Planning on fighting a red light camera in Florida

[Elwar]

I received a citation for a red light camera violation here in Florida. I chose to take it to court instead of just paying the ticket.

I know that the cameras are BS and all of that from a philosophical perspective, but what would be my best argument to make in court?

[hillertexas]

My random shot in the dark would be.....Don't you have a right to face your accuser in court? If they cannot provide the machine to testify against you, I don't see how they have a case. Remember, if the cop doesn't show up, the case is dismissed. So why is this different?

My non-lawyer $.02

[Elwar]

My random shot in the dark would be.....Don't you have a right to face your accuser in court? If they cannot provide the machine to testify against you, I don't see how they have a case. Remember, if the cop doesn't show up, the case is dismissed. So why is this different?

My non-lawyer $.02

I believe that this is how Canadians were able to get rid of red light cameras. They have that right in their Constitution.

From what I have read so far, an officer reviews the tapes and the cameras and writes the citation.

What I have so far are technicalities. For one, I am pretty sure I was not the driver. I could tell them who the driver is and get out of it, but that would be a bad thing for me personally. Also, they said that the full car has to be behind the white line. From looking at the picture, I could probably do some measurements of my tires and bumper to the point that I can prove that my bumper was probably just over the line.

One case I looked up was the equal protection clause. If I were pulled over by an officer for running the red light, the ticket would be $264. But if I pay the ticket in the mail it is $158.

[dannno]

Was there anybody behind you?

You could say that they were coming up really fast and you were trying to avoid collision by giving them another foot or two buffer so you wouldn't get hit without entering the intersection.. being that your tired were behind the line, your car probably hadn't really entered the intersection.

That's the problem with not having cops giving out the tickets, because the camera can't always see any extenuating circumstances.. not to mention, if there IS a valid one, you don't get the opportunity to explain that right away, you have to wait a few weeks for the ticket to show up and might not remember. That's one of the main reasons I'm against them.

[fisharmor]

For one, I am pretty sure I was not the driver.

Can they prove that you were?
Are you not innocent until proven guilty?
Do you not have to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Not that I think any of that would matter. If anything, your experience will doubtless exemplify what a crock of shit our legal system is - there are exactly two ways you're getting out of paying this: spend $5000 on a lawyer, or be dead before the hearing.

But if it was me, I'd throw that bullshit about innocent until proven guilty in that smug (*&$er's face before having to pay it.

Remember, everyone hates lawyers and everyone hates politicians, and a judge is just a lawyer who's playing politics.

[Romulus]

don't respond to it? Will they issue a warrant?

[Elwar]

don't respond to it? Will they issue a warrant?

In Florida they issue a citation with an opportunity to pay $158 and be done with it or wait for another letter if you choose to take it to court.

I chose to wait. I got the second letter with a higher fine, $264 which I could pay now or an option to have a date set for the hearing. The citation does say that if I do not respond my driving privileges will be taken away until it is paid.

I should not have to win it by using technicalities, but by pointing to the Constitution. But most likely I will have to win based on government incompetence.

[Elwar]

Can they prove that you were?
Are you not innocent until proven guilty?
Do you not have to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt?


They cannot prove it was me driving but from what I have read, that does not matter. But I will certainly bring this up. I would love to spend a whole day on this, tying up the court. Though I am charged an additional $500 in court fees just for taking this to court. But it is the principle of it.

[aGameOfThrones]

They cannot prove it was me driving but from what I have read, that does not matter. But I will certainly bring this up. I would love to spend a whole day on this, tying up the court. Though I am charged an additional $500 in court fees just for taking this to court. But it is the principle of it.

Post 3---> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287564-Speed-Cameras

[asurfaholic]

Maybe you could avoid these tickets in the future by not running red lights... Entire families have been wiped out by some impatient bastard.

If you really don't "think" it was you, then that should be your defense. They have to PROVE that you are the criminal before charging you with a crime. If they can't do it, then the case should be dismissed. Be ready to answer who was driving your car on that day, and under oath, you better not lie.

[dannno]

Maybe you could avoid these tickets in the future by not running red lights... Entire families have been wiped out by some impatient bastard.

If you really don't "think" it was you, then that should be your defense. They have to PROVE that you are the criminal before charging you with a crime. If they can't do it, then the case should be dismissed. Be ready to answer who was driving your car on that day, and under oath, you better not lie.

Whoa calm down, he didn't run a red light, he was like a foot over the line..

[dannno]

Can they prove that you were?


lol, ya I wonder if you could tell them that you loaned your car out to 500 people that day and don't know who was driving when the picture was taken.

[asurfaholic]

Whoa calm down, he didn't run a red light, he was like a foot over the line..

No disrespect to the poster intended, but while I hate to see these mechanical cops popping up everywhere, I hate even more to see terrible accidents that could have been prevented.

As far as being a foot over the line, in North Carolina, I am pretty sure that doesn't constitute running a red light. If he was stopped just on or just over the white line, then the OP should check the statute in Florida to make sure that the law was actually broken. If it wasn't, and they can't prove that he continued through the intersection after the light turned red, then that should be a pretty easy dismissal.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

I sped through one a while back(accidentally) and never got any citation.

[Teaser Rate]

So you're planning to fight a traffic citation by arguing that reckless driving is a Constitutionally protected right?

May I suggest you just pay the fine and stop wasting yours and everyone's time?

If someone else was driving your car at the time of the violation, then track them down and ask them for pay the fine.

[Jake Ralston]

Isn't the traffic camera a direct violation of Amendment number 4? Or has that argument been debunked?

[specsaregood]

./

[specsaregood]

./

[Danke]

No disrespect to the poster intended, but while I hate to see these mechanical cops popping up everywhere, I hate even more to see terrible accidents that could have been prevented.

As far as being a foot over the line, in North Carolina, I am pretty sure that doesn't constitute running a red light. If he was stopped just on or just over the white line, then the OP should check the statute in Florida to make sure that the law was actually broken. If it wasn't, and they can't prove that he continued through the intersection after the light turned red, then that should be a pretty easy dismissal.

There have been many places that purposely shorten the yellow light to enhance revenue.

[dannno]

So you're planning to fight a traffic citation by arguing that reckless driving is a Constitutionally protected right?

They weren't driving recklessly.. If a cop was sitting right next to them I guarantee they would never have given them a ticket. That's why I'm against the cameras, they don't have any discretion and you can't defend yourself at the time of the infraction.




If someone else was driving your car at the time of the violation, then track them down and ask them for pay the fine.

Sounds like that might prevent him from getting laid or something along those lines.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Maybe you could avoid these tickets in the future by not running red lights... Entire families have been wiped out by some impatient bastard.

If you really don't "think" it was you, then that should be your defense. They have to PROVE that you are the criminal before charging you with a crime. If they can't do it, then the case should be dismissed. Be ready to answer who was driving your car on that day, and under oath, you better not lie.

Oh please, don't even go there. I don't have enough time to stop at some lights. It goes from red to green in a few seconds. The best lights are the ones that have a crosswalk sign that blinks how many seconds until the light turns red. Sometimes in the winter the roads are so slippery I can't stop in time for the 2 second yellow light.

Also, just because the light is red on your side doesn't mean it's green on the other. You have to wait about 5 seconds for the light to turn green after turning red on the other side.

[dannno]

Sometimes in the winter the roads are so slippery I can't stop in time for the 2 second yellow light.


As a warning, this was a huge issue in San Diego when they first installed these cameras about 10 years ago..

The camera companies did tests and found out that installing the cameras would not be profitable..

