify the murky line on this one.

Even still, though, I really detest the thought of a for-profit corporation whose success is based upon the number of charges brought against individuals, and whose services include a paid accuser to levee those charges.

There's something very, very wrong with that picture.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by thelibra]

I was in traffic court last year for a speeding offense. I got off because there was some technicality, even though I was supposedly caught by the LIDAR going 41 in a 25 zone.

But while I was there, a case came up in which a woman got a ticket from a camera for running a red light.

What happened was, a police officer brought in a laptop with the photographs and he gave testimony in front of the judge about her breaking the vehicle code.

I don't see how this is unconstitutional. She ran the red, the camera caught her, a cop came to court with the pictures to argue against her, and she lost.

I am not a fan of cameras all over the place, but there are a lot of people who run red lights here, well after the light has turned red. I almost got clipped by a taxi once who went through a red ten seconds after it had changed, so there was no excuse that he started through on the yellow.

There aren't enough police to monitor traffic anymore, and there are more and more people on the roads who seem to be of the opinion that the traffic laws don't apply to them personally, so unfortunately, it appears that the cameras are the only way to keep people observing the laws.

Why does some of the posters keep bringing up PRIVATE OWNED cameras to support there arguement. Do they not understand that the ATM Camera is owned by the Bank, do they not understand that the Cop car dash cam is owned by the Police station? Do they not know the differenc between Public and Private?

You have an ABSOLUTE Right to face your accusser. and as I said earlier the Supreme Court of the United States said a ticket MUST be given by a Police officer ina uniform and in a MARKED Car. This case stemmed from the VA cop that was shot at his door at 3 am in the late 80's iI believe.

Now what will happen to 99% of those that get these camera tickets? They will pay them or subject themselves to the States jurisdiction either by signing a Drivers License giving p their Rights or they will sign a contract in Court on the day they appear, again giving up their Rights.

I find it best for me to NEVER EVER give up my Rights and Freedoms in place of a set of regulations and laws. I find that Freedom serves me best, you all can decide for yourselves and you have an ABSOLUTE Right to give up your Rights if you so choose to enter such contracts.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

You have an ABSOLUTE Right to face your accusser. and as I said earlier the Supreme Court of the United States said a ticket MUST be given by a Police officer ina uniform and in a MARKED Car.

When you make statements like the one above, how about posting the actual ruling you are stating so we know it exists. As it stands all we have is your word that this is true and that will not fly.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by shots]