Posted on 12/13/2013 3:47:56 AM PST by IamConservative
Last year I received a letter in the mail from the Washington D.C DMV claiming I was speeding. As you can see it was one of those Photo-Enforced Speeding Tickets and they had multiple pictures of my CAR. I knew better to just submit and pay a fine like the majority of people do in this country, unfortunately. I am in the habit of not taking “plea deals”, and I am always in the habit of fighting my tickets and NOT pre-paying them so I don’t have to go to court – like many folks do. I just about always record my interactions with the police, whether it’s a traffic stop or not, that way it keeps the entire situation objective, transparent and I can hold the public servant accountable if he/ she violates my rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at minds.com ...
Try that with parking tickets. Car owner pays every time.
Really? When you are driving your dad's car and you leave a toll booth without paying, who do you think pays or ends up in court?
Hint: not you. The precedent is already established although the issue of non human I ID is somewhat gray
Spot on..especially in smaller municipalities, it’s the private company that installs, maintains, and runs the system, and they may get as much as 50%, or more, of each fine. It all depends upon the deal they’ve worked out with the local government.
Missouri Supreme Court strikes down the red light camera program run by city of Springfield.
The supreme court of Missouri sent photo enforcement companies scrambling on Monday after it declared the red light camera administrative hearing process in the city of Springfield to be void. The high court moved with unusual speed, handing down a strongly worded, unanimous decision about one month after hearing oral arguments in the case.
“This is a $100 case,” Judge Michael A. Wolff wrote for the court. “But sometimes, it’s not the money — it’s the principle.”
At first glance, the court’s decision appeared to be limited to a technical legal issue regarding Springfield’s authority to adjudicate a photo ticket against motorist Adolph Belt in an administrative hearing. The court indicated that this was plainly not permitted under state law. Section 479.010 of the Missouri Code requires ordinance violations of this type to be heard in a circuit or municipal court. Springfield had argued that its administrative hearing officer was the first and last word on all judgments, with no appellate courts — not even the supreme court itself — having any jurisdiction over the matter.
A closer look at the ruling shows that the high court judges expressed a dim view toward the legal arguments often cited by municipalities to justify their red light cameras programs. For example, the court made it clear that no city had any authority to treat red light violations in the same manner as a parking ticket.
“The administrative system at issue here is created for a violation of a red light ordinance, which typically is considered a moving violation,” Wolff wrote.
That means no city in Missouri, including Kansas City and St. Louis, has the authority to issue civil violations that carry no points. A footnote explained further that charter cities have no power to act in areas limited by state law. Both premises are key rebuttals to the argument that municipalities in the state have the authority to create red light camera programs without the sanction of state law. The high court also called into question Springfield’s use of short yellows.
“Undeniably a traffic expert, Belt timed the yellow caution light at the intersection and found that it was rather quick,” Wolff wrote. “He also concluded that the stoplight and the cameras needed to be synchronized.”
Another footnote cited three articles by TheNewspaper that Belt had brought to the court’s attention.
“Another article he found stated that a study in Texas had found that adding an additional second to yellow lights corresponded to a 40-percent reduction in crashes [view study],” Wolff wrote. “Even so, the city of Springfield had chosen to reduce its yellow-light timing at more than 100 intersections prior to starting red light camera ticketing [view article].”
State supreme courts are now evenly split on the issue of photo enforcement. Missouri’s supreme court joined the Minnesota high court which struck down red light cameras as illegal in 2007, explaining that cities may not water down the due process protections of motorists simply for the ease of issuing tickets (view ruling). On the other hand, the Ohio Supreme Court (read opinion) and Iowa Supreme Court (read opinion) declared camera use consistent with state laws.
The Missouri Supreme Court judges voided Belt’s citation without remanding proceedings to a lower court. A copy of the decision is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Missouri v. Belt (Supreme Court of Missouri, 3/2/2010)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3067.asp
The owner of the vehicle would have to be demonstrably responsible for the vehicle’s illegal “status.” That this absurdity has passed muster for decades does not mean it’s right or even legally supportable.
The bottom line is that municipalities have to control parking, so they need a coercive tool to do it. They could tow the offending vehicles in every case, but that would be expensive and disruptive. So they’ve taken the easy — and legally ambiguous — way out.
I can’t remember the legal term, but it is called “Stage of Evidence” or something like that and it was set as precedent by a Supreme Court Ruling. I have all the info on my laptop at home but, not with me today. It states that anyone involved in any type of lab work can be required by the defendant to appear in court so the defendant can face his/her accusers. That includes the people who installed the Photo-Enforced Speeding Light, the person in the lab who processed it, the person who took blood to test for BAC, the person in the lab who determined the amount of BAC in the defendant......etc., etc., et. You have the right to face your accusers (plural), even the lab techs. If they don’t appear, case must be thrown out. Check it out.
Let them try. I won't be forced to violate the law because someone else can't leave on time. Bumper bullies suck.
I want to go Amish too.....I’m still working on having enough cash to avoid all credit cards and debit cards....that is a big chunk of the gummits grips on us.....knowing everything we buy or rent....
I beat a DC red light camera. I admitted running the red but it was because of their sign placement. My lane indicated that my destination was ahead, but as I approached the light, I saw another large sign behind the first indicating my lane was going to turn left to another road. As I changed lanes quickly, the pickup in front of me slowed down and caused me to slow enough to blow the red and trigger the camera.
It took about a year for them to adjudicate it in my favor. Never pay. Always fight them.
I’m sure every rental car agreement includes a provision whereby the customer is charged after the fact for any violations or other expenses that aren’t known at the time the car is returned. This became standard practice when electronic tolling became common and people would drive rental cars through the toll booths without paying and without having the electronic tag.
A person who is charged with a motor vehicle offense, for example, has no right to demand a jury trial.
.
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.