Sooooooooooooooooooooo................... They cut down the time of the yellow light and moved the sensor to catch more people!! Testing showed profitibility, so they were installed. People found out that the company reduced the time of the yellow light and moved the sensors, and sued the shit out of everybody.. Essentially the city and the company lost revenue from months and months of all these red light tickets and they were all taken out.

[dannno]

^Between shit like that and not being able to defend yourself at the time of the violation or having someone with some discretion witness the traffic violation, I'm not sure how ANYBODY could be defending these damn things.

[Danke]

^Between shit like that and not being able to defend yourself at the time of the violation or having someone with some discretion witness the traffic violation, I'm not sure how ANYBODY could be defending these damn things.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298691-Was-a-Tax-Collection-Attorney-for-the-IRS-1988-1993&p=3345992&viewfull=1#post3345992

[MelissaWV]

They cannot prove it was me driving but from what I have read, that does not matter. But I will certainly bring this up. I would love to spend a whole day on this, tying up the court. Though I am charged an additional $500 in court fees just for taking this to court. But it is the principle of it.

Actually it does matter, but you may need to demonstrate someone else was driving, and if they were driving with your permission it may not save you.

My dad had gotten several red light camera tickets, but did not have custody of his car on those dates. The light was near a car dealership, and it turns out someone was "testing" his car around the block after servicing it. He was able to provide proof of that, and since they didn't think it was worth it to pursue the dealership and figure out who was driving, the whole thing dropped.

[Krugerrand]

Okay ... I've been thinking and here's what I have so far. But first, let me tell you this is by somebody who has fought an embarrassing number of traffic violations with only minimal success.

Check your state laws. My understanding is that most everything is based on when you ENTER the intersection. So, for example, if you start through an intersection on green and a small child runs across the street as you are going through the intersection, you are not under law obligated to hit the child as an alternative to waiting for the road to be clear before proceeding cautiously though the remainder of the intersection - even if the light has since turned red. Once you start through on green, you MUST get out of the intersection. If you have a safe and reasonable expectation to be able to get through the intersection and then things change, what other option do you have?

I would think you should be able to build a pretty darn good case that the prosecution has no evidence to show that the light was not green (or yellow if that's what is required in your state) when you STARTED through the intersection. There's no evidence of if the car in front of you did not randomly stop on the other side of the intersection or the herd of turkeys took a few seconds to get out of your way. They have to prove you broke the law, if there is no evidence of what color the light was when you STARTED through the intersection, there is no basis for proving guilt. You should not have to testify to this ... you should be innocent until they prove you guilty .... and that should be based on the color of the light when you start through the intersection.

The prosecution should have to testify that the you in the court room are the defendant ... why the can not do so is absurd ... but I would imagine that technicality has already been decided against your favor. You should be able to win because of it ... but I doubt you'll have any luck going down that road.

Try and get hold of jmdrake. I would think he would have some good insights on this. I believe he was studying for the bar ... and may not be readily available as a result .... but he'd be the first person on the forum from whom I'd seek help.

Unless somebody who knows better gives you better advise ... do not testify. Make your case that it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt and they clearly cannot. This ranks right up there with do not talk to cops. Unless you have a lawyer there to support you, you stand a good chance of losing.

Look into subpoenaing from the municipality who can testify that the lights were functioning properly AT THE TIME OF THE PICTURE. I'd also want to subpoena whoever designed the intersection and determine the timing to have the on record for how long the yellow light should hold and WHY that time frame is correct. (Have a video handy of how long the yellow light holds in case they testify it should be longer that it does.) I'd also want that person to testify if the lights were tested at all the day of your picture and if they can say without question that the lights were function perfectly at the time the picture was taken. I really don't know much about what I'm talking about in this part ... but they should have to prove their case - they should not be allowed to take it for granted. In PA only state troopers can use a radar gun. They must show in court that it had been tested within so many days for accuracy. There are good reasons for that ... and there are good reasons that somebody should have to testify that the prosecution has some clue about the status of the lights before they go convicting people.

Also, realize that the local magistrates that hear these cases are completely BOGUS. They are buddy buddy with the cops that are sitting opposite from you. They hang out with each other regularly. Take note, they schedule these hearings at the prosecution's convenience! (How is that fair?) You should fully expect to lose the first round and to have only a slight chance of a fair hearing on the first appeal.

[Elwar]

Maybe you could avoid these tickets in the future by not running red lights... Entire families have been wiped out by some impatient bastard.

If you really don't "think" it was you, then that should be your defense. They have to PROVE that you are the criminal before charging you with a crime. If they can't do it, then the case should be dismissed. Be ready to answer who was driving your car on that day, and under oath, you better not lie.

If a police officer had seen me run the red light and pulled me over then I would pay the ticket if I did go through the red light.

My problem is that they are using a picture of my car to say that I ran the red light. It is not for me to prove that I was not driving. It is for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I drove through the red light.

I did see some references to that specific light and people are saying that the yellow light has been shortened. I will certainly be going out to time it. The video also shows a car that passes through the red light shortly after my vehicle so I can imagine that had the brakes been hit and the red light not run, there would have been a car accident.

Statistics have shown that the red light cameras and shortened yellow lights actually cause more accidents. It has been found that a longer yellow actually saves lives.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe you could avoid these tickets in the future by not running red lights... Entire families have been wiped out by some impatient bastard.

If you really don't "think" it was you, then that should be your defense. They have to PROVE that you are the criminal before charging you with a crime. If they can't do it, then the case should be dismissed. Be ready to answer who was driving your car on that day, and under oath, you better not lie.


So you're planning to fight a traffic citation by arguing that reckless driving is a Constitutionally protected right?

May I suggest you just pay the fine and stop wasting yours and everyone's time?

If someone else was driving your car at the time of the violation, then track them down and ask them for pay the fine.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f305/Flatu/awww.gif

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298691-Was-a-Tax-Collection-Attorney-for-the-IRS-1988-1993&p=3345992&viewfull=1#post3345992

Stolen.

[Elwar]

Check your state laws. My understanding is that most everything is based on when you ENTER the intersection. So, for example, if you start through an intersection on green and a small child runs across the street as you are going through the intersection, you are not under law obligated to hit the child as an alternative to waiting for the road to be clear before proceeding cautiously though the remainder of the intersection - even if the light has since turned red. Once you start through on green, you MUST get out of the intersection. If you have a safe and reasonable expectation to be able to get through the intersection and then things change, what other option do you have?

I would think you should be able to build a pretty darn good case that the prosecution has no evidence to show that the light was not green (or yellow if that's what is required in your state) when you STARTED through the intersection. There's no evidence of if the car in front of you did not randomly stop on the other side of the intersection or the herd of turkeys took a few seconds to get out of your way. They have to prove you broke the law, if there is no evidence of what color the light was when you STARTED through the intersection, there is no basis for proving guilt. You should not have to testify to this ... you should be innocent until they prove you guilty .... and that should be based on the color of the light when you start through the intersection.

The only evidence they have is a video of the car passing through the intersection, a picture of where my car was when the light first turned red and a picture of my car in the intersection a few seconds after.


The prosecution should have to testify that the you in the court room are the defendant ... why the can not do so is absurd ... but I would imagine that technicality has already been decided against your favor. You should be able to win because of it ... but I doubt you'll have any luck going down that road.

That is part of what I will go after.


Try and get hold of jmdrake. I would think he would have some good insights on this. I believe he was studying for the bar ... and may not be readily available as a result .... but he'd be the first person on the forum from whom I'd seek help.

Thanks for that info, I will check with him if he is available.



Unless somebody who knows better gives you better advise ... do not testify. Make your case that it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt and they clearly cannot. This ranks right up there with do not talk to cops. Unless you have a lawyer there to support you, you stand a good chance of losing.
Yes, I know better than to get somewhere where a prosecutor can ask me questions.


