The farce that is camera tickets

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

OK, but what about the notion that criminal offenses are always brought by society against an individual and civil suits are brought by one private party against another? And what should the burden of proof and standard of evidence be for the state or city to bring a suit against one of its citizens? The type of punishment levied in each case is less relevant (to me) than the state levying fines against the populace with the 'more likeley than not' burden of proof.

I agree that the 5th amendment is of no value in neither civil cases nor misdemeanor summary judgments. In any criminal procedure, no judge is going to ask the defendant outright if they broke the law. That's part of the reason why the standard of evidence needs to be higher.

aa

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That's how I read it, also--his problem is with the bastardization of criminal and civil systems producing garbage like what he encountered in the courtroom.

Criminal: Prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was the driver before you convict him.

Civil: Charge the car, not the driver, no points on the license.

 

[fast]

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.

He was joking. I'm gonna keep telling myself that.