BB73;1682560; said:
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.