Look into subpoenaing from the municipality who can testify that the lights were functioning properly AT THE TIME OF THE PICTURE. I'd also want to subpoena whoever designed the intersection and determine the timing to have the on record for how long the yellow light should hold and WHY that time frame is correct. (Have a video handy of how long the yellow light holds in case they testify it should be longer that it does.)
The time of yellow lights is set by the state. I will certainly be looking into this as I have read elsewhere that that particular light has been shortened.


I'd also want that person to testify if the lights were tested at all the day of your picture and if they can say without question that the lights were function perfectly at the time the picture was taken. I really don't know much about what I'm talking about in this part ... but they should have to prove their case - they should not be allowed to take it for granted. In PA only state troopers can use a radar gun. They must show in court that it had been tested within so many days for accuracy. There are good reasons for that ... and there are good reasons that somebody should have to testify that the prosecution has some clue about the status of the lights before they go convicting people.
I will certainly check into subpoenas.


Also, realize that the local magistrates that hear these cases are completely BOGUS. They are buddy buddy with the cops that are sitting opposite from you. They hang out with each other regularly. Take note, they schedule these hearings at the prosecution's convenience! (How is that fair?) You should fully expect to lose the first round and to have only a slight chance of a fair hearing on the first appeal.

Of course, though the court gets no money from the tickets so that helps.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The brits get rid of these things with an old tire and some petrol...

But as to your situation, you might run across a vehicle of your make, model and color and swap license plates with them then report that you just noticed your car does not have the correct plates...

Or borrow the judges plates, get your car photographed with them, and request records of any false positives...

for future reference - there are spray on and mount on top of solutions that prevent a pic making out the plate...

Those ideas are probably all not legal...

-t

[Carson]

I received a citation for a red light camera violation here in Florida. I chose to take it to court instead of just paying the ticket.

I know that the cameras are BS and all of that from a philosophical perspective, but what would be my best argument to make in court?

Go to fark.com and do a search of the site for red light cameras. I've seen some very good information posted there about weaseling out. You have to sieve through the post though. Some of it is not so brainy.

Plain ol' fark.com:

http://www.fark.com/



This is a search I did. Maybe you will find some ideas:

http://www.fark.com/hlsearch?qq=red+light+cameras


P.S. One I can remember was waiting until you can confront your accuser.

P.S.P.S. If you haven't checked out fark, the headlines are down the middle. An icon on the left goes to the story. The comments to the story are on the right hand side. That's where the real beef is.

[acptulsa]

Don't go to court without researching the local law first. Just don't, you'd be wasting your time and pissing off the judge. I go to the county courthouse law library when I fight a ticket and take a photocopy of the statute in question to court with me.

If the law is b.s. (as most these days are) and says you're responsible whether you were driving or not, just tell the judge you want your summary judgement so you can appeal it (perhaps all the way to the SCOTUS) and the judge will rush you through with gratitude.

If you actually want to be acquitted on the spot, and the law makes the car owner responsible for the driving of any authorized driver, your best bet is to demand to 'face your accuser'. In this case, as with radar speeding tickets, this means subpoenaing a city engineer and cross examining the hell out of him about how these things are synchronized. Check and see if the law about red lights is the same as here--it's only a violation if the light turns green the other direction--and see if this guy even knows if the camera at the corner in question is synchronized to the one light turning red or the other turning green. See if he even knows that some lights are on a delay, meaning they're red all four directions for a moment when changing. Try to trip him up. Don't ask leading questions, ask questions that give him plenty of room to expose his ignorance of the law.

If you can't do that, give it up.

[Elwar]

Don't go to court without researching the local law first. Just don't, you'd be wasting your time and pissing off the judge. I go to the county courthouse law library when I fight a ticket and take a photocopy of the statute in question to court with me.


Thanks, I did some research on the law last night. It is a state law that passed last year so there are plenty of kinks being played out which is good for me.

---------------

Here is the part that does not seem Constitutional:
The owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation of s. 316.074 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.074.html)(1) or s. 316.075 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.075.html)(1)(c)1. when the driver failed to stop at a traffic signal, unless the owner can establish that:
c. The motor vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody, or control of another person;

2. In order to establish such facts, the owner of the motor vehicle shall, within 30 days after the date of issuance of the traffic citation, furnish to the appropriate governmental entity an affidavit setting forth detailed information supporting an exemption as provided in this paragraph.a. An affidavit supporting an exemption under sub-subparagraph 1.c. must include the name, address, date of birth, and, if known, the driver’s license number of the person who leased, rented, or otherwise had care, custody, or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the alleged violation.

-------------------------

So basically it says, if you have to prove that you are innocent by telling us who you think is guilty.

I now know, after looking at all of the facts of my case that I will be able to beat the ticket based upon government incompetence. But I would rather hit them on the Constitutionality of the actual law and help to get the cameras taken out.

[acptulsa]

I now know, after looking at all of the facts of my case that I will be able to beat the ticket based upon government incompetence. But I would rather hit them on the Constitutionality of the actual law and help to get the cameras taken out.

I don't blame you. But don't expect the first judge you see to do so. This is a function of appelate courts.

If you do this, expect it to be time consuming, and expect to have to hire a lawyer for the next step. On the plus side, the forum would probably moneybomb you for doing this public service.

[asurfaholic]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f305/Flatu/awww.gif

Ok ok. Someone gives me negative rep with a "typical statist comment" comment - simply because I expressed the whole - maybe you shouldn't be running red lights - deal. I think it is a valid comment, and if anyone here knew me, they could testify that I am far from statist. Sorry to whoever I may have offended by saying that, I went on to offer what little knowledge I have on the subject. It just seems that if a town or police department enacts something designed to enhance safety, then it is instantly considered police state measures. While I have never studied statistics on whether or not this causes more accidents, it seems pretty common sense that this would at least help curb down on the bad type of accidents. I have lost a sister, who was pregnant with her first kid due to a red light runner. Her husband went on to commit suicide.

Oh well, I hope the OP doesn't get in too much trouble if he truly didn't commit a crime, but at least in wilmington, if a red light camera catches you, then you were ENTERING the intersection after red, and there are multiple photos to prove it. There is no getting out of it. I am sure the technology is not perfectly consistent, but I would warn people to drive slower and be more careful around intersections. Anything can happen in the blink of an eye, and most yellow lights turn to red in a reasonable amount of time in relation to the speed limit.

I guess I am that right wing extremist homeland security warned us all about...

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Ok ok. Someone gives me negative rep with a "typical statist comment" comment - simply because I expressed the whole - maybe you shouldn't be running red lights - deal. I think it is a valid comment, and if anyone here knew me, they could testify that I am far from statist. Sorry to whoever I may have offended by saying that, I went on to offer what little knowledge I have on the subject. It just seems that if a town or police department enacts something designed to enhance safety, then it is instantly considered police state measures. While I have never studied statistics on whether or not this causes more accidents, it seems pretty common sense that this would at least help curb down on the bad type of accidents. I have lost a sister, who was pregnant with her first kid due to a red light runner. Her husband went on to commit suicide.

Oh well, I hope the OP doesn't get in too much trouble if he truly didn't commit a crime, but at least in wilmington, if a red light camera catches you, then you were ENTERING the intersection after red, and there are multiple photos to prove it. There is no getting out of it. I am sure the technology is not perfectly consistent, but I would warn people to drive slower and be more careful around intersections. Anything can happen in the blink of an eye, and most yellow lights turn to red in a reasonable amount of time in relation to the speed limit.

