NM Ping
If you want on or off the NM Ping list, please FReepmail me.
Access to the ping list is available to anyone by going to my FR home page.
Posted on 05/12/2009 10:17:16 AM PDT by george76
Farmington attorney who opposes red-light cameras in Farmington is fighting two tickets he received after his cars were caught on camera zipping through Albuquerque intersections.
He contends Albuquerque’s ordinance violates state law and the federal constitution.
He says he wasn’t driving but purposely hasn’t asked family members who was.
(Excerpt) Read more at kob.com ...
The idea of an “infraction” is itself unconstitutional.
Nowhere in the USC does it say that any crime, no matter how small, is subject to less proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Infractions use the civil quantum of proof — “more likely than not.”
And cameras at red lights where you can’t see the driver don’t even meet that.
This is a slow, but surging, swell of people fighting and winnin these camera tickets.
Go Titus!
I’ve heard some people out West like to use the traffic cams for long-distance varmint-shooting target practice!
so how is this any different than parking tickets?
the gubermint doesn’t have to prove who did the parking for the ticket to be valid...
just wondering.
yes, I know one is a moving violation that affects insurance rates, but get enough parking tickets and they can impound your car on a traffic stop.
NM Ping
If you want on or off the NM Ping list, please FReepmail me.
Access to the ping list is available to anyone by going to my FR home page.
I can’t stand these cameras, they are a money making racket. From what I understand, when a city is to install traffic lights, they monitor the area for traffic, speeds, and they have to take into account for braking and stopping distance. I have heard that the companies that sell and install these red light cameras DO NOT take any of these items into account and they at many times malfunction. The red light camera is NOT an official representative of the city and cannot appear in court, so should be thrown out. IMHO.
Governments cause extra rear end accidents thru short yellow lights.
Regular yellow lights do not bring in as much revenue.
I think that red-light cameras are fine. They are much more objective and impartial than any other sort of witness.
This shylock thinks that he can argue his way out of anything. Boy, do I hate that sort of lawyer!
Fact is, he owns the car, and is therefore responsible for its use, even if someone else (presumably a family member) was driving. You can’t hide responsibility by shoving your belongings into someone else’s hands. That is like some swindlers I know who keep all their swag in the name of a wife or girlfriend, so that no court judgments against them are enforceable.
Cars kill many more people than guns. If I lend out my guns, or let people borrow them, I certainly am partly responsible if someone uses one in a crime. And cars (unlike arms) have no special protection under the Constitution.
I say, fine this hot-shot lawyer, and throw him in the clink if he doesn’t pay. Take his car and auction it (if the court can think of a reason.) Revoke his license.
I tried to get a vanity plate with F***REDLIGHTCAMERAS but they wouldn’t let me. The woman behind the counter said it had too many letters.
Red-light cameras dealt blow: Isett, other lawmakers fear for civil liberties
As House members added amendments to Isett's bill that would restructure the troubled Texas Department of Transportation, Elkins and Ortiz filed an amendment that would gradually phase out red-light cameras in Texas. The measure passed overwhelmingly.
Isett has long opposed the use of the cameras at busy intersections - including at five in Amarillo - on grounds that they are money-making operations for local governments (the average fine is $75) and unconstitutional because the program doesn't allow motorists to fight charges that they ran a red light.
Companies who make, install, and manage these cameras for large fees and commissions are doing nicely.
I say impose these penalties on YOU. After all, I am just following your logic... He did NOT commit the offense, and yet you want to steal his car, revoke his license, and take his money or his freedom. You didn't commit the offense either, but that doesn't matter in your universe.
By your logic, Hertz would be responsible for any infractions committed by their customers.
The (British) company that manages the red-light camera system in a neighboring county just suspended billing the county while it comes up with options to increase revenue.
A state law went into effect at the beginning of the year making all intersections with red-light cameras comply with state traffic engineering standards for yellow light duration, and, since then, the red light cameras have not produced enough violations even to pay for the their continued operation.
Your lack of logic and common sense makes me hope that if I am ever tried for anything, you are not on my jury.
Running a red light is a moving violation in the universe of the normal. Explain why simply owning the car makes reality go away.
If your car gets stolen and the thief runs a red light, since you still legally own the car, should you meekly pay the fine and the insurance consequences?
>>so how is this any different than parking tickets?
The car’s existence in the illegal parking place is the violation irrespective of how it got there.
