Red Light Cameras

[BB73]

Originally Posted by United States Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

/thread

Sorry, that doesn't end the thread for me.

In Constitutional terms, how is a red light camera different from the footage from a bank security camera that is used as evidence in convicting a bank robber? There's no person physically operating either one of them.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Sorry, that doesn't end the thread for me.

In Constitutional terms, how is a red light camera different from the footage from a bank security camera that is used as evidence in convicting a bank robber? There's no person physically operating either one of them.

Evidence v. Accuser

I have no problem with the cameras as gatherers of evidence. None. If they want to use these pictures, fine by me... as long as they can establish the cameras were working on such and such a day, and that those pics are a true and accurate depiction of the scene, bla bla bla... have at it..

But.. if they don't bring in the camera guy (and, truly, who would it be? I'm pretty sure they don't monitor those things, or do daily checks, etc) and they don't have a cop saying "Well, I saw him run the light" then my response is "Fuck your little picture there. It's inadmissible evidence and I don't see anyone here competent to authenticate it and thus allow it's admission into evidence. HAve a nice day"

 

[Taosman]

Running a red light is the 6th most frequent cause of a serious accident.
Top 25 Causes of Car Accidents

We need more red light cameras in high accident areas.

 

[BB73]

Evidence v. Accuser

I have no problem with the cameras as gatherers of evidence. None. If they want to use these pictures, fine by me... as long as they can establish the cameras were working on such and such a day, and that those pics are a true and accurate depiction of the scene, bla bla bla... have at it..

But.. if they don't bring in the camera guy (and, truly, who would it be? I'm pretty sure they don't monitor those things, or do daily checks, etc) and they don't have a cop saying "Well, I saw him run the light" then my response is "Fuck your little picture there. It's inadmissible evidence and I don't see anyone here competent to authenticate it and thus allow it's admission into evidence. HAve a nice day"

So, a bank robber should have the camera evidence dismissed if somebody wasn't inspecting the camera daily?

And it's not a little picture, it's a video stream. I'm sure there are experts that could state that the video stream (the evidence), is unaltered.

But I'm also sure some high-priced lawyers could find some 'expert' who would be willing to testify, as a paid expert, to the contrary. Or at least try to raise reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the servers housing the video evidence.

[sarcasm] Because that's what makes America great, the ability of the rich to hire expensive lawyers so they can avoid criminal prosecution and personal responsibility. [/sarcasm]

And yeah, I know video can be tampered with. I saw Rising Sun.

edit - Here's an article about a woman who went to court. I agree that she shouldn't have to pay anything in order to get a court appearance.

DailyHerald

 

[BB73]

That's complete and total bullshit. If someone uses my knife to stab someone, I suppose I should be the one to retrieve the evidence. Give me a fucking break. They broke the law. My car did not. I did not. If they can't figure out who was driving, they shouldn't be able to issue a ticket.

So then eveybody could wear disguises while driving to avoid paying traffic fines. That would be good for fake-beard sales.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, a bank robber should have the camera evidence dismissed if somebody wasn't inspecting the camera daily?

And it's not a little picture, it's a video stream. I'm sure there are experts that could state that the video stream (the evidence), is unaltered.

But I'm also sure some high-priced lawyers could find some 'expert' who would be willing to testify, as a paid expert, to the contrary. Or at least try to raise reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the servers housing the video evidence.

[sarcasm] Because that's what makes America great, the ability of the rich to hire expensive lawyers so they can avoid criminal prosecution and personal responsibility. [/sarcasm]

And yeah, I know video can be tampered with. I saw Rising Sun.

edit - Here's an article about a woman who went to court. I agree that she shouldn't have to pay anything in order to get a court appearance.

DailyHerald

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of running red lights and my discussion herein should not be misunderstood as such. I am, however, in favor of the Sixth Amendment and I am in favor of our adversarial judicial system.

In your bank robber example - and as is true with red light cameras - without someone to testify as to what that image is, or images are, then there is no way to submit the evidence for consideration. That is to say, in our system of Justice, I don't walk in to a court room with a shit ton of evidence, give it to the judge (or jury) and off I go. Instead, if I have a picture, I ask someone who took the picture something like the following:

I'm handing you what's been marked Ex. A. Does that look familiar to you? Yes
What is it? It's a picture I took of the traffic light.
OK. Did you take this picture with your own camera? Yes
What kind of camera is it? It's a Nikon
OK. Now, you were there when you took this image, can you tell me if what is represented on that image is a accurate image of what you saw? Yes.
When did you take this picture..

and so on..