I guess I am that right wing extremist homeland security warned us all about...

OH please, I got about -10 rep for saying a woman shouldn't have been selling pot if she didn't want to get in trouble.

[asurfaholic]

OH please, I got about -10 rep for saying a woman shouldn't have been selling pot if she didn't want to get in trouble.


Its sad - I know that this forum is full of dedicated members who promote liberty. And, believe me, I am thankful for this. But in order for liberty to exist, there has to be tolerance. A differing opinion needs to be respected. Life is full of risks. If you choose to pursue liberty by participating in an activity that is currently illegal, then you are practicing you right to peacefully resist (assuming its peaceful) - but the flip side is, you need to be willing to accept the consequences for said action. Even Ron Paul said that somewhere, so don't listen to me.

Maybe I did spout off, I am less concerned about the negative rep than I am about protecting my image. I am a true liberty minded individual. I cannot control how I think, so maybe some stuff comes out weird, or non orthodox. But isn't that the very freedom we are fighting for here? Why should you or I or anyone who expresses a different opinion be negatively dealt with? Someone had to click the "I disapprove of this post" button to do it. Everyone wants to fight the red light cameras. Maybe those cameras have saved some lives - maybe not. Maybe they are against the principles of a free nation. Maybe not. I am glad there are people here who know everything. I certainly have a lot to learn..

[bkreigh]

So you're planning to fight a traffic citation by arguing that reckless driving is a Constitutionally protected right?

May I suggest you just pay the fine and stop wasting yours and everyone's time?

If someone else was driving your car at the time of the violation, then track them down and ask them for pay the fine.

Do NOT follow this advice. Because people think you should just suck it up and take it is the reason we have crap laws on the books right now.

Furthermore, its not the OPs responsibility to track down anybody. That is the person issuing the ticket. How about they send you all the red light tickets and you track down everybody or you can simply just pay it? Does that sound fair?

[Elwar]

Its sad - I know that this forum is full of dedicated members who promote liberty. And, believe me, I am thankful for this. But in order for liberty to exist, there has to be tolerance. A differing opinion needs to be respected. Life is full of risks. If you choose to pursue liberty by participating in an activity that is currently illegal, then you are practicing you right to peacefully resist (assuming its peaceful) - but the flip side is, you need to be willing to accept the consequences for said action. Even Ron Paul said that somewhere, so don't listen to me.

Maybe I did spout off, I am less concerned about the negative rep than I am about protecting my image. I am a true liberty minded individual. I cannot control how I think, so maybe some stuff comes out weird, or non orthodox. But isn't that the very freedom we are fighting for here? Why should you or I or anyone who expresses a different opinion be negatively dealt with? Someone had to click the "I disapprove of this post" button to do it. Everyone wants to fight the red light cameras. Maybe those cameras have saved some lives - maybe not. Maybe they are against the principles of a free nation. Maybe not. I am glad there are people here who know everything. I certainly have a lot to learn..

There is a difference between being pulled over for breaking a traffic law and having a camera accuse you of a violation.

I have been pulled over for speeding and for running a red light and I have admitted to it and was fine with paying my ticket. In those cases, I did the crime.

In this case, they are finding me guilty until I can prove my innocence by providing them the information on whom was driving while they have no witness but a machine.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

While I have never studied statistics on whether or not this causes more accidents, it seems pretty common sense that this would at least help curb down on the bad type of accidents.

The cameras tend to not stop people that blow through red lights from not paying attention. Death is a much bigger deterrent than potential citations. But they do tend to cause more accidents and are used unscrupulously as revenue generators. They catch people who may not be stopping due to weather conditions or other reasons. Of course everyone wants to see less accidents, but these cameras do the opposite and don't stop any of the horrendous accidents.

[Teaser Rate]

There is a difference between being pulled over for breaking a traffic law and having a camera accuse you of a violation.

I have been pulled over for speeding and for running a red light and I have admitted to it and was fine with paying my ticket. In those cases, I did the crime.

In this case, they are finding me guilty until I can prove my innocence by providing them the information on whom was driving while they have no witness but a machine.

So your argument now is that the technology behind the cameras is flawed? How do you intend to prove this?

Listen, I know it's a tough world out there and there are many things worth fighting for, but this isn't one of them. You'd be much better off using the time and money required to fight the citation on something useful instead of tilting at windmills.

[acptulsa]

Listen, I know it's a tough world out there and there are many things worth fighting for, but this isn't one of them. You'd be much better off using the time and money required to fight the citation on something useful instead of tilting at windmills.

Getting accused of a crime and being held accountable for it until you can prove yourself innocent by throwing the blame on a friend is in no way Constitutional. Someone needs to do this, in my opinion. I applaud the man wholeheartedly. If the Constitution isn't worth fighting for, then what are we doing here?

This is the kind of sacrifice that is far too lacking in this nation. And that's why we are where we are. I love this. I applaud the man.

[newbitech]

Ok ok. Someone gives me negative rep with a "typical statist comment" comment - simply because I expressed the whole - maybe you shouldn't be running red lights - deal. I think it is a valid comment, and if anyone here knew me, they could testify that I am far from statist. Sorry to whoever I may have offended by saying that, I went on to offer what little knowledge I have on the subject. It just seems that if a town or police department enacts something designed to enhance safety, then it is instantly considered police state measures. While I have never studied statistics on whether or not this causes more accidents, it seems pretty common sense that this would at least help curb down on the bad type of accidents. I have lost a sister, who was pregnant with her first kid due to a red light runner. Her husband went on to commit suicide.

Oh well, I hope the OP doesn't get in too much trouble if he truly didn't commit a crime, but at least in wilmington, if a red light camera catches you, then you were ENTERING the intersection after red, and there are multiple photos to prove it. There is no getting out of it. I am sure the technology is not perfectly consistent, but I would warn people to drive slower and be more careful around intersections. Anything can happen in the blink of an eye, and most yellow lights turn to red in a reasonable amount of time in relation to the speed limit.

I guess I am that right wing extremist homeland security warned us all about...

Sorry for your loss, but that doesn't make everyone accused of running a red light guilty.

[Teaser Rate]

Getting accused of a crime and being held accountable for it until you can prove yourself innocent by throwing the blame on a friend is in no way Constitutional. Someone needs to do this, in my opinion. I applaud the man wholeheartedly. If the Constitution isn't worth fighting for, then what are we doing here?

This is the kind of sacrifice that is far too lacking in this nation. And that's why we are where we are. I love this. I applaud the man.

What part of the Constitution gives you the right to run red lights?

[acptulsa]

What part of the Constitution gives you the right to run red lights?

Cute straw man you have there. Does he keep the crows away?

What part of the Constitution gives a government within the U.S. to hold you accountable for any crime committed in your car unless you can prove yourself innocent by saying who else might have been driving it? What the document says is 'innocent until proven guilty'.

If someone stole your car and you couldn't supply the name and address of the thief, and two days later you got a ticket for something the thief did and some overeager prosecutor decided to press it, you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder over the violation of your Constitutional rights and you damned well know it. Well, thanks to the fact that Elwar has more respect for the Constitution than you're showing right now, maybe such a travesty will never happen to you.

Think about it.

[asurfaholic]

Sorry for your loss, but that doesn't make everyone accused of running a red light guilty.

I never said it did - you need to go back and read all my posts before you spam your ignorant comments - thanks have a great day.

[bkreigh]

What part of the Constitution gives you the right to run red lights?

Its not just about running red lights. Get past that for a second. Yes the thread is about running a red light but thats not the issue. Jesus christ think outside the fucking box. Read his comment again for crying out loud.