The “car” doesn’t create a moving violation -— a person does. Therefore The State needs to prosecute the person who committed the violation.
>>tried to get a vanity plate with F***REDLIGHTCAMERAS but they wouldn’t let me. The woman behind the counter said it had too many letters.
Bumper sticker?
Well then why don’t you let the gubmint just put up a camera anywhere they think there might possibly be some sort of violation. Germany is already playing with speed cameras. What about cameras on the streets to see if we let the water run too long or if our kids don’t wear their little bicycle helmets from the side of the property around to the garage, or maybe they can check to see if I buckle my seatbelt before I leave the driveway. Perhaps you’d like one pointed at your front door, or maybe a bedroom window, or perhaps just at your driveway to make sure you follow all of the traffic laws all of the time.
These things are an abomination to constitutional legal standards and they are about nothing more than revenue. More than once they have been taken down when the ‘people’ in communities got wind of the details of the sales pitches the companies use and the deals the cities cut with the operators.
i find your lack of logic, reasoning and ability to think clearly disturbing. the clueless shouldn’t speak.
The probability he owns the car is pretty good but the probability of someone who hates him using a like car with a fake license plate with his license plate number running the red light on purpose is also possible.
they are nothing but entrapment. they are for revenue only, so they shorten the yellow light which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to get thru the intersection before it turns red.
Within the last month, several of the red-light and speeding cameras were malfunctioning and taking pictures of everyone going through the intersection.
I know folks who have done their own math and confirmed that in the time between the camera pics (they take two), there is no way they have traveled the distance required for the speeding ticket based on the location of vehicle in the two pictures (the vehicle is only x feet across the intersection, however the feet traveled at the speed stated would put the vehicle much farther through the intersection than the photos show).
These cameras are only impartial when they work and are properly programmed and maintained.
He and whoever holds any loan on it.
Maybe he and his wife, depending on what local laws concerning multiple ownership.
so using the one of the oft-used red light cam arguements, if someone 'stole my car', I'd still be liable for the parking ticket? BTW, I think it's generally true these cams are just attempts for revenue. Aren't there options listed on the back of a camera ticket, just as there are for parking tickets? (IE: come to court,pay the fine,request a hearing,etc) I'm asking to understand, not argue in favor of cameras.
From Texas
I received a ticket about 6 weeks ago in the mail. I’m staring out of my office window at the intersection. The first thing I did after reading it was the math. Said my speed was 10 m.p.h. turning right on red w/o a stop. 10 mph would be 18 feet, which is just what the two photos timed 2.1 sec apart show. I’m guilty, so I paid the friggin thing.
I have a friend who has received two notices. He read and copied an article from the Austin American Socialist (I mean Statesman) that mentioned that the seller of the red light cameras in Hutto (worst speed trap on the planet) was not licensed in the State of Texas. He sent a copy of the article to the ticketing agency and has not heard anything back.
I also know the chief of police, and was told that the cameras issue 2000 tickets a month. This in a town with 2 cameras only!!! He said that a highschool aged girl got 17 in one month, and had a few more in the queue not yet sent to her.
Simple thing: I broke the law. I was PISSED, but I paid the fine. I also notice at least 3 incidences per day of a vehicle slamming on their brakes to stop in time for the light. My ticket showed a 5.1 second yellow light (which I thought was pretty short). Just my .005 cents (Obama took the other .015)
>>so using the one of the oft-used red light cam arguements, if someone ‘stole my car’, I’d still be liable for the parking ticket? <<
You would have to prove that it was stolen. But the presumption is that it was placed there by you or someone you loaned it to. The better analogy would be that you loaned the car to someone. Even if they got the parking ticket, you have to pay (then you have to sue your friend to recoup).
That is quite different than loaning your car to someone who gets a moving violation. The violation is the act and it is on the driver, not the car.
>>BTW, I think it’s generally true these cams are just attempts for revenue. Aren’t there options listed on the back of a camera ticket, just as there are for parking tickets? (IE: come to court,pay the fine,request a hearing,etc) I’m asking to understand, not argue in favor of cameras.<<
Yes, but you can’t cross-examine a camera on who it saw who did the illegal act. If you can’t make out the person’s face, the State can’t establish its prima facie case. But that is not how courts have been ruling, until recently.
>>Possible Solution?
I am 90% sure that is illegal.
I'm 100% certain it is. However, they'd have a heck of a time trying to figure out who you were. Nothing like a little civil disobedience.
The perpetrator was NOT cited
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.