The farce that is camera tickets

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/18093/

I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one. “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”

Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.” This surprised both of us. It also surprised the judge, who looked up from his desk for the first time. A police officer had just testified under oath that he perjured himself in service to a city government and a mysterious, far-away corporation whose officers probably earn many times his salary.

And despite this he hasn't managed to get his appeal bond back yet.

(In some places they go even further--to appeal requires a non-refundable payment at least as great at the ticket you are contesting.)

 

[Malintent]

Thank you for sharing... I am very against these cameras... one time, I received a picture of my car passing a red light along with a bill for $100. So, I took a picture of a 100 dollar bill and sent it in. They sent me back a photograph of a pair of handcuffs.

 

[Elixir]

Insidious shit:

traffic cameras do not always produce probable cause that a particular person has committed a crime. To get around this “problem” (as a certain law-and-order president-elect might call it), several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process.

In short, municipal officials and their private contractors have at their disposal the powers of both criminal and civil law and are excused from the due process duties of both criminal and civil law.

That is how a free society dies, by a thousand such cuts.

 

[ronburgundy]

Thank you for sharing... I am very against these cameras... one time, I received a picture of my car passing a red light along with a bill for $100. So, I took a picture of a 100 dollar bill and sent it in. They sent me back a photograph of a pair of handcuffs.

That was funny on both your parts.

 

[ronburgundy]

Interesting article.

I do generally oppose red-light cameras, but for the reason that their is evidence they do more to harm than help public safety. And I definitely oppose private contractors having anything to do whatsoever with enforcement or punishment related to civil or criminal law. It inherently leads to corruption of the law for profit interest and against public safety and civil rights.

I hadn't considered the more nuanced problem of how they get around lacking evidence that an specific person broke a law.

Could the state get around this without violating due process, if instead they summoned the car owner to testify about their knowledge of who was driving the car? They have evidence the car was driven by someone who broke the law and that they car was not reported stolen. Thus, there is sound reason to believe the registered owner has information relevant to who committed the crime and thus could be compelled to testify. The owner would either have to admit it was them, rat someone else out, or commit perjury.
The author still has a point that the fact the state is willing to toss out the constitution to make their life easier is symptomatic of a deeper problem.
,

 

[Elixir]

Could the state get around this without violating due process, if instead they summoned the car owner to testify about their knowledge of who was driving the car? They have evidence the car was driven by someone who broke the law and that they car was not reported stolen. Thus, there is sound reason to believe the registered owner has information relevant to who committed the crime and thus could be compelled to testify. The owner would either have to admit it was them, rat someone else out, or commit perjury.
The author still has a point that the fact the state is willing to toss out the constitution to make their life easier is symptomatic of a deeper problem.
,

I got one in Santa Fe while driving our Company car, and just paid it - a) because I was guilty, and b) because I thought that something like the above would occur if I were to contest it on the basis of lack of identification of the driver of the car in the photo,
Rest assured though, if someone else gets photo-ticketed while driving my car I will (time allowing) follow it through the way the article's author did. Even if one fails at such an effort, it is worth making complacent cogs in a degenerate machine think about their roles.

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW,

A related problem exists with the corruption of parking enforcement, due to private contracting.
My city sold all control over parking meters and enforcement to a private company. They write the tickets and the state collects the fines and passes the profits onto the corporation. I got a ticket at a very clearly broken meter. It was the type where a single pay machine is used for the whole block. So the entire block of cars got ticketed. They are supposed to not write tickets and give the courts a list of what meters were repaired when, so that any tickets issued around the time and prior to the repair can be automatically dismissed.

I took pics of the broken meter and emailed them immediately to myself so there would be a time stamp. I went back the next morning an they had fixed it, so they knew it was broke yet issued the tickets anyway. Adding criminal act to criminal act, the ticket writer deliberately put the wrong meter # on the tickets. They put the # for the working meter on the next block. That way, the repair of the meter wouldn't trigger a dismissal of those tickets because they were falsely tied to a working meter.