[asurfaholic]

There is a difference between being pulled over for breaking a traffic law and having a camera accuse you of a violation.

I have been pulled over for speeding and for running a red light and I have admitted to it and was fine with paying my ticket. In those cases, I did the crime.

In this case, they are finding me guilty until I can prove my innocence by providing them the information on whom was driving while they have no witness but a machine.

I completely and totally understand this. I never said the technology couldn't be flawed, and I am very aware of the fact that mistakes happen. If you truly were innocent, then there should be no problem in winning the court case. I wish all the luck in the world to you.

My points I was making earlier were simply for people to be more aware when coming to intersections. I was not assuming you were guilty, and my deepest apologies if this appeared to be the case.

[newbitech]

I never said it did - you need to go back and read all my posts before you spam your ignorant comments - thanks have a great day.

The first sentence you typed in this thread.


Maybe you could avoid these tickets in the future by not running red lights

Now why would you say such a thing? Either you are being sarcastically obvious, OR you are making an emotional response based on some of the other sentences you typed in this thread which I did read.

Hence, my comment. Don't accuse me of spamming. I tend to get to the heart of issues, and in this case, you have the OP pegged as guilty, are offering NOTHING to his request for assistance in how to defend himself in what he believes to be a false accusation, and further, you supplied us with a valid reason for why you FEEL people should take responsibility if in fact they did commit the offense of running the red light.

So to reiterate, you entered this thread with emotional bias, displayed that bias throughout your commentary on this topic, and completely ignored the reason why I choose to respond to you in the first place.

Yes, you did pass judgement based on emotion, and this is in fact exactly the same mentality that has our country embroiled in endless wars.

Again, I am sorry for your loss, but that does not justify hurting innocent people or encumbering their lives and pursuit of happiness.

[Teaser Rate]

Cute straw man you have there. Does he keep the crows away?

What part of the Constitution gives a government within the U.S. to hold you accountable for any crime committed in your car unless you can prove yourself innocent by saying who else might have been driving it? What the document says is 'innocent until proven guilty'.

If someone stole your car and you couldn't supply the name and address of the thief, and two days later you got a ticket for something the thief did and some overeager prosecutor decided to press it, you'd be screaming bloody freaking murder over the violation of your Constitutional rights and you damned well know it. Well, thanks to the fact that Elwar has more respect for the Constitution than you're showing right now, maybe such a travesty will never happen to you.

Think about it.

If someone stole my car, then I would file a police report and not be responsible for such a ticket.

If I were to lend my car to someone who would then run a red light in it, I would ask them to pay for the ticket. If they didn't want to pay for it, then I wouldn't lend them my car again.

I don't see a Constitutional issue here, either the driver in the car was breaking traffic laws or he wasn't. Since I'm assuming that the technology behind the camera probably worked fine, there's no defense here.

If the camera is malfunctioning, then the OP must be ready to demonstrate this in a direct and concise way if he wants to win. Reading the Constitution will do nothing to get him closer to that end.

[asurfaholic]

You are right, I did display emotional bias. I also admitted to "spouting off" which you failed to quote me on as well. Yes, I do have emotional attachment to the issue. I realize where I made my mistakes at, and I regret it, because in the course of less than 24 hours, I have gone from green to red. Which I feel is a bit unfair, but who cares right? I guess I did assume that the OP was trying to get out of getting a ticket when he could have simply just drove a little safer. Your point is well taken, I am definitely going to watch my fingers more carefully if I decide to keep posting here.

People will neg rep you in a heartbeat if you say something a little out of line - I guess the irony is that is EXACTLY what the OP is dealing with right now.. isn't it?


The first sentence you typed in this thread.



Now why would you say such a thing? Either you are being sarcastically obvious, OR you are making an emotional response based on some of the other sentences you typed in this thread which I did read.

Hence, my comment. Don't accuse me of spamming. I tend to get to the heart of issues, and in this case, you have the OP pegged as guilty, are offering NOTHING to his request for assistance in how to defend himself in what he believes to be a false accusation, and further, you supplied us with a valid reason for why you FEEL people should take responsibility if in fact they did commit the offense of running the red light.

So to reiterate, you entered this thread with emotional bias, displayed that bias throughout your commentary on this topic, and completely ignored the reason why I choose to respond to you in the first place.

Yes, you did pass judgement based on emotion, and this is in fact exactly the same mentality that has our country embroiled in endless wars.

Again, I am sorry for your loss, but that does not justify hurting innocent people or encumbering their lives and pursuit of happiness.

you said I didn't offer anything for his request for assistance on how to defend himself. You missed this, also in the first post.



If you really don't "think" it was you, then that should be your defense. They have to PROVE that you are the criminal before charging you with a crime. If they can't do it, then the case should be dismissed. Be ready to answer who was driving your car on that day, and under oath, you better not lie.

I think thats quite helpful. You don't?

[Teaser Rate]

Its not just about running red lights. Get past that for a second. Yes the thread is about running a red light but thats not the issue. Jesus christ think outside the fucking box. Read his comment again for crying out loud.

What issue are you talking about? Are you saying that traffic laws are Unconstitutional ?

[Sam I am]

How does this make you guilty until proven innocent? You're still innocent until proven guilty under the law. If your car runs a red light, you can still take it to court, you can even make a jury trial out of it.(at least where I am)The judge will still tell the jury that you're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the footage of your car going through the stoplight just happens to be some very convincing evidence for the prosecution to use should you decide to plead not guilty.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I like the British answer better....

We recently got speeding camera's imposed on us out here. You know "for the children's safety"... :rolleyes: Funny thing is that the camera company gets 87 cents of every dollar collected and I don't know many kids that are running across the street at 3am...

OH YEAH - this company made MEGA campaign contributions to the city council assholes that passed this piece of shit legislation!

-t

[bkreigh]

What issue are you talking about? Are you saying that traffic laws are Unconstitutional ?

uggg. Im not even talking about traffic laws. Thats the same thing as running a red light you just made it a little more broad.

We have the right to go to court when we are accused of something. He also has the right to face his accuser.

Just because you he may be going to court to fight a traffic ticket doesnt mean that the only positive thing that can come of this is him not paying the ticket.

[Carson]

Elwar,

Something that has helped me in the past was to show up early and watch the flow of the court and listen to what other people are pulling off that works. Especially the stuff that doesn't and seems to get people into positions you don't want to find yourself in.

It can be very interesting. Sort of a dance.

[acptulsa]

If someone stole my car, then I would file a police report and not be responsible for such a ticket.

That isn't what this law says, dude. If you give a prosecutor a loophole, this doesn't mean he or she will shove your case through it. But it doesn't mean he or she won't, either. Prosecutors aren't perfect, and power corrupts. These are realities.

This is why many of us here love the Constitution--if we obey its principles, we don't expose ourselves to abuses of power. Your argument is theoretical, and you're against my argument because you consider it theoretical. Make up your mind. I've made up my mind--I want to stick by the principle of the Constitution because that principle prevents a lot of practical abuses of power. And not just in the realm of traffic law.

If we abandon the Constitution on this, what's next? People being sued over what thieves did with their cars because they should have been more diligent in preventing the car's theft? People afraid to lend their cars to friends? This thing is wrong, and should be struck down. So say I, and mere 'convenience' or irritation with people who run through intersections late, or misplaced faith in prosecutors won't convince me to abandon this principle and encourage incrementalization toward tyranny. Period.


If I were to lend my car to someone who would then run a red light in it, I would ask them to pay for the ticket. If they didn't want to pay for it, then I wouldn't lend them my car again.

Would that make you guilty? Would that make your higher insurance rates just? Would that prevent further erosion of Constitutional principles? No.


