Posted on 03/22/2009 10:45:20 PM PDT by george76
St. Louis, MO- The city installed red light cameras at twenty intersections, and they've taken in nearly $2 million in fines since they were installed last summer.
Traffic Law Center where spokesperson Ann Horner says she see flashes from the camera on a daily basis.
Horner however says there are no consequences for not paying.
She says if you have outstanding parking tickets you cannot renew your plates or driver's license, but there's nothing in place like that if you get a red light ticket.
Horner says it's all unconstitutional because there's a presumption of innocence in this country, and the tickets go on the premise that you're guilty.
(Excerpt) Read more at kmov.com ...
I agree that the premise of the red-light camera is guilty. I am a computer programmer and know how easy it would be to program the camera to activate while the light is still yellow; also, the arrangement of the private companies getting a portion of the ticket monies is incentive for them to increase the number of ‘”violators” that they can catch.
It has been shown in studies that increasing yellow-light time decreases accidents, yet whenever these red-light cameras are installed, ‘mysteriously’ the yellow-light times decrease.
Right. And income taxes are also unconstitutional, so you can ignore the IRS, too. I haven’t filed in 3 years. What could possibly go wrong?
What’s this constitution some speak of?
They get around that by making it simply a civil fine. No points on your license, no criminal charges. It’s just a civil violation. A method of tax collection.
Everybody outta the intersection! Just slam on your brakes so you get rear-ended instead. :-/
(The love of money is the root of all evil.)
Arguments that these cameras are to improve safety are ridiculous as the number of violations always continues to increase. Wouldn’t a safety program be expected to reduce violations and thus improve safety? The local jurisdictions using these devices have no assurance that they are being used legally and that the maker isn’t increasing profits by triggering the camera while the light is still yellow.
Two reasons for these cameras:
1. Raise money
2. Go back to reason one.
Vince
Innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law; the video evidence is the proof. Unless you believe that the cameras have been jiggered to give false evidence, pay the darned fine. Don't make the public eat the cost of a court proceeding unless you are indeed innocent.
Now, having the cameras there in the first place, that's a different matter for discussion...
I believe it was GA that just passed a law requiring longer yellows where redlight cams were installed.
Localities’ revenues dropped to almost nothing, and they weren’t able to justify the lease price of the cameras.
Who is the accuser, though?
They’re probably not unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence is only pre-evidential. The traffic camera photo is the evidence — so, once it is presented, the presumption of innocence is no longer germane.
SnakeDoc
>> Who is the accuser, though?
The officer issuing the ticket based on the camera footage. It is no different than making an arrest based on security camera footage.
SnakeDoc
where i live, it's a $50 fine, no points since you cannot see who is driving. it's simply to make money.
Damn right they’re un-Constitutional! It’s called the 5th Amendment!
actually no it is significantly different.
In the instance of the camera footage there is a human accuser. (x took my stuff, x battered me) the footage is proof of the observation.
The redlight camera is a tool just like a radar gun or laser gun or breathyliser. If they are not calibrated and certified by a human who can raise their right hand for examiniation then they can not be used against the accused.
This is why they by pass due process rules and make them mere money generating tickets.
I can’t believe this even merits discussion. Do we all want to be Winston Smith or not?
>> In the instance of the camera footage there is a human accuser. (x took my stuff, x battered me) the footage is proof of the observation.
Sometimes, the camera is the only witness. It is completely legal to use such evidence, even in a victimless crime (where there is no victim to notice a battery or theft, for instance) — X used drugs on tape, X picked up a hooker, X trespassed on my property, etc.
>> If they are not calibrated and certified by a human who can raise their right hand for examiniation then they can not be used against the accused.
I suppose that’s true. But, they are calibrated and certified by an officer, and thus can be used against the accused.
>> This is why they by pass due process rules and make them mere money generating tickets.
I agree that this is more about revenue generation than public safety — and, personally, I’m tired of being nickled-and-dimed. But, that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
SnakeDoc
You don’t get a ticket for not getting trhough the intersect before a red light appears.
You get the ticket for ENTERING the intersection when the light turns RED.
Big difference.
I pass through them all day long. I like that it cuts down on the numerous people who run red lights.
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.