Any suggestions as to how to proceed?
Posted on 03/22/2009 9:20:10 AM PDT by george76
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman.
The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded.
"Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewspaper.com ...
So everyone who has ever paid gets a refund?
Sanity
WOW ...I would never have that Coming!!
Good news alert.
Good Lord, someone has finally gotten it right! These ridiculous ordinances have acted on the presumption that it’s the owner of the car who is responsible for the offense, shifting the burden of guilt from the prosecution to the defendant.
This is great! In Los Angeles they also have a camera that takes pictures of people who may roll through Stop signs. Later one gets a ticket in the mail with the picture. This to me is similar. One doesn’t know at the time they are getting the ticket and are much less likely if all at able to argue their case as it described in this article. Too bad we do not have that state law in California. Although we may but it seems the courts pretty much ignore the constitutional laws here as in the case of prop 8. This is good to see.
This is great! In Los Angeles they also have a camera that takes pictures of people who may roll through Stop signs. Later one gets a ticket in the mail with the picture. This to me is similar. One doesn’t know at the time they are getting the ticket and are much less likely if all at able to argue their case as it described in this article. Too bad we do not have that state law in California. Although we may but it seems the courts pretty much ignore the constitutional laws here as in the case of prop 8. This is good to see.
You'd think so, since everyone was unfairly prosecuted. But I doubt it, simply because it would cost the cities too much. If they are forced to, then all the cities will do is raise property taxes through the roof to cover the huge cost, so all urbanites will pay for them, instead of those who actually did go through red lights.
Because Minnesota isn't the entire "state" of the USA?
Here is one way.... 
Cities make tons of money with little effort
If the city broke the law. as the local SC just ruled, then the city is liable for damages, nicht wahr?
If the light turns red, don't go. And if you should, do not pick your nose or take a sip of beer- it'll all be caught on camera.
It's not good news. It's just as insane as any decision that the liberals love like finding some "right to privacy" in the "penumbras" of the Constitution that means that it's okay to kill inconvenient babies.
If the cameras are unconstitutional in Minnesota for the reason stated by the judge then every traffic stop is illegal too because it has been made by some cop who is at one specific location and has not been observing the entire state. You can be sure that no one involved in the drafting of that Minnesota Constitution thought that some statement about uniformity in enforcement of the law throughout the State meant that there could be no patrols anywhere to attempt to curtail illegal activity.
ML/NJ
That's what I just said. And, because most cities operate on tight budgets, they will probably just raise property taxes if they are forced to repay every red light ticket issued in their cities.
It would seem that we are in violent agreement.
Only, I view the liability falling back on the taxpayers as a “lesson learned” - keep a whach on your goverment, or it will bite you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.