I don't see a Constitutional issue here, either the driver in the car was breaking traffic laws or he wasn't. Since I'm assuming that the technology behind the camera probably worked fine, there's no defense here.

Sure there is. The man who is charged with the misdemeanor is guilty only of being nice to a careless person. There is no justice in this.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Is it just or right to make lending a car to a careless person a crime? If so, why don't they honestly say so instead of charging him with running a red light he didn't run? Hell, the law as written doesn't even allow him to get off of the charge by presenting an airtight alibi. If presenting an airtight alibi isn't a defense, then we've gone far beyond not being 'innocent until proven guilty' and gone all the way down the rabbit hole to 'guilty even after being proven innocent'. Do you honestly not see the danger in this?

When I was a kid, people felt a responsibility to defend the Constitution in ways like this. No wonder this was a stronger, more free nation back then.


If the camera is malfunctioning, then the OP must be ready to demonstrate this in a direct and concise way if he wants to win. Reading the Constitution will do nothing to get him closer to that end.

How can he know if the cameras were working if he wasn't there when the crime was committed? Seriously? This isn't about using the Constitution to get off of something he did, this is about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.

[acptulsa]

Bump in honor of the brave efforts of Elwar, a true Constitutionalist!

[Teaser Rate]

That isn't what this law says, dude. If you give a prosecutor a loophole, this doesn't mean he or she will shove your case through it. But it doesn't mean he or she won't, either. Prosecutors aren't perfect, and power corrupts. These are realities.

This is why many of us here love the Constitution--if we obey its principles, we don't expose ourselves to abuses of power. Your argument is theoretical, and you're against my argument because you consider it theoretical. Make up your mind. I've made up my mind--I want to stick by the principle of the Constitution because that principle prevents a lot of practical abuses of power. And not just in the realm of traffic law.

If we abandon the Constitution on this, what's next? People being sued over what thieves did with their cars because they should have been more diligent in preventing the car's theft? People afraid to lend their cars to friends? This thing is wrong, and should be struck down. So say I, and mere 'convenience' or irritation with people who run through intersections late, or misplaced faith in prosecutors won't convince me to abandon this principle and encourage incrementalization toward tyranny. Period.



Would that make you guilty? Would that make your higher insurance rates just? Would that prevent further erosion of Constitutional principles? No.



Sure there is. The man who is charged with the misdemeanor is guilty only of being nice to a careless person. There is no justice in this.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Is it just or right to make lending a car to a careless person a crime? If so, why don't they honestly say so instead of charging him with running a red light he didn't run? Hell, the law as written doesn't even allow him to get off of the charge by presenting an airtight alibi. If presenting an airtight alibi isn't a defense, then we've gone far beyond not being 'innocent until proven guilty' and gone all the way down the rabbit hole to 'guilty even after being proven innocent'. Do you honestly not see the danger in this?

When I was a kid, people felt a responsibility to defend the Constitution in ways like this. No wonder this was a stronger, more free nation back then.



How can he know if the cameras were working if he wasn't there when the crime was committed? Seriously? This isn't about using the Constitution to get off of something he did, this is about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.

You keep mentioning the Constitution over and over again, but I still have no idea what you're talking about. Please state the exact part of the Constitution which is violated by the situation at hand.

For the record, I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to be held accountable for the actions of someone after you've given them the keys to your car. If I lend my car to a drunk guy who goes on to run someone over, I'm partly responsible for his actions.

[acptulsa]

You keep mentioning the Constitution over and over again, but I still have no idea what you're talking about. Please state the exact part of the Constitution which is violated by the situation at hand.

If you don't know the Constitution guarantees you the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a criminal trial, then you need to study up on the whole thing, not piecemeal your education.


For the record, I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to be held accountable for the actions of someone after you've given them the keys to your car. If I lend my car to a drunk guy who goes on to run someone over, I'm partly responsible for his actions.

Then lobby to have a law passed that says you're criminally liable for what someone else does in your car, and see what reaction that gets out of your neighbors. Don't sit blindly by while the powers that be try to set a precedent that disallows an airtight alibi as a defense in a criminal trial.

[Teaser Rate]

If you don't know the Constitution guarantees you the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a criminal trial, then you need to study up on the whole thing, not piecemeal your education.

I'll try asking again, please cite the exact passage of the Constitution which is violated in this situation and explain why.


Then lobby to have a law passed that says you're criminally liable for what someone else does in your car, and see what reaction that gets out of your neighbors. Don't sit blindly by while the powers that be try to set a precedent that disallows an airtight alibi as a defense in a criminal trial.

The way I see it, a traffic violation was committed and someone has to pay for it, who else would you want to hold responsible if not the owner of the car? By your logic, anyone with tinted windows cannot be fined for running red lights.

[acptulsa]

I'll try asking again, please cite the exact passage of the Constitution which is violated in this situation and explain why.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, by way of longstanding precedent and as upheld by more than one Supreme Court case (the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter of the intent of the Constitution). The precedents in question reach all the way back to the Magna Carta.


The way I see it, a traffic violation was committed and someone has to pay for it, who else would you want to hold responsible if not the owner of the car? By your logic, anyone with tinted windows cannot be fined for running red lights.

How about the driver? The law does specify that a motor vehicle must be operated in such a way, not that an owner of a motor vehicle must ensure that it be operated in such a way. Back when I was a kid, someone who ran a red light could be pulled over by an officer of the law who saw the crime committed and kept the vehicle in sight until it could be stopped and the actual operator of the motor vehicle apprehended and charged. This also gave the perpetrator an accuser that he could face in court in accordance with his Sixth Amendment rights. And, so far as I know, this process can still be used today. Can't it?

[Teaser Rate]

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, by way of longstanding precedent and as upheld by more than one Supreme Court case (the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter of the intent of the Constitution). The precedents in question reach all the way back to the Magna Carta.



How about the driver? The law does specify that a motor vehicle must be operated in such a way, not that an owner of a motor vehicle must ensure that it be operated in such a way. Back when I was a kid, someone who ran a red light could be pulled over by an officer of the law who saw the crime committed and kept the vehicle in sight until it could be stopped and the actual operator of the motor vehicle apprehended and charged. This also gave the perpetrator an accuser that he could face in court in accordance with his Sixth Amendment rights. And, so far as I know, this process can still be used today. Can't it?

I never said that he didn't have the right to go to court to contest the ticket, I just said that he didn't have a viable defense once he gets there. If the picture does show his car over the line, then he's pretty wasting his time unless he can challenge that claim.

[Krugerrand]

I never said that he didn't have the right to go to court to contest the ticket, I just said that he didn't have a viable defense once he gets there. If the picture does show his car over the line, then he's pretty wasting his time unless he can challenge that claim.

I suggest you read one of my earlier posts. There could be a boatload of reasons why it would be legally permissible for your car to go through a light that is red. The cameras are taking pictures that in no way represent the totality of the situation. That is a flawed way to enforce codes.

[acptulsa]

And since his 'accuser' in the Constitutional sense is mechanical, how doess he cross examine it to ensure that it's synchronization is correct? And if he has an airtight alibi, how does this law have the presumption to declare him guilty anyway until he divulges the name of the person he loaned it to? And how does that help the state if the person he loaned it to then let someone else drive it?

This is such a slippery slope, and such an obvious case of incrementalism. Do you not know how incrementalism works? Really? Seriously, they introduce a little Constitutional violation in a good cause and on a misdemeanor that doesn't have a major sentence involved, and people say well, that's not as deadly as a traffic accident (or words to that effect), and the lesser of these evils, and then a precedent is set with which they can eventually imprison your grandchildren for absolutely nothing. It has happened time and again. Did my mention of the Magna Carta not help you see how vitally important precedent is in our system of law? Do you really approve of precedents being set for Constitutional violations?

