Posted on 10/24/2009 12:54:19 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. -- Cameras don't lie, so how do you argue with a picture that shows you breaking the law? A Clarksville attorney is going to try.
A Redflex camera caught Mark Burton running a red light, and for the first time in middle Tennessee, the issue is being taken to court.
At around 5:30 a.m., Burton ran a red light and a Redflex camera caught him the act. Still, Burton's attorney Greg D. Smith said there's no way his client should receive a ticket. "If you're on the road in the middle of the night, and you're not hurting anybody, you shouldn't have to worry about a hidden camera taking your picture," said Smith.
For the first time in middle Tennessee, Smith and his client are taking the issue to court. Smith argues the Redflex cameras are unconstitutional. "Under the confrontation clause, you should be able to address who's accusing you, in this case its a camera, and ask, 'Why are you giving me this ticket?' You can't ask questions to a piece of metal," said Smith.
Smith also said the cameras violate Tennessee's open courts law because every time you get a ticket you owe $50. But if you choose to take it to court, you have to shell out an extra $86.
"The system suddenly becomes a barter system of economically, 'Is it cheaper for me to just forget about it or to take my chances in court?'" said Smith.
Then there's the due process clause of innocent until proven guilty. Smith said when it comes to Redflex red-light cameras, that's simply not the case. "If the camera says you're guilty, suddenly the burden is shifted to proving you're not," said Smith.
Bottom line, Smith thinks the cameras are a violation of privacy. He hopes to take the case all the way to the Supreme court.
Will he win?
Redflex reps believe his chances are slim. In a statement Redflex said, “the cameras are constitutional as ruled by numerous courts." The city's attorney said the city of Clarksville stands by the cameras.
If its a short yellow and you are already past the second white line, then you proceed through the intersection .But you still anticipate the light.”Fortune Favors the Prepared Mind”.
Yes, and that is the aspect that the lawyer ought to be fighting. That has, apparently, been the way things are in Tennessee for a while.
Here too. There is no recourse in court.
I’m glad you are in the group that doesn’t get in accidents or receive camera tickets because you are prepared for the light to change. Other drivers are not as prepared as you would like for them to be. The will have accidents that could have been avoided with longer yellows or, better yet, by getting rid of the cameras.
That money does not go into things like road repair. It goes directly into the general fund where its wasted.
So, if it's the "middle of the night", you can break the law. I go to work very early on Mondays and I must say, a lot of people on the road have that same attitude. They don't stop at stop signs and some just breeze through red lights.
If you don't want a ticket, don't break the law.
I sincerely believe that these cameras should be outlawed for a very simple reason.
That is, they record the license plate of the vehicle and issue the ticket to it’s registered owner.
What if the registered owner was not the driver? Seems like wrongful persecution doesn’t it? Violation of civil rights?
Not to mention you have a right to confront your accuser. You can question the cop who writes you a ticket, but how do you confront and question a camera?
The cameras must be outlawed. If the intersection is a problem then put police there. End of story.
Still, it causes you to post twice using up valuable pixels.
You have been busted. Pay up for using more than your government pixel footprint. lol
They killed off that Golden Goose in our state.
State law said all the fine money from traffic tickets had to go to the schools. The school systems sued for “ALL” the money generated from the photo cameras.
Since the police departments paid a private company to run the cameras they would be losing money - so they all stopped and now the schools get nothing.
You correctly said.......I sincerely believe that these cameras should be outlawed for a very simple reason.
That is, they record the license plate of the vehicle and issue the ticket to it’s registered owner.
What if the registered owner was not the driver? Seems like wrongful persecution doesn’t it? Violation of civil rights?
..............................................
This is the point that most people don’t understand. I own numerous vehicles but none are technically in my name. They are in the wifes name simply because she is the one that goes to the DMV to register them or they are in the company name.
So. is she responsible for the drivers of every vehicle we own?
She will be the one receiving the tickets. Is she supposed to track down who was driving the vehicle at the time and become a step-cop???????????
The redlight/speeding cameras have nothing to do with enforcing the law. They are simply a revenue producing tool for the government. Or BIG BROTHER, if you will.
If someone can tell me why this is legal, I’d like to hear it.
I think around here tailgating is considered a sport of some kind.
The real funny ones are the guy that zips over from the far left lane to the far right lane to get around a couple of cars - about 3 feet from their bumpers and when he pops into the right lane nails somebody turning into a driveway.
And then there is...........
Personally, I support blowing them off their mounts with a shotgun.
They are not there for safety purposes. They are nothing but a revenue producing scam, no different than excessively low speed limits on highways that run through rural towns.
I am firmly opposed to criminalizing behavior for the sole consideration of how much money it will make the municipality.
Luckily these cameras are illegal in central florida ,, they cannot issue a traffic citation ,, rather they issue a civil infraction and cannot harm you by making it impossible to renew your tags or any similar scheme ... they can only send it to collections if you refuse to pay...
Same here ,, pay for the court costs and (automatically) lose because BECAUSE IT"S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
That's fine in theory, Newbie.
Except its been found, reported, and posted here on FR numerous times that these Companies or Towns decrease the time the Yellow Light is on. So an intersection that once had a Five Second Yellow, now has a Three Second Yellow with the Camera. And wallah -- you're now caught going through or in the intersection on a Red Light, when the day before you'd make it through the intersection before the Red Light went on.
Being a Newbie you obviously missed all those threads.
[Newbies. Can't live with 'em, can't zot 'em.]
We have had there here in Missouri for few years and I have noticed that people are running red lights less. I have to deal with several a day, and have never seen a rear end collision, not that it doesn’t happen.
There have been challenges here and they have all been struck down. They violations are all treated as civil infractions with just a fine levied.
Now if it’s found out that traffic engineers are lowering the times to help generate revenue, I say sue that city until it bleeds.
You will never get a ticket for not trying to beat a yellow.
If they play their game by cheating with three second yellow lights, I don't feel bad to cheat back.
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.