Cool, so if you commit a crime and there are no witnesses, you get off scot-free?
You don't need to witness a violation, you simply need to prove a violation... beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal matters, by a preponderance of the evidence for civil matters. To prove the violation, you need evidence. Eyewitness testimony is one form of evidence, but not the only form.
How does this law get enforced if the picture is only of the car and the driver cannot be seen.
According to the story, these particular cameras can get a shot of the driver.
Most times I am sure the driver can be identified through interviews and paper trails but if you claimed the car was stolen or you lended it out...
Oh, that'd be just bloody brilliant. You realize that to claim such a thing, you'd have to testify about it under oath, and you'd thus be committing perjury? The penalty for which is a heck of a lot higher than that for a moving violation? I can just see the cross-examination now:
"So it's your testimony that at the time of the incident, the vehicle was stolen? Did you report it to the police? Why not? Where were you at the time of the alleged offense, if not in your vehicle? Did anybody see you there? Has the vehicle been recovered? It has? What good luck for you! When did you get the vehicle back? How did you get it back? Did the thieves just have a sense of remorse and return it to you? Did you report that to the police? How long was the vehicle stolen? Oh, just long enough for the thieves to run a red light, and that's it? What a coincidence! Did you tell anybody that your car was stolen? Are those people available to testify under oath that you told them that your car was stolen?" And so on, and so forth. Sheesh.
I support this. It's a cheap way to enforce the law, and it's devoid of human frailties such as prejudice or nepotism. If the citizens don't like this method of enforcing the law, they can change either the method or the law.
He would be really mad if I told him about PlateScan....and most people in LA dont even know its out there yet!
I was a State Trooper for 4 years and worked undercover narc for 8. About half of the perps lied under oath it was not them I bought from. When I did traffic I had several sit there and say straight faced it wasn't them but their brother or sister had their drivers license and seeing as the case comes to court several months ( and sevarl hundred violators ) after the infraction if they have a lawyer or the judge is a nut you have to be asked can you verify it is the same person and the show begins.
I can see you have not had much experience with the lower parts of society. They lie just to lie.
As for witness it is common in Texas if the officer cannot witness or prove you were driving he cannot cite you. I also have experience with this trying to arrest DWI suspects that wrecked a car and left the scene before anyone arrived.
I guess the left coast does it different.
You seem to think this is the way to go. If the use of cameras proves to be effective at traffic lights, where would you not put a camera? Could cameras placed in private homes be justified on the basis of stopping domestic assault or child abuse?
