'Red-Light Cam' Lawsuits Considered

Local 6 ^ | 10:07 am EDT July 16, 2007

[SubGeniusX]

An activist group is considering filing a lawsuit against the cities of Orlando, Apopka and even Orange County over red-light cameras on roads.

The Florida Civil Rights Association said red-light cameras that photograph and ticket drivers who ignore the signals are unconstitutional.

The group cites a recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the cameras violate due process because car owners cannot confront their accuser in court since the accuser is a machine.

Also, Minnesota justices call red-light cameras unfair because the car's owner is automatically assumed to be at fault and since the cameras are not at all intersections, the law is not enforced equally everywhere.

Word of the possible lawsuit comes days after Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty gave up -- at least for now -- on sending out tickets from red-light cameras.

Instead, drivers caught on camera running a red light will get a warning in the mail.

Crotty said he likes the cameras because he believes they save lives.

In 2005, 165,000 people were injured nationwide in crashes from running red lights. Nearly 800 of the drivers were killed and half of those were innocent pedestrians or drivers and passengers in cars hit by red-light runners.

At the intersection where an experimental camera is located in Orlando, violations have decreased by more than 40 percent and crashes decreased by more than 50 percent in nine months, according to an earlier WKMG report.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

[SubGeniusX]

The group cites a recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the cameras violate due process because car owners cannot confront their accuser in court since the accuser is a machine.

Ping...

[Oberon]

Instead, drivers caught on camera running a red light will get a warning in the mail.

You watch...cut off the city from the revenue stream, and the red-light cameras will die on the vine.

[TexasAg1996]

So the murderer captured killing someone on a video camera can go free since he/she can’t cross examine a machine. I can’t seem to grasp this level of stupidity.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The cameras are generators of municipal revenue. Nothing more.

[joebuck]

"The group cites a recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the cameras violate due process because car owners cannot confront their accuser in court since the accuser is a machine."

If that logic holds then you can kiss goodbye the use of breathalyzer test results in DUI cases.

[mnehring]

he group cites a recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the cameras violate due process because car owners cannot confront their accuser in court since the accuser is a machine.

Did someone think to argue that a law enforcement officer can view the image and therefore, they are the one to fill in the role of accuser?

[yobid]

I got nailed by one of these. $95.00 fine for gunning it thru a yellow light (I thought). I don’t run yellows anymore.

[TWohlford]

No,this isn’t about revenue, it’s about SAFETY! SAFETY! Don’t you want to be safe? Do you want crippled children to die? PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Here’s a good analysis of traffic cameras and using them to issue summons automatically:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/050406Cop.htm

[Alberta's Child]

That's a valid point, but keep in mind that a murder suspect -- as a defendant in a criminal case -- already has plenty of protections under the U.S. Constitution. The problem with a red-light camera is that it is used to identify violators of motor vehicle laws, which are not prosecuted through normal criminal courts and therefore do not have the same burden of proof as criminal cases.

Let's face it . . . most of what goes on in traffic courts these days would be completely unconstitutional in a criminal court.

[SubGeniusX]

If that logic holds then you can kiss goodbye the use of Breathalyzer test results in DUI cases.

Not true, that is precisely why the officer must also put the DUI suspect through a series of "sobriety tests", (ie. walk a straight line, touch your nose, alphabet backwards, etc..) the Breathalyzer alone has never been solely admissible..

[fatnotlazy]

I don’t live in Florida, but where I am, running red lights and stop signs is a sporting event. My house is almost to an intersection where there are stop signs at all four corners. People here sail through stop signs, or just slow down (instead of coming to complete stops). And then we have those who don’t yield to the first person at the intersection and try to outrun each other. On top of that, we have a school crossing guard at that intersection. Motorists have tried to run her down on more than one occasion.

We need more of these cameras. And we need to throw the book at those bums who think it’s cute to ignore traffic laws just because “they’re in a hurry.”

[metmom]

While I don’t have a problem with red light runners getting tickets, this whole surveilliance camera thing is just too Big Brotherish.

What might be a more effective deterrent is harsher consequences for those whose irresponsible and dangerous actions while driving result in injury or death of someone.

[Alberta's Child]

A breathalyzer test is administered by a police officer. A red-light camera is not.

There are some states (New Jersey, for example, which is surprising when you consider how leftist/statist this place is) where any kind of "unmanned" electronic traffic surveillance is prohibited -- specifically on the "right to confront your accuser" grounds that are cited here.

[RSmithOpt]

Yup, but, it's one machine accusing another machine. The camera versus the car, not the driver, unless the camera gets a positive ID of the person driving the car at the time of the purported violation. That's always been my argument. However, the munip-pols say the accused must reveal who was driving the vehicle at the time if it wasn't the car owner.

How many illegals show up in court to pay this type of fine, ya wonder? A BS money making scheme from the start IMHO.

[wbill]

What got them locally here was not the unconstitutionality of the whole program, but the fact that 90% of civil traffic fines need to go to the school system. The redlight camera company was skimming $35 out of every $50, so.....

The program would have lost money, thus gov't has scrapped it. Proving that the whole sordid mess was not about safety at all....

[TexasAg1996]

That's a valid point, but keep in mind that a murder suspect -- as a defendant in a criminal case -- already has plenty of protections under the U.S. Constitution. The problem with a red-light camera is that it is used to identify violators of motor vehicle laws, which are not prosecuted through normal criminal courts and therefore do not have the same burden of proof as criminal cases.

Motor vehicle laws are criminal laws. You must be convicted of violating a motor vehicle law beyond a reasonable doubt. You have the same rights in traffic court that you do in a criminal court that is hearing a murder trial.

[CholeraJoe]

If that logic holds then you can kiss goodbye the use of breathalyzer test results in DUI cases.

No. The breathalyzer is operated by a real-life police officer who testifies in court and can be cross-examined. It's not automatic or even remotely controlled. There is a huge wealth of case law on the use of breathalyzers in court such that most defense attorneys won't bother to challenge them.

[Brujo]

So the murderer captured killing someone on a video camera can go free since he/she can’t cross examine a machine.

No; it's up to the jury to decide if they believe it's the defendant shown in the video. The red-light camera process penalizes the owner of the vehicle whether or not they were driving at the time.