I'll say it again--if you want a law against loaning your car to irresponsible people, then pass a law against loaning your car to irresponsible people and let the public judge the law on this honest basis. Don't just incrementalize the Constitution out of existence in the name of hiding the true intent of that law.

Not that the corporatists would allow such a thing. After all, this law seems to me to be designed to make you afraid to loan your car to a friend--to the benefit of no one but Hertz and Avis, et al. Of course they don't want this intent to be obvious.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W_aXo4UOlo&feature=uploademail

[Elwar]

Going to court today.

My plan:
Start out with the Constitutional arguments. Right to a fair trial, 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury for cases over $25. 14th Amendment of right to due process and equal protection (different laws for police, people with car in a trust, foreigners driving in country, etc).

Then I will address Hearsay if they try to bring up the video.

I will also point out that all property taken must go to the public and not to a private entity such as the red light camera company.

If that does not work I will show that my bumper was likely over the line.

And then finally my ace in the hole...I will bring a stop watch. The yellow light is supposed to last 4.5 seconds. By my count in the video it is 4 seconds.

And if all of that does not work, I will bring forward a witness that will testify that they were in fact the one driving the car that day (or at least that I was not).

[acptulsa]

Good luck, man. Hope the judge has at least a modicum of respect for the Constitution.

[Krugerrand]

Have you been to traffic court before?

My experience has been that the district magistrates that get the first level of these are next to useless and will ignore you unless you have an attorney. Be prepared to have to appeal.

[Elwar]

Have you been to traffic court before?

My experience has been that the district magistrates that get the first level of these are next to useless and will ignore you unless you have an attorney. Be prepared to have to appeal.

Plan C is to spend as much time as I can wasting their time.

A win for me is having my $250 ticket cost the city money.

[Krugerrand]

Plan C is to spend as much time as I can wasting their time.

A win for me is having my $250 ticket cost the city money.

$250! You should be able to file an extortion claim against the city.

[Elwar]

So, I lost... :(

I had prepared a constitutional argument but I left all of my paperwork at the office when I went. So I had to wing it and I lost.

So, this is how it works in Florida.

I went into the courtroom and there were about 30 people there. The bailiff went around asking people if they wanted to change their plea to "no contest". It seems like this is the court's preferred method of getting your money.

When the "judge" came in, he started out by saying "if you are going to plead that someone else was the driver, don't waste the court's time. Fill out an affidavit with the information on that driver" (as he explained how to do that).

When he got on the stand he talked about how if you plead no contest then you will likely get the minimum, probably without points on the license, but if you waste the court's time with witnesses, etc that he would charge per witness and that sometimes gets you a fine of over $1,000 with points on your license. This part was to scare people into not taking it to trial. A few people got up right away and plead no contest. He slapped them with the fine of $262 and sent them on their way. As people saw that the fine was only $262 and no points on their license they started popping up left and right volunteering to change their plea to no contest. The bailiff sat there taking plea changes like they were dinner orders, calling out for others who wanted to change their plea.

There were a few people there with charges other than red light camera tickets (24 people with red light camera tickets). All of them got dismissed because the officer that wrote the ticket did not show up. One lady had 3 charges against her that were dropped. This gave me some confidence because I figured that they just take as many of the no contests as they can get then just drop the charge if you have any modicum of a case.

One guy got up and plead not guilty because the state said that his vehicle was white while the video showed that his car was silver. He lost the case, got the $262 fine plus $30 court fee. A lawyer representing his client got up there and we all peaked our ears to see what his argument would be. He said the plea would be "not guilty" for now...then they showed the video of the car running the red light. He immediately changed the plea to no contest and got the same fine.

Then it was my turn. I was polite and when he asked how I wanted to proceed I said "I am innocent". So they played the video. I had not seen it in a while, I recalled that when I saw the video the light was solid red right as I crossed the plane, which is legal. But the video in the court room showed it being red as I was about 20 feet back. The video also showed several cars after me going through the red light and the "judge" mentioned that. I told him that there was a reason why they went through the light. I then explained that the yellow light at that intersection was supposed to last for 4.3 seconds. I said that I had reviewed the tape and that the yellow only lasted around 4 seconds. I said that I also brought a stop watch to show that it was under the required time. I had bought the stop watch the night before and when they played the tape back I went to click the damn thing and I could not figure out how the damn thing worked...I am sitting there clicking buttons while they play the thing through a few times. The "judge" says that he counted and that it was over 4 seconds. I again state that I have timed it under 4.3. He says something about having served in some vessel where he is some master at counting.

He then asked me why I ran the red light. I said I did not run the red light. I said it was not my burden of proof to prove that it was not me running the red light but it was on them. I said that, in fact, I was not the driver and that it is not on me to prove for them who was driving.

Guilty...$262 plus $30 for court costs.

[Elwar]

One little tidbit I did learn through all of this. At least here in Florida.

For some reason the state/city cannot put these cameras on public property. They must be placed on private property near the red lights, for whatever legal reason.

So, a few protests focusing on boycotting those private businesses may go a lot further than just protesting the law or the state.

[Elwar]

The thing that threw me off was that there was no witness. There was the fake judge and a "lieutenant". The lieutenant read off the charge and then proceeded to describe what he saw in the video.

I asked if this was the witness or the prosecutor and the judge did not give me a clear answer.

Most of my prepared arguments revolved around questioning the witness. Most importantly the question of "Can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no circumstances justifying the alleged violation for the sake of safety?"

[Krugerrand]

The thing that threw me off was that there was no witness. There was the fake judge and a "lieutenant". The lieutenant read off the charge and then proceeded to describe what he saw in the video.

I asked if this was the witness or the prosecutor and the judge did not give me a clear answer.

Most of my prepared arguments revolved around questioning the witness. Most importantly the question of "Can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no circumstances justifying the alleged violation for the sake of safety?"

The first level of these are not true courts and are setup just to collect money. It all comes down to appeal if you have the time/money to invest. Without a lawyer, it's really tough to play their game. They will tune you out - you sound like an adult in a Peanuts cartoon to them.

[Kludge]

I'm sorry to hear that, Elwar. In studies, these measures have done nothing to solve safety problems. With revenue at stake, some counties have gone so far as to reduce yellow light durations (it's been proven that the longer the yellow light duration is, the less accidents will occur), increasing fatalities and their revenue. Gov't which gains from danger will encourage danger, and that's exactly what many of the Florida counties have done to increase their revenue.

I hope this will encourage you to staunchly oppose Redflex's contract with the Florida government and red-light cameras in general. As your case goes on to confirm, these are dangerous revenue generators. In practice, it literally kills citizens for the short-term financial benefit of the government. I read off an article stating that to my grandparents, and I could see the sickened feeling of remorse in them. It didn't feel good, but it's good to have people aware of these problems.

[Krugerrand]

I'm sorry to hear that, Elwar. In studies, these measures have done nothing to solve safety problems. With revenue at stake, some counties have gone so far as to reduce yellow light durations (it's been proven that the longer the yellow light duration is, the less accidents will occur), increasing fatalities and their revenue. Gov't which gains from danger will encourage danger, and that's exactly what many of the Florida counties have done to increase their revenue.

I hope this will encourage you to staunchly oppose Redflex's contract with the Florida government and red-light cameras in general. As your case goes on to confirm, these are dangerous revenue generators. In practice, it literally kills citizens for the short-term financial benefit of the government. I read off an article stating that to my grandparents, and I could see the sickened feeling of remorse in them. It didn't feel good, but it's good to have people aware of these problems.

