a public health issue,
or an obscenity clause tort
A Hate Crime. I hate boogers!
Here's back at 'cha
Posted on 03/22/2009 9:20:10 AM PDT by george76
Thanks for posting this.
Is picking your nose in public a traveling violation,
a public health issue,
or an obscenity clause tort
That’s a little far fetched. Traffic stops are done throughout the state, and people are given tickets for a variety of reasons throughout the state, so that satisfies “uniformity of enforcement”, because it occurs everywhere.
Thanks
A Hate Crime. I hate boogers!
You may think it "far fetched" but you can be sure that there will be lawyers who will be able to reasonably demonstrate that the chances of being stopped for one of those sobriety checks varies by orders of magnitude throughout a State as large and mostly unpopulated as Minnesota.
And it's also clear to me that the Legislature decided to implement these cameras and the drafters of the Minnesota Constitution didn't intend to prevent them (at least judging by the Court's absurd logic). Judges are not supposed to be making Law, and that's what it seems happened here. Sometimes people will agree with the end a Court gets to even though the means weren't particularly pretty, but NOT ME.
ML/NJ ML/NJ
“There’s no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Ayn Rand.
I was only trying to help others avoid the embarrassment of something like: “Hey mom, can we see the pictures of grandpa running a red light and picking his nose, again?”
It's my understanding that the “uniformity of enforcement” rule was broken because traffic light tickets were prosecuted differently when a citation was issued by a camera vs one issued by a policeman.
The first violates due process because you cannot confront the witness against you when the witness is a machine. At least the police officer SEES you commit the infraction. It's why they have to show up in court.
Just my 2 cents.
I'm wondering: Do you not think there should NOT be laws against driving through red lights? You profane Ayn Rand's memory when you so miss-use her words. "Speeding" laws would be an example she might have given herself, but certainly not laws prohibiting driving through a red light.
ML/NJ
Don’t sweat it, the big government types always show up on these red light camera threads.
It’s hard for people who don’t understand the tricks used by the operators of these cameras to generate revenue, once they find just how few true runners there really are - especially when the locals finally figure out where the cameras are.
As we well know, these cameras are simply a TOLLING SYSTEM the vast majority of the time.
Do you object to the Court finding that the "presumption of innocence" is violated by presuming that the owner of the vehicle was the driver?
Try reading it again before you have a stroke. The bigger issue cited by the court is the fact that the owner of the vehicle is presumed guilty by red light camera laws. The burden of guilt is placed upon an owner of the vehicle who may or may not have been present. That is deeply unconstitutional and unjust. When a police officer pulls someone over this is not an issue.
Probably not. I don't know enough about the case or the laws of Minnesota. I just read the use of the absurd logic about uniform application of the law and it set me off.
We do have lots of times where the law decides that the owner of a car is responsible for what the car does. Did the owner of the car deny under oath that he was driving the car? Did he not know or was he unwilling to say who was driving it at the time the violation occurred, or who the alternate drivers of the care might have been?
ML/NJ
Does the driver of the car, suspected of committing a crime, lose his right to remain silent?
It is the burden of the state to PROVE who was driving the car. Both the owner and the driver can plead the fifth amendment. When someone is pulled over, this “proof” is obtained by the officer at the scene. Anything else is hearsay and not admissable.
ML/NJ
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.