I took my pics to a hearing, along with the pdf from the company's website that lists the address of every meter # in the city. I pointed out that the address of listed on my ticket (which was correct and I had pics of that too) was the address for the broken meter # in my pic and that the meter # the ticket writer put down was for the meter a block away.
The judge dismissed it, but I bet the 10 other cars all just paid the fine and got screwed. Even if they took it to a hearing, they wouldn't have won without the kind of evidence I gathered.

BTW, since that contractor took over parking enforcement, meter fees have gone up 300%-600% depending on area, metered hours have been extended to earlier and later, Sundays and Holidays are no longer exempt, and the number of streets and blocks with meters vs. free parking have doubled. The corrupt mayor who made the terrible deal to sell our public streets to a private company is already out of office, but there appears no recourse to undo what he did. Besides prohibiting any contracting of law-related issues, there should be no way that politicians can commit the public to contracts that extend beyond that politicians term in office.

 

[J842P]

Interesting article.

I do generally oppose red-light cameras, but for the reason that their is evidence they do more to harm than help public safety. And I definitely oppose private contractors having anything to do whatsoever with enforcement or punishment related to civil or criminal law. It inherently leads to corruption of the law for profit interest and against public safety and civil rights.

I hadn't considered the more nuanced problem of how they get around lacking evidence that an specific person broke a law.

Could the state get around this without violating due process, if instead they summoned the car owner to testify about their knowledge of who was driving the car? They have evidence the car was driven by someone who broke the law and that they car was not reported stolen. Thus, there is sound reason to believe the registered owner has information relevant to who committed the crime and thus could be compelled to testify. The owner would either have to admit it was them, rat someone else out, or commit perjury.
The author still has a point that the fact the state is willing to toss out the constitution to make their life easier is symptomatic of a deeper problem.
,

Wouldn't 5th amendment protection allow you to refuse to testify?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting article.

I do generally oppose red-light cameras, but for the reason that their is evidence they do more to harm than help public safety. And I definitely oppose private contractors having anything to do whatsoever with enforcement or punishment related to civil or criminal law. It inherently leads to corruption of the law for profit interest and against public safety and civil rights.

That, and the reality is that traffic scofflaws aren't common enough to make any sort of traffic camera pay for itself unless there's something wrong with the situation. Thus cameras are a clear indication of wrong light timings or wrong speed limits or the like. (Or the perennial favorite of red light cameras--right turners.)

I hadn't considered the more nuanced problem of how they get around lacking evidence that an specific person broke a law.

Could the state get around this without violating due process, if instead they summoned the car owner to testify about their knowledge of who was driving the car? They have evidence the car was driven by someone who broke the law and that they car was not reported stolen. Thus, there is sound reason to believe the registered owner has information relevant to who committed the crime and thus could be compelled to testify. The owner would either have to admit it was them, rat someone else out, or commit perjury.
The author still has a point that the fact the state is willing to toss out the constitution to make their life easier is symptomatic of a deeper problem.
,

Some places (England?) do it that way--but what if multiple people have free access to the car? Even a photo might not be enough if two of those people are identical twins. (I'm thinking of the case of a parent/offspring.)

Other places make it strictly a civil liability attached to the car rather than the driver.

Wherever this guy is apparently didn't get the word that the Constitution matters. The state doesn't like letting the Constitution get in the way of extracting revenue. Traffic cameras and civil forfeiture at the two biggies but by no means all of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Rest assured though, if someone else gets photo-ticketed while driving my car I will (time allowing) follow it through the way the article's author did. Even if one fails at such an effort, it is worth making complacent cogs in a degenerate machine think about their roles.

What he did only worked because the locale made camera tickets a criminal offense rather than a civil offense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I took pics of the broken meter and emailed them immediately to myself so there would be a time stamp. I went back the next morning an they had fixed it, so they knew it was broke yet issued the tickets anyway. Adding criminal act to criminal act, the ticket writer deliberately put the wrong meter # on the tickets. They put the # for the working meter on the next block. That way, the repair of the meter wouldn't trigger a dismissal of those tickets because they were falsely tied to a working meter.