Then, I'd probably have them describe the picture - or the parts in it that I think are important, anyway. And then I'd move to have it admitted in to evidence (which usually happens at the close of evidence, not "on the spot")

So... it doesn't have to be an expert - and you dont have to end up with a battle of experts.

Now, when you're dealing with the government, the standard is a little tighter. That is to say - for example - the cops have to be able to establish that they calibrated their breathalizer. As a consequence, it is part of their routine - or it should be. Check in to work, get briefing, grab whatever you need for patrol, calibrate.. fill out log.. off ya go. (I'm sorta making this up - they may have a guy test it once a day, or whatever the 'standard' is.)

So, I'm not suggesting these cameras are making up stories, or that there needs to be some kind of big production made of this. But, I am suggesting that without anyone to testify, the images are worthless. In as much as these cameras sit out there in the weather, and no one is triggering them - then a little care needs to be taken to establish that they are gathering images correctly. This doesn't need to be an expert - it could be anyone who is 'in charge' of making sure these things are up to specification.

"Yes, the cameras are inspected every week. We test them for A, B and C. This camera passed inspection. The date and time stamp are correctly calibrated. The camera is located at intersection X and Y and it accurately portrays that intersection."

That's really all it takes.

As for the rich getting off because they can afford better attorneys... yeah, probably true. But, I'm doubtful people want to pay more taxes so as to make government attorneys salaries competitive with the "legal big boys" so as to recruit 'big boy' talent. Take the good with the bad, I guess.

So - again - I'm not really suspicious that the Gov. is "up to no good" trying to make a quick buck off of bullshit images. I think something on the order of 99% of the time these things are working precisely as they are supposed to - and they capture the commission of actual traffic offenses.

But - we have a Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. That has consequences. The images themselves cannot "Accuse" They are Evidence... but... without someone to testify.. this evidence is inadmissible. That's all.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It bears noting, since I've sorta been assuming this was a given -

The government "knows" that most people will get the ticket in the mail, see the picture of them going through the light and just pay the thing. They may or may not remember running the light... but, most people simply don't want to hassle with this sort of bullshit.

It bothers me that we allow the government to carve out these things from our "freedom" from that same government so easily. Though, I think any reasonable person has to admit that there is a certain efficiency coming along with technology used in this manner. None the less, and trying to stay away from a parade of horribles... giving in on these sorts of things, in my opinion, takes away Constitutional guarantees without a fight... without a vote... and that, in my opinion, is unamerican.

Edit: To be clear, what I mean is - because the Government "knows" this, they know the people won't put up a fight about it. As a consequence, you get an expansion of governmental authority or use of power. As I contemplate the larger "problems" I might have with government and modern politics, this is at the core of what frustrates me most about the citizenry (and something, I rightly or wrongly ascribe more to those with a conservative political view). We seem quite eager to allow the government to expand when it come to that same government's coercive power, but quite unwilling to expand that government when they are being a "pooled resource" for raising the lowest common denominator (ie providing health care). In my view, the Government should be shackled most where it exercises power, not where it exercises the provision of "benefits" for it's citizenry. Because I see right wingers take these views (ie in favor of red light cameras, but opposed to health care) more than lefties, that's why I ascribe the "blame" I mentioned in the above parens. But, this comment is more so people can understand where I come from on these issues, rather than an "accusation" of the right... even if my use of the English language has led one to the latter conclusion.

 

[Taosman]

 

[Taosman]

Your rights end when you endanger others.

 

[jwinslow]

I'm not sure it's worse than a system designed to let folks weasel out of responsibility because no one checked whether the camera system worked - when the chances of a system breakdown are microscopic, and inversely proportional to the chances that the charged party is not guilty.

 

[BB73]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of running red lights and my discussion herein should not be misunderstood as such. I am, however, in favor of the Sixth Amendment and I am in favor of our adversarial judicial system.