Additional monies spent may be better directed to fighting the District Magistrates re-election. He could stop it right there if he wanted to. He's part of the problem. A decent coordinated effort could really get the guy out of there and would cause the new person to tread more cautiously on the subject.

[Elwar]

I'm sorry to hear that, Elwar. In studies, these measures have done nothing to solve safety problems.

I agree, I had a statement in the waiting for if they brought up any study showing that the cameras save lives. I found a USF study showing that the cameras actually increase crashes and injuries and how longer yellow lights work better.

But this was no Casey Anthony trial...

[Kludge]

I agree, I had a statement in the waiting for if they brought up any study showing that the cameras save lives. I found a USF study showing that the cameras actually increase crashes and injuries and how longer yellow lights work better.

But this was no Casey Anthony trial...
It's not just them, either. The LAPD reports no safety improvements (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/12/14/officials-approve-continued-use-of-red-light-cameras/red-light-cameras-la/) as well as the Florida Public Health Review (http://reason.com/blog/2008/03/13/study-says-red-light-cameras-c). These cameras don't improve safety. Period. When combined with shortening the yellow light duration, as numerous FL counties (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/eveningnews/main558431.shtml) have done, it actually i (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/eveningnews/main558431.shtml)ncreases fatalities. The politicians who continue to promote these schemes should be tried for murder.

[Elwar]

For any future victims who happen across this thread searching for red light camera florida I will drop in some of the research I did for it:


Florida Public Health Review Studies
University of South Florida researchers wrote in the 2008 Florida Public Health Review that their review of the data found that “comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries.” In a 2011 update, also in theFlorida Public Health Review, the same researchers said that “the public health concern with red light cameras is the increase in crashes and injuries being reported in some studies.” They called for restoring and improving federal standards assuring proper intersection engineering, such as extending how long yellow lights stay on, before considering the installation of red light cameras.

6th Amendment right to question witness
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (129 S. Ct. 2527)
Prosecutors charged the defendant in Melendez-Diaz with cocaine trafficking, and at trial offered certificates signed by state laboratory analysts identifying evidence in the case as cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment rights because he was not allowed to question the analysts who prepared the certificates. (The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to cross-examine a witness against him.)
(may not be relevant due to it not being a criminal case)

Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection:
Police, foreigners, people with car in a trust, etc. do not have to pay red light camera tickets


Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):

Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense
Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated
The St. Petersburg Times on September 8, 2011, has said that it will cost $3.7 million dollars over three years to maintain and run this system in St. Petersburg alone. That cost will be covered from the fines recovered.

Cities and counties expect to make about $1 million dollars on top of what they have to pay ATS.

7th Amendment right to a trial by jury if over $20
In Suits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit) at common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law), where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar), the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact) tried by a jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury), shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts), than according to the rules of the common law.



316.075 Traffic control signal devices.—
3. Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in s. 316.0755 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=), are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown and no pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway.
(c) Steady red indication.—
1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown;


Possible Objections:
"Objection, Your Honor. The witness is clearly reading from notes, which are hearsay and should be excluded from the trial."
politely renew your "hearsay" objection and ask that the officer testify based on his or her "independent recollection"

"Objection, Your Honor. With all due respect, it appears as though the court is helping the officer testify by asking leading questions. I again ask the court to simply instruct the witness to testify from memory or lay a proper foundation for the use of this written material."

"Objection, Your Honor. This testimony assumes facts the officer hasn't testified to. There is no evidence before this court as to who owned or was driving the vehicle that this officer claims to have seen. The officer could not possibly have personal knowledge of the identity of the owner of a vehicle she merely sees traveling on the road. I move that her testimony not be considered."

"Objection, Your Honor, the question calls for hearsay."

Hearsay (California)
People v. Khaled. In a May 2010 decision (Orange County Superior Court, Appellate Division, Case No. 30-2009-304893)
The photographs contain hearsay evidence concerning the matters depicted in the photograph including the date, time and other information," the ruling summarized. "The person who entered that relevant information into the camera-computer system did not testify. The person who entered that information was not subject to being cross-examined on the underlying source of that information. The person or persons who maintain the system did not testify. No one with personal knowledge testified about how often the system is maintained. No one with personal knowledge testified about how often the date and time are verified or corrected. The custodian of records for the company that contracts with the city to maintain, monitor, store and disperse these photographs did not testify. The person with direct knowledge of the workings of the camera-computer system did not testify.

hearsay exemption for official government records. The court rejected this argument because the photographic records were created by a for-profit Australian company, not a state or local government agency.

"Here, the signator of the document, Exhibit #3, states they are employees of the 'Redflex Traffic Systems,'" the ruling stated. "At no point does the signatory state that 'Redflex Traffic Systems' is a public entity or that they are otherwise employed by a public entity. Absent this critical foundation information, the document that they created cannot be and is not an 'official record' under Evidence Code section 1280."


Things to ask the witness:


Were you at the scene of this alleged violation at the time it occurred?
So, you did not personally witness this alleged violation?
How do you have knowledge of this alleged violation?
Did you do the interpretation of the photos by yourself?
What training have you had in doing this interpretation?
Who else was involved in the interpretation of the photos?
What training does that person have in interpreting the photos?
Is that person present in the court this morning?
Your honor, I would like to point out that Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows me to question my accusers. Neither the person who retrieved the alleged evidence, or the person who interpreted it are present for me to question.

Did the person doing the interpretation of the photos send you a report on this case?
Do you have a copy of this report with you?
(If officer does not have the report.)
Your honor, it is incumbent upon the people to present any substantial material evidence favorable to the accused. If I could rebut that report would that not be favorable to my case?
(If officer has the report.)
Is it an original or certified copy of the report?
Are the photos original or certified copies?
(If the report (and/or photos) is (are) not certified.)
Not only is the person who did the interpretation not present, but the People have no original or certified copies of the report (and/or photos) alleging the violation which I could possibly use to rebut the argument presented. I would refer the Court to People v. Earnest (http://www.helpigotaticket.com/cases/earnest.html) (33 Cal.App.4th Supp. 18) which established the requirement of either the original or a certified copy of a document in a traffic case. In Earnest it was a Traffic Survey, but the same reasoning would hold for the report in this case.
Since the officer is basing his testimony on uncertified documents, I move that it be ruled hearsay and disallowed.
I move for a dismissal.
How does the company which operates the system get paid? Do they get any more money if the evidence results in a paid fine?
Has the system ever given incorrect evidence?
How many times has this happened?
Who can testify to that?
Is he/she present in the court this morning?
Once again, your Honor, this goes to my ability to establish a defense.
What is the posted speed limit on the street as it approaches the light?
Is that speed limit justified by an engineering and traffic survey as defined in Section 3.6 of the FL DOT Traffic Engineering Manual?
And what is the required minimum timing for the yellow light given that approach speed as established by Table 3.6-1 of Section 3.6 of the FL DOT Traffic Engineering Manual?
And what is the actual yellow light timing?
Can you testify as to the circumstances at the time and place of this alleged violation?
Can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no circumstances justifying the alleged violation for the sake of safety?
The officer admitted that he/she cannot testify that it was not necessary for the sake of safety for me to run the light. The People's own witness, indeed their only witness, has admitted that -- not being present at the alleged violation -- he/she cannot meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I move for a dismissal your Honor.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

One little tidbit I did learn through all of this. At least here in Florida.

For some reason the state/city cannot put these cameras on public property. They must be placed on private property near the red lights, for whatever legal reason.

So, a few protests focusing on boycotting those private businesses may go a lot further than just protesting the law or the state.


That is very interesting.