I took my pics to a hearing, along with the pdf from the company's website that lists the address of every meter # in the city. I pointed out that the address of listed on my ticket (which was correct and I had pics of that too) was the address for the broken meter # in my pic and that the meter # the ticket writer put down was for the meter a block away.
The judge dismissed it, but I bet the 10 other cars all just paid the fine and got screwed. Even if they took it to a hearing, they wouldn't have won without the kind of evidence I gathered.

Personally, I would like to see statutory damages for perjury under color of authority of perhaps $10k + costs. As it stands the company loses basically nothing from making up such lies.

BTW, since that contractor took over parking enforcement, meter fees have gone up 300%-600% depending on area, metered hours have been extended to earlier and later, Sundays and Holidays are no longer exempt, and the number of streets and blocks with meters vs. free parking have doubled. The corrupt mayor who made the terrible deal to sell our public streets to a private company is already out of office, but there appears no recourse to undo what he did. Besides prohibiting any contracting of law-related issues, there should be no way that politicians can commit the public to contracts that extend beyond that politicians term in office.

Surprise: Zero. Any time a revenue-producing asset is outsourced expect to be ripped off. It's never a good deal for anyone but the politicians who get money now and the scumbags that buy the asset.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting article.

I do generally oppose red-light cameras, but for the reason that their is evidence they do more to harm than help public safety. And I definitely oppose private contractors having anything to do whatsoever with enforcement or punishment related to civil or criminal law. It inherently leads to corruption of the law for profit interest and against public safety and civil rights.

I hadn't considered the more nuanced problem of how they get around lacking evidence that an specific person broke a law.

Could the state get around this without violating due process, if instead they summoned the car owner to testify about their knowledge of who was driving the car? They have evidence the car was driven by someone who broke the law and that they car was not reported stolen. Thus, there is sound reason to believe the registered owner has information relevant to who committed the crime and thus could be compelled to testify. The owner would either have to admit it was them, rat someone else out, or commit perjury.
The author still has a point that the fact the state is willing to toss out the constitution to make their life easier is symptomatic of a deeper problem.
,

Wouldn't 5th amendment protection allow you to refuse to testify?

Hmmm...

Normally I would say no because the protection is against self incrimination, not against testifying against someone else. However, you're not required to testify against your spouse, either. If you recognize it's your spouse, hmmm.....

 

[barbos]

Why not to vote on proposition banning ticket cameras? or better constitution amendment.

 

[DBT]

Insidious shit:

That is how a free society dies, by a thousand such cuts.

We are already well down that road.

 

[ronburgundy]

Interesting article.

I do generally oppose red-light cameras, but for the reason that their is evidence they do more to harm than help public safety. And I definitely oppose private contractors having anything to do whatsoever with enforcement or punishment related to civil or criminal law. It inherently leads to corruption of the law for profit interest and against public safety and civil rights.

I hadn't considered the more nuanced problem of how they get around lacking evidence that an specific person broke a law.

Could the state get around this without violating due process, if instead they summoned the car owner to testify about their knowledge of who was driving the car? They have evidence the car was driven by someone who broke the law and that they car was not reported stolen. Thus, there is sound reason to believe the registered owner has information relevant to who committed the crime and thus could be compelled to testify. The owner would either have to admit it was them, rat someone else out, or commit perjury.
The author still has a point that the fact the state is willing to toss out the constitution to make their life easier is symptomatic of a deeper problem.
,

Wouldn't 5th amendment protection allow you to refuse to testify?

If the ticket is treated as a civil issue (which I think it could be), then the jury can use refusal to testify to draw inferences of your guilt. I think jury requirements to ignore such refusals only apply to criminal cases.

Also, I suspect the state could compel your acquaintances to give testimony, and who is going to put people through that to avoid paying a fine?

 

[ronburgundy]

Why not to vote on proposition banning ticket cameras? or better constitution amendment.