In your bank robber example - and as is true with red light cameras - without someone to testify as to what that image is, or images are, then there is no way to submit the evidence for consideration. That is to say, in our system of Justice, I don't walk in to a court room with a shit ton of evidence, give it to the judge (or jury) and off I go. Instead, if I have a picture, I ask someone who took the picture something like the following:

I'm handing you what's been marked Ex. A. Does that look familiar to you? Yes
What is it? It's a picture I took of the traffic light.
OK. Did you take this picture with your own camera? Yes
What kind of camera is it? It's a Nikon
OK. Now, you were there when you took this image, can you tell me if what is represented on that image is a accurate image of what you saw? Yes.
When did you take this picture..

and so on..

Then, I'd probably have them describe the picture - or the parts in it that I think are important, anyway. And then I'd move to have it admitted in to evidence (which usually happens at the close of evidence, not "on the spot")

So... it doesn't have to be an expert - and you dont have to end up with a battle of experts.

Now, when you're dealing with the government, the standard is a little tighter. That is to say - for example - the cops have to be able to establish that they calibrated their breathalizer. As a consequence, it is part of their routine - or it should be. Check in to work, get briefing, grab whatever you need for patrol, calibrate.. fill out log.. off ya go. (I'm sorta making this up - they may have a guy test it once a day, or whatever the 'standard' is.)

So, I'm not suggesting these cameras are making up stories, or that there needs to be some kind of big production made of this. But, I am suggesting that without anyone to testify, the images are worthless. In as much as these cameras sit out there in the weather, and no one is triggering them - then a little care needs to be taken to establish that they are gathering images correctly. This doesn't need to be an expert - it could be anyone who is 'in charge' of making sure these things are up to specification.

"Yes, the cameras are inspected every week. We test them for A, B and C. This camera passed inspection. The date and time stamp are correctly calibrated. The camera is located at intersection X and Y and it accurately portrays that intersection."

That's really all it takes.

As for the rich getting off because they can afford better attorneys... yeah, probably true. But, I'm doubtful people want to pay more taxes so as to make government attorneys salaries competitive with the "legal big boys" so as to recruit 'big boy' talent. Take the good with the bad, I guess.

So - again - I'm not really suspicious that the Gov. is "up to no good" trying to make a quick buck off of bullshit images. I think something on the order of 99% of the time these things are working precisely as they are supposed to - and they capture the commission of actual traffic offenses.

But - we have a Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. That has consequences. The images themselves cannot "Accuse" They are Evidence... but... without someone to testify.. this evidence is inadmissible. That's all.

I believe that most of the towns around here put in the right-turn-on-red cameras primarily to make money, not as a public safety issue. The one light where my wife got ticketed generated $1 million in about 3 months. Many of the other intersections in the area are worth around $50K per month. So they are trying to make a quick buck, but I don't think they're using bullshit images to do so. It's my understanding that somebody reviews the images before deciding whether or not to send the ticket.

Even so, I don't have a problem with it. And I don't have a problem with the adversarial justice sytem in concept; it's just that in practice it favors the wealthy far too much. But I don't think these camera-tickets erode the adversarial system of justice.

Procedures may vary slightly from town to town, but those receiving tickets have an option of going to court to fight the ticket (and the video evidence). I do have a problem with someone having to pay some money before getting the court appearance, as that one article mentioned. But if somebody wants to hire a lawyer to fight the ticket, that's their right. It usually won't help them, but if the lawyer is expensive enough ...

edit - I also think it's likely that the towns that are generating over 6 figures per month on a couple of these traffic lights are wise enough to have procedures established on camera maintenance, video evidence integrity, etc., in order to almost always stand up in court and keep their money train running.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm not sure it's worse than a system designed to let folks weasel out of responsibility because no one checked whether the camera system worked - when the chances of a system breakdown are microscopic, and inversely proportional to the chances that the charged party is not guilty.

You seem to simply understand the world as if people are trying to weasel. And, while I have to admit that people do indeed weasel, that misses the mark here because we're talking about the government's authority to act. That being so, the onus is on that Government to firmly establish that which it accuses you of having done.

In other words, when given the risk of weaseling as against the risk of my government being given coercive power, I will always fall on the side of weaseling. Our system was set up with the idea that governments could not be trusted. With that in mind, I find your willingness to let results drive the analysis to run contrary to that ideal.

