Court of Appeals upholds Oregon's photo radar law

The Oregonian ^ | 11/21/02 | ASHBEL S. GREEN

[Orangedog]

Court of Appeals upholds Oregon's photo radar law 11/21/02ASHBEL S. GREEN The Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected a constitutional challenge to the state's photo radar law. Christine Dahl, who received a photo radar citation in the mail from the Portland Police Bureau in March 2000, argued that the law required her to demonstrate she was not driving, in effect forcing her to prove her innocence. Such a requirement would be unconstitutional in a criminal case, but the Court of Appeals said it was allowable under the photo radar law because traffic tickets do not result in incarceration. Jeff Dahl, the husband and attorney of the accused speeder, said he was disappointed the Court of Appeals did not see it his way but had not decided whether to appeal. Cmdr. Mike Garvey, head of the Portland traffic unit, praised the decision because it means more enforcement by fewer police officers. "It's great news for the city because it enables us to go out and efficiently addresses problem areas with new technology," Garvey said. "And yet not increase our personnel costs." Portland and Beaverton have been using photo radar since 1996. Under the program, a radar machine clocks the speed of vehicles at certain locations. When a vehicle registers a certain amount over the speed limit, a camera takes a picture that includes the driver and the license plate. Later, police look up the registered owner of the car and mail a ticket. Under the law, the registered owner is presumed to be the driver unless he or she can prove otherwise. Jeff Dahl says that unconstitutionally forced his wife to try to prove her innocence. The case hinged on whether traffic citations are more like civil proceedings, where money is typically on the line, or criminal trials, where a defendant faces possible incarceration. In a civil proceeding, it is permissible to require defendants to prove certain things. In a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor is constitutionally required to prove the case. Dahl argued that even though there is no jail time for a traffic ticket, it leads to higher insurance premiums and increasing penalties for repeat offenses. But Judge David Brewer, writing for the three-judge panel, said that still doesn't add up to criminal punishment. While Dahl mulls an appeal, Garvey said both the photo radar system and its cousin, photo red light, are making Portland safer. "We've seen a dramatic reduction in traffic crashes at those locations," he said Ashbel "Tony" Green: 503-221-8202; tonygreen@news.oregonian.com Copyright 2002 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved.

[Orangedog]

Dahl argued that even though there is no jail time for a traffic ticket, it leads to higher insurance premiums and increasing penalties for repeat offenses. But Judge David Brewer, writing for the three-judge panel, said that still doesn't add up to criminal punishment.

I'll bet if someone doesn't pay the fine, that WILL face incarceration.

Am I the only one that believes the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments just don't seem to apply anymore?

[stylin_geek]

While Dahl mulls an appeal, Garvey said both the photo radar system and its cousin, photo red light, are making Portland safer.

"We've seen a dramatic reduction in traffic crashes at those locations," he said.

The end justifies the means?

[Stingray51]

I don't have a problem with this. I think it is a less intrusive and big brother-ish to receive a ticket in the mail than to be pulled over (especially now that the courts have basically said that your person and car can be searched during virtually any traffic stop). I'd like to see a lot more of these machines. Maybe people would get fed up with dumb speed limits and demand they be raised.

[Blood of Tyrants]

There is still the 2nd. A .22 will take out those cameras.

[zx2dragon]

What are these strange things you mention....these amendments? /sarcasm

Plus the loony left has recently attacked the first and we all know that the 2nd doesn't apply to us commoners as well.

[KarlInOhio]

Garvey said both the photo radar system and its cousin, photo red light, are making Portland safer.

And vastly more profitable too.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If you do no wrong, you have nothing to fear.

[FreeTally]

Such a requirement would be unconstitutional in a criminal case, but the Court of Appeals said it was allowable under the photo radar law because traffic tickets do not result in incarceration.

Cool!! I guess the city has no recourse when someone doesn't pay the ticket.

Oh, wait, I bet they end up in jail then. Sounds like incarceration for a traffic ticket to me.

[FreeTally]

In a civil proceeding, it is permissible to require defendants to prove certain things.

Say what!?!? This country is beyond repair. In a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor is constitutionally required to prove the case.

"Constitutionally required"! I love it. The constitution has nothing to do with it. The prosecution proving the charges is the BASIS of common law. Damn! The entire basis of law is the PLANTIFF PROVING THE CASE!

[Fudd]

I haven't had time to really try it, but I have considered getting a screen for a license plate cover that would allow observation of the plate from near-perpendicular, but would block oblique viewing from a vertical direction. I know how it can be done, but haven't had enough motivation to do it (no traffic cams in my area, and I don't make it a habit to run red lights).

[spokanite]

I like your way of thinking!

[Blood of Tyrants]

When the soapbox and ballot box and jury box have failed, we still have the cartridge box. Although it is not widley reported, the Brits have been quietly destroying surveillance cameras at an ever increasing rate. Perhaps their is still a bit of fight left in them.

[ofMagog]

Seems I read somewhere recently,
For every person of integrity, there are 100 with none.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And what does that have to do with civil disobedience? The act of destroying a government surveillance camera is not a violent or immoral act, IMO.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. The British considered our founding fathers to be traitors for defying their rule.

[ofMagog]

Vandalism results in the objects being replaced at taxpayer expense. And, the vandal is in serious trouble if caught. Those who obey the law have no problem with the objects and many people believe they serve a good purpose.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Those who obey the law have no problem with the objects and many people believe they serve a good purpose.

Oh, Lord! Where to start? How about this, if you are not breaking the law, then you will have no problem with any of a hundred government alphabet agencies snooping through everything you own, right?

Does the coming police state not bother you?

[Orangedog]

If you do no wrong, you have nothing to fear.

I think you're missing the real issue here. It's not a matter of whether I have done anything wrong or not. If I'm accused of breaking the law, I am supposed to be entitled to due process and an assumption of being innocent until I am proven to be guilty. With a system like these photo-ticket machines, a machine takes a picture of my car on the road, attaches a speed to it, and I'm issued a fine. If I try to appeal what the machine says, I have to pay for the appeal up-front. During this "appeal", I am not even allowed to question whether or not the machine is even functioning properly or has been maintained or repaired. On another front, let's say that I'm married and my wife is driving my car. She drives through one of these money-machine areas on the road, and the machine takes a picture of the car, and through my plates they find that I own the car and assumes that I'm driving it. If I try to contest this ticket, they don't have to prove that I was driving the car. Instead, to keep from being cited for the offense, I would have to testify against my wife, which the constitution clearly says that I cannot be compelled to do so. So with no evidence as to who actually committed the offense, I am automatically found guilty before I even get the ticket in the mail.

What if my car was stolen while I'm out of town? The theif could rack up dozens of these tickets with my car and since I cannot prove who was driving the car, I get punnished for it.

[ofMagog]

I don't see vandalism as a solution. You do. So, we can agree to disagree.