I don't understand this sort of comment. Everything said in this political forum and every conversation about politics can be something one could potentially vote on. How does pointing that out have any bearing on engaging in discourse about it and trying to spread awareness of perceived political injustices and threats to basic principles?

Also, the OP is referring to actions by the state in their use of cameras that already violates the existing constitution. So, voting would do nothing to solve that problem. Using the courts to prosecute these criminal politicians, officers, and others is the solution to that problem. Also, stopping them from violating the law in their prosecution of accused speeders is only dealing with a symptom of the larger problem that needs exposure, which is the alarming willingness of many elected officials and other state actors to willfully engage in criminal actions under the guise of law enforcement, in order to extort money from citizens.

Why don't you ask people concerned by murders of unarmed citizens by the cops to just "vote to make murder by cops illegal?"

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I am so glad our state requires the operator of a motor vehicle to get a ticket rather than the owner. Once the courts decided that case, the photocops were abandoned.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Wouldn't 5th amendment protection allow you to refuse to testify?

If the ticket is treated as a civil issue (which I think it could be), then the jury can use refusal to testify to draw inferences of your guilt. I think jury requirements to ignore such refusals only apply to criminal cases.

No, it isn't supposed to be treated as a civil procedure. This is the precise issue that the lawyer in the article in the OP is railing against. Running a red light or speeding is a criminal misdemeanor (usually summarily judged, so you won't normally get a trial by jury).

But in these photo cases, the city or state brings a civil suit instead of criminal charges to lower the burden of proof and standard of evidence required to impose a fine.

aa

 

[James Brown]

Surprise: Zero. Any time a revenue-producing asset is outsourced expect to be ripped off. It's never a good deal for anyone but the politicians who get money now and the scumbags that buy the asset.

And yet the privitization of the service is always touted as a money-saving measure.

"You know that thing that the government has been doing for X million dollars? How 'bout we let Suckahs, Inc. do it for X million dollars plus whatever profit margin they deem appropriate? They swear they'll eliminate inefficient waste! What possible motivation would they have to lie about that?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the ticket is treated as a civil issue (which I think it could be), then the jury can use refusal to testify to draw inferences of your guilt. I think jury requirements to ignore such refusals only apply to criminal cases.

No, it isn't supposed to be treated as a civil procedure. This is the precise issue that the lawyer in the article in the OP is railing against. Running a red light or speeding is a criminal misdemeanor (usually summarily judged, so you won't normally get a trial by jury).

But in these photo cases, the city or state brings a civil suit instead of criminal charges to lower the burden of proof and standard of evidence required to impose a fine.

aa

Actually, the guy in question is a law school professor. Whether he's a lawyer does not appear to be stated anywhere.

 

[ronburgundy]

If the ticket is treated as a civil issue (which I think it could be), then the jury can use refusal to testify to draw inferences of your guilt. I think jury requirements to ignore such refusals only apply to criminal cases.

No, it isn't supposed to be treated as a civil procedure. This is the precise issue that the lawyer in the article in the OP is railing against. Running a red light or speeding is a criminal misdemeanor (usually summarily judged, so you won't normally get a trial by jury).

But in these photo cases, the city or state brings a civil suit instead of criminal charges to lower the burden of proof and standard of evidence required to impose a fine.

aa

It isn't clear the author is arguing that it "must" be brought as a criminal charge, only the it must be one or the other and not a mixture of both where they don't adhere to the constitutional due process of either.
Looking around, I see plenty of discussions of traffic violations as a civil mater, both by government websites and by defense lawyer websites. This is consistent with the notion of criminal offenses as potentially including jail time and being a violation of a prohibited act, while civil infraction involve only fines and are a failure to abide by regulations that require you to follow particular procedures.
Running a light could be viewed as engaging in a prohibited act (criminal) or a failure to follow required procedures (not stopping at a red light). So, there seems to be ambiguity there that would allow states (as many already seem to) to treat red light violations as civil infractions and thus allow them to suggest to juries that your pleading the 5th can only reasonably imply guilt.