Curious what others think of the legal argument. Is it valid or did the enforcement agency just pass on pubic relations nightmare Mr. Cox would have certainly rained down upon them?
Ping for later
..answering the cam photo ticket can sometimes be taken care of by knowing what day the cops are sched’ for appearance then requesting a different day to appear. Sometimes they just drop the issue
1. In some jurisdictions, the law authorizing the use of photo enforcement for speeding or red light violations specifically states that the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle regardless of who is driving. These violations involve only monetary fines and don't result in any points on the driver's license, so from a strictly legal standpoint it doesn't really matter to them who was driving.
2. By sending the response, the recipient of this summons has acknowledged that he received it. In a legal process where you want to keep all avenues open, this is probably one of the worst things you can do because it eliminates one potential line of defense (they mailed it to the wrong address, for example).
Check your Freep-mail in a few minutes.
I have paid two of those tickets in DC. As a result I avid DC like it has the plague.
If I go into the city it has to be an absolute necessity.
Way to go dude
I quit driving. Part of going Galt for me was shutting down avenues the government has to harass me, as well as simplifying my life and becoming more self-reliant.
They don't care about you, your ticket, or the costs to the city, they're on the clock regardless of what they do.
The Kansas City City Council things they are too smart, by half. They wrote the city’s red light camera ordnance so the violation is a “non-moving” violation, instead of a moving one. Their logic was that non-moving violations don’t come with any penalties so ticketed people would be more apt to pay the fine, rather than fight the fact that there was no evidence that they were actually driving the car.
It was all hunky dory until someone who opposed red light camera ordinances pointed out that how can one be speeding if one is not moving. Now they are twisting and turning trying to figure out how to re-start that revenue stream and have it get past court muster. It’s actually kind of funny to watch.
Missouri Supreme Court strikes down the red light camera program run by city of Springfield.
The supreme court of Missouri sent photo enforcement companies scrambling on Monday after it declared the red light camera administrative hearing process in the city of Springfield to be void. The high court moved with unusual speed, handing down a strongly worded, unanimous decision about one month after hearing oral arguments in the case.
“This is a $100 case,” Judge Michael A. Wolff wrote for the court. “But sometimes, it’s not the money — it’s the principle.”
At first glance, the court’s decision appeared to be limited to a technical legal issue regarding Springfield’s authority to adjudicate a photo ticket against motorist Adolph Belt in an administrative hearing. The court indicated that this was plainly not permitted under state law. Section 479.010 of the Missouri Code requires ordinance violations of this type to be heard in a circuit or municipal court. Springfield had argued that its administrative hearing officer was the first and last word on all judgments, with no appellate courts — not even the supreme court itself — having any jurisdiction over the matter.
A closer look at the ruling shows that the high court judges expressed a dim view toward the legal arguments often cited by municipalities to justify their red light cameras programs. For example, the court made it clear that no city had any authority to treat red light violations in the same manner as a parking ticket.
“The administrative system at issue here is created for a violation of a red light ordinance, which typically is considered a moving violation,” Wolff wrote.
That means no city in Missouri, including Kansas City and St. Louis, has the authority to issue civil violations that carry no points. A footnote explained further that charter cities have no power to act in areas limited by state law. Both premises are key rebuttals to the argument that municipalities in the state have the authority to create red light camera programs without the sanction of state law. The high court also called into question Springfield’s use of short yellows.
“Undeniably a traffic expert, Belt timed the yellow caution light at the intersection and found that it was rather quick,” Wolff wrote. “He also concluded that the stoplight and the cameras needed to be synchronized.”
Another footnote cited three articles by TheNewspaper that Belt had brought to the court’s attention.
“Another article he found stated that a study in Texas had found that adding an additional second to yellow lights corresponded to a 40-percent reduction in crashes [view study],” Wolff wrote. “Even so, the city of Springfield had chosen to reduce its yellow-light timing at more than 100 intersections prior to starting red light camera ticketing [view article].”
State supreme courts are now evenly split on the issue of photo enforcement. Missouri’s supreme court joined the Minnesota high court which struck down red light cameras as illegal in 2007, explaining that cities may not water down the due process protections of motorists simply for the ease of issuing tickets (view ruling). On the other hand, the Ohio Supreme Court (read opinion) and Iowa Supreme Court (read opinion) declared camera use consistent with state laws.
The Missouri Supreme Court judges voided Belt’s citation without remanding proceedings to a lower court. A copy of the decision is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Missouri v. Belt (Supreme Court of Missouri, 3/2/2010)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3067.asp
I can’t remember the legal term, but it is called “Stage of Evidence” or something like that and it was set as precedent by a Supreme Court Ruling. I have all the info on my laptop at home but, not with me today. It states that anyone involved in any type of lab work can be required by the defendant to appear in court so the defendant can face his/her accusers. That includes the people who installed the Photo-Enforced Speeding Light, the person in the lab who processed it, the person who took blood to test for BAC, the person in the lab who determined the amount of BAC in the defendant......etc., etc., et. You have the right to face your accusers (plural), even the lab techs. If they don’t appear, case must be thrown out. Check it out.
I beat a DC red light camera. I admitted running the red but it was because of their sign placement. My lane indicated that my destination was ahead, but as I approached the light, I saw another large sign behind the first indicating my lane was going to turn left to another road. As I changed lanes quickly, the pickup in front of me slowed down and caused me to slow enough to blow the red and trigger the camera.
It took about a year for them to adjudicate it in my favor. Never pay. Always fight them.