Again, I'm certainly not saying people should run red lights without consequence, nor am I saying that those who do should weasel out of anything. I'm not ignorant of the reality that these cameras work and depict an event that actually occurred. I'm simply of the mind that we should not allow a shortcut to the Government when that Government is exercising its coercive authority. The whole idea of so allowing is contrary to the vary basis for our form of Government in the first place. Distrust the Government, not the citizenry. (and, as most people around here know, I'm not a particular champion of the citizenry or people in general, who I typically regard as an annoyance to me (at best), or calculating assholes (at worst.))

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I believe that most of the towns around here put in the right-turn-on-red cameras primarily to make money, not as a public safety issue. The one light where my wife got ticketed generated $1 million in about 3 months. Many of the other intersections in the area are worth around $50K per month. So they are trying to make a quick buck, but I don't think they're using bullshit images to do so. It's my understanding that somebody reviews the images before deciding whether or not to send the ticket.

Even so, I don't have a problem with it. And I don't have a problem with the adversarial justice sytem in concept; it's just that in practice it favors the wealthy far too much. But I don't think these camera-tickets erode the adversarial system of justice.

Procedures may vary slightly from town to town, but those receiving tickets have an option of going to court to fight the ticket (and the video evidence). I do have a problem with someone having to pay some money before getting the court appearance, as that one article mentioned. But if somebody wants to hire a lawyer to fight the ticket, that's their right. It usually won't help them, but if the lawyer is expensive enough ...

edit - I also think it's likely that the towns that are generating over 6 figures per month on a couple of these traffic lights are wise enough to have procedures established on camera maintenance, video evidence integrity, etc., in order to almost always stand up in court and keep their money train running.

Your edit is part of the larger systematic problem, really. Something I was saying the government "knows" I mean, seriously, are you going to hire a lawyer to get you out of a 30 dollar ticket (or whatever?) It's like I tell some people who want to sue for some incident that cost them maybe 20 bucks. "Yeah, you're right, and technically speaking you should win. But, to get that 20 bucks, it'll cost you 150 bucks."

So it is here - just pay the friggin thing, because defending it is too expensive.

That said, you can represent yourself and most people do - in traffic court. I'd be willing to wager that if the court is not a kangaroo court (and it probably is), you are unlikely to get convicted of running a red light. Because, frankly, it's too expensive for the Gov. to bring in those who'd need to testify to "prove" the event. Especially since no one was there to actually see it happen.

 

[BB73]

I wish it was $30 - it was $100.

As far as the knagaroo court - traffic court in Illinios has a history of being rather sad. People frequently got out of tickets because the arresting officer wasn't present on the court date.

But for these camera tickets, if the town is smart, they'll schedule everybody fighting those tickets on the same day every month, and have the video 'expert' testify in each of those cases, in order to prevent the word from getting around that the tickets can be beaten by just showing up in court.

Once again, I think that probably 99.9% of these people are guilty of the accusation, so I don't think the tendency to just pay the ticket rather than fighting it is any erosion of constitutional rights or due process. Folks can view their own video online (again, it's video, not still pictures) before deciding whether they want to fight the ticket or pay it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I wish it was $30 - it was $100.

As far as the knagaroo court - traffic court in Illinios has a history of being rather sad. People frequently got out of tickets because the arresting officer wasn't present on the court date.

But for these camera tickets, if the town is smart, they'll schedule everybody fighting those tickets on the same day every month, and have the video 'expert' testify in each of those cases, in order to prevent the word from getting around that the tickets can be beaten by just showing up in court.

Once again, I think that probably 99.9% of these people are guilty of the accusation, so I don't think the tendency to just pay the ticket rather than fighting it is any erosion of constitutional rights or due process. Folks can view their own video online (again, it's video, not still pictures) before deciding whether they want to fight the ticket or pay it.

I disagree with you re: whether or not it's an erosion. That said, this isn't - I don't think - the beginning of some sort of totalitarianism.... I get that. But, in my way of thinking about American Government and the law - allowing the government shortcuts is inappropriate (On a larger issue, for example, it was always my opinion (still is) that the problem with tapping phones is that all they have to do is get a fucking warrant, not the tapping of the phones per se. So it is here - if the Gov. truly wants to invest the resources in convicting people of these sorts of traffic offenses - so be it.. I just ask that it be done Constitutionally (and that bit about paying for a court date.... ridiculous..))