Posted on 09/05/2001 2:47:34 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKETS DISMISSED (09-04-2001) -
Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn ruled that the city's decision to contract with Lockheed Martin to run the program, combined with a contingency fee, made evidence gathered from the red light cameras "unreliable" and "untrustworthy."
Styn, in upholding his Aug. 15 tentative decision, ruled that the city failed to operate the red light system as outlined by the Legislature.
He also said the agreement for Lockheed Martin to get $70 for each $271 ticket paid made evidence obtained from the system inadmissable [sic] in court.
City officials will decide soon whether to appeal Styn's ruling, Deputy City Attorney Steven Hansen said.
Attorneys in the case said the judge's ruling affects only the 250 red light citations that were consolidated for trial.
A class action lawsuit filed Thursday by four groups of plaintiffs alleges Lockheed Martin was illegally allowed to run the red light program, and that the private company had an illegal financial incentive by taking the $70 for each ticket paid.
All 19 red light cameras in the city of San Diego have been turned off pending completion of an inspection of the entire system.
A hearing is scheduled Oct. 4 on a defense motion to disqualify the San Diego City Attorney's Office from prosecuting any pending or future red light cases.
What do you think of red-light cameras to enforce traffic laws? <-----Weigh in with your opinion here!
Thanks for the info. I still feel uncomfortable with having to provide an email address just to participate in a poll, but its their web site and if it works for them ...
Just my cranky opinion: They should really consider setting a cookie or recording an IP or something else instead of requiring an email address to indicate that a surfer has already voted.
Oh please. As if "freeping a poll" is not common practice around here.
Whether it's wierdo homo's or libertarian freepers, internet polls are always skewed. Hell, all polls are skewed.
Yeah, yeah. I know. Somehow, it just doesn't seem sick when FReepers Freep a poll versus the queers doing that? ;-)
July 30, 2001
By JOEY LEDFORD
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
Phoenix -- Doris Ramirez was quite upset when she opened her mailbox and found a citation accusing her of running a red light.
After studying the photo images of her car in the intesection, superimposed on the ticket from the Mesa Police Department, she remembered the day in question. She said one image also helped her remember that she had been delayed in the intersection by a red coupe in front of her that had slowed to turn into a gas station.
But a stone-faced Municipal Court judge wouldn't buy her story. "The court finds the state has met its burden of proof," said Judge Joy Kemp after a brief bench trial. "I'm finding you responsible."
Red light camera enforcement is a way of life in the aptly named Valley of the Sun. Five cities in the Phoenix area have used the high-tech enforcement for up to 14 years, and Phoenix itself is expecting its first red light cameras to be shooting offenders within weeks.
[article continues at linked page...]
In which case I think you meant to say with prejudice.
I ask myself that question every day while waiting at red protected left arrows with no oncoming traffic. Arrgghhh!!!
As you and I both know, cameras are prevalent in the valley because court challenges to their use have not been upheld. Contrary to what gobshite is claiming, they are legal, just as metal detectors in airports and court houses are legal, just as motion detectors at subway turnstiles are legal, and just as parking meters are legal. Over and over, courts have ruled that there is no expectation of individual privacy in public places not specifically designated as private. IOW, a closed bathroom stall, changing booth or phone booth will ordinarily imply a legal expectation of privacy. Only in such places and in one's home, vehicle, boat, private office, etc. is there a constitutional protection against surveillance without warrant. But on all other public property, government property or property belonging to another, there is no such freedom from scrutiny, technologically enhanced or not. If a near-sighted security guard may enhance legitimate surveillance with the technical aid of eye-glasses, why can't a city traffic bureau enhance its legitimate surveillance of traffic with the technical aid of speed sensors and cameras?
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.