Traffic cameras get subpoenaed; do not show up in court!

[Matt Collins]

This is awesome!

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/052610/new_644535855.shtml

[nobody's_hero]

"The citation speaks for itself," he said. "There is no other evidence required."

This is why I don't travel to see my college buds at UGA.

[fletcher]

"It's not proper to serve an inanimate object, such as a camera," Davis said.

But it's proper when the government does it? It is common for the government to name inanimate objects as defendants in civil asset forfeiture cases. That is why they have ridiculous names like US vs. $800,000 or US vs. 1979 El Camino.

[AGRP]

I wish more lawyers would do this :mad:

[Promontorium]

Oh sweet potato ice cream! If it's true, that reducing red light violations to a reasonable level makes the cameras an economic burden, this trend might be self defeating! I know my home town has no money, and is laying off employees. If a connection is made that these cameras are fiscally detrimental, the same immoral and illegal reason they are put in (to generate revenue from safety violations) may inspire them to remove them.

[Matt Collins]

I once had a speeding ticket and the State of Alabama said that attaining the operator manual for a radar gun was not "discoverable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29)" because they had been proven to be ok. :rolleyes: