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 ...
Curious what others think of the legal argument. Is it valid or did the enforcement agency just pass on pubic relations nightmare Mr. Cox would have certainly rained down upon them?
Ping for later
..answering the cam photo ticket can sometimes be taken care of by knowing what day the cops are sched’ for appearance then requesting a different day to appear. Sometimes they just drop the issue
1. In some jurisdictions, the law authorizing the use of photo enforcement for speeding or red light violations specifically states that the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle regardless of who is driving. These violations involve only monetary fines and don't result in any points on the driver's license, so from a strictly legal standpoint it doesn't really matter to them who was driving.
2. By sending the response, the recipient of this summons has acknowledged that he received it. In a legal process where you want to keep all avenues open, this is probably one of the worst things you can do because it eliminates one potential line of defense (they mailed it to the wrong address, for example).
Check your Freep-mail in a few minutes.
I have paid two of those tickets in DC. As a result I avid DC like it has the plague.
If I go into the city it has to be an absolute necessity.
Way to go dude
If it's the police, you might be better off paying the ticket because it will cost you less than your time and efforts in the long run. If it's a private company, then fighting it through a legitimate legal process means it will cost THEM more time and money in the long run. The private company is in business to make money, so the last thing they want to do is pay one of their employees to show up in court. I suspect that's the real reason why many of these charges are dropped once the motorist who receives the summons indicates that they're going to fight it.
I quit driving. Part of going Galt for me was shutting down avenues the government has to harass me, as well as simplifying my life and becoming more self-reliant.
Go Amish
Indeed. Leave the grid.
They don't care about you, your ticket, or the costs to the city, they're on the clock regardless of what they do.
In those cases what happens when the vehicle is a rental car?
What do you think?
The rental car company knows who had the car rented that day and bills your credit card for the violation.
If you don’t drive, then how can you consider yourself “self reliant”?
The constitutionality of 1 has to be questioned. By their own admission, they are issuing the citation based on a vehicle, yet a vehicle cannot be held liable for a crime. Only a person can. And the person held liable must have some logical proximity to the commission of the crime; I might own the land where a murder is committed but that doesn’t make me liable for the murder.
Aside from its appeal as a revenue source, I can’t think these kinds of “owner pays” laws have any foundation to sustain them.
Due process? They don't need no stinkin' due process.
I walk a minimum of 5 miles a day.
Going on your own two feet never entered your mind, did it?
The Kansas City City Council things they are too smart, by half. They wrote the city’s red light camera ordnance so the violation is a “non-moving” violation, instead of a moving one. Their logic was that non-moving violations don’t come with any penalties so ticketed people would be more apt to pay the fine, rather than fight the fact that there was no evidence that they were actually driving the car.
It was all hunky dory until someone who opposed red light camera ordinances pointed out that how can one be speeding if one is not moving. Now they are twisting and turning trying to figure out how to re-start that revenue stream and have it get past court muster. It’s actually kind of funny to watch.
You are obviously speaking as one who has never driven in the district.
The speed limits there are one speed and the movement of traffic another. Drive the speed limit and they will run you down.
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.