Really?

http://www.photoenforced.com/

Solicitations for Money
 

Not only that, but you have to be served in person. A 'notice' in the mail counts for nothing.

What if your mail carrier dropped it on the sidewalk and the wind blew it away? What if your neighbors horse shat radioactive manure into your mailbox and you had to call 911 for a haz- mat squad? What if He-Man raped my bunghole by the power of Greyskull??

Article in the AZ republic had a shortlist of information for these tickets.

1) Notice is mailed
2) Notice says you have three ways to respond, all of which put you on the hook for having received it in the first place (Pay, 'incriminate' someone else, or contest)
3) If notice is not responded, DPS/Redflex MAY hand the ticket over to a court for a process server to be sent to your home address. There is a $35 fee tacked onto the ticket if you actually get served. They have 120 days to serve you, and then it is dismissed forever.
4) No points may be assessed unless you were going 20+ AND you get served.

Odds are they will try harder to serve you if you were speeding excessively.

Why pay the notice? This is America.. we have laws.. 'they' can't just send solicitations for cash in the mail (scaring people into mailing checks). It's called SPAM (Mailing out hundreds of thousands of solicitations and hoping to receive a certain percentage of them back).

Don't make it easy for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T43LtGNFLPw

two times in two days, yessssss!

EDI: found a better pic, must have Skeletor in there :)

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8067/hemanvh7.jpg

^haha wow

Sorry, if someone pointed this out earlier in the thread but the pictures show you making the turn only 1.1 seconds after being about 10 feet behind the stop line. I don't think you stopped before turning.

I'm guessing you never took constitutional law. Even in a civil matter or infraction, you have to prove the defendant committed the crime. Can you identify the driver? I can't. He goes to court, asks them to identify the driver. When they can't, he should ask for a dismissal. Before you ask the next logical question, no he doesn't have to admit to driving unless he testifies and is asked. Even though the burden of proof is lower in a non-criminal matter, all you see is a car going through a red light. I'm willing to bet any good constitutional lawyer could challenge this law and get it tossed. In CA, they have cameras at opposite corners of the intersection. You can probably guess why, and it's not because traffic judges are police officers with robes and gavels.

Put another way, a parking ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle because the vehicle is not where it is allowed to be for whatever reason the ticket is issued. It doesn't matter who put the car there. There is a legal term that desribes this but it escapes me at the moment. On the other hand, a ticket for running a red light is issued based on an action by a driver. You did something you weren't supposed to as opposed to putting something somewhere. For example, not knowing you were over the speed limit for whatever reason isn't a defense to speeding, the fact you exceeded the speed limit is sufficient to cite someone for speeding. But the flip side is that you have to cite the person who did it not the person who owns the car (if they aren't identified as one and the same).

I'm not a lawyer, although I did used to watch Perry Mason on TV.

Based on my vast aforementioned legal knowledge, I'd like to point out that civil cases are not about crimes. There might be a crime associated with the event, but that's a separate deal. Like California vs OJ compared with Goldman vs OJ.

As far as identifying the driver goes... I now feel like a fool for ever paying a parking ticket, since the meter maid didn't actually see me park my car in an illegal spot. Nor did she/he personally hand me the ticket. Just stuck it on the windshield, where a passing mailman might have grabbed it and destroyed it.

Ken

In the City of Chicago, they will have your drivers license suspended for failure to pay parking tickets. Failure to get you car pollution tested can also. Red Light Cam tickets can't be too far behind. It doesn't take a criminal conviction to suspend a drivers license.

Just a wild guess, but it seems the entire point of my post went right over your head.

Let me simplify: Parking ticket: Issued to registered owner based on prima facie evidence the vehicle is illegally parked. Doesn't matter who put the car where it is. If someone other than the owner is responsible, the recourse for the owner is to pursue action against the (ir)responsible person. Keep in mind that it possible to legally park and get a ticket after the fact for any number of reasons (meter expired, maximum time at spot, restricted parking hours kick in, etc.) It doesn't require an actual action to make a violation, which is why the fine is against the owner. You are considered responsible for your property and its whereabouts.

Traffic Ticket: Issued to driver not owner. A traffic offense is an observed action performed by an individual and evidence must be produced to a more likely than not standard that the driver commited the offense. Since criminal penalties can ensue from a traffic ticket (DUI, reckless, etc.) you cannot ticket the owner except for things like knowingly allowing an unlicensed person to drive. You are responsible for your property but not the actions of others.

Keep in mind that there is also a difference in consequences for a parking ticket and a traffic ticket to the recipient. Straight fine and possible towing versus permanent DMV record/fine/court appearance/possible jail time based on the offense.

Running red lights is something that ranks up there with drunk driving. Still, the aspect of red light cameras are not the method by which this problem will be solved.

The whole aspect of redlight, speed, or any other form of camera is flawed from the start. It's based on the notion of "public safety" yet the tickets are generated for a profit. To make matters worse, the cities and states employing these services have quotas built into their contracts. Look at Ohio which has all but banned Redlight cameras cause the cities were shorting the yellow lights to increase ticket revenue.

The cameras violate the basics of our justice system. They have years of documented evidence to show it increases accidents despite the reports of reduced fatality rates. These "trade offs" are what engineers consider a victory when it comes to traffic safety.

I'm totally against them. A camera doesn't stop a red light runner, doesn't stop a speeder or a drunk driver...real cops do that.

In most jurisdictions, you can be suspended for failure to pay child support and outstanding warrants as well. I don't necessarily agree with tying in a driver's license to unrelated items, but it seems politicians feel it is the best attention getter from a policy standpoint for people not fulfilling their life's obligations.

^^^^+1

I'm curious. How to do you confront your accuser, when its a camera?

You're right: it's a wild guess. I followed your post. Let me know what the appeals court decides.

The deal with speed and red light cameras is they move it from being a moving (possibly criminal) violation to a civil violation, in the same category as parking violations. The law may work the way you think it should in some states. But in states with cameras, it's pretty likely that it works the way the state thinks it should.

A plus for camera tickets is that all you pay is the fine. No points on your license, nothing to report to your insurance company. A minus, as others have mentioned, is that if you fight it you argue before a bureaucrat, not a real judge.

Ken

It probably depends on the state you reside in.

Arizona gives points for red light camera tickets. In that case, the tickets supposedly have to have a police officer sign off on the ticket saying the driver can be clearly identified. However, a case in Glendale showed this wasn't the case when a driver got a ticket and he was wearing a mask covering his whole face.

Arizona still treats speed camera tickets as a moving violation as you can have your license suspended if you don't show up for court. The two changes made were first that points can only be issued if the speed camera is manned by a police officer. Second, Arizona decided not to inform insurance companies of issued citations.

The fact is, the state of Arizona skirts around the legality of the whole issue. Even the mobile units violate the law constantly as they must post signs within 300 ft. of their deployment...some post the signs next to the van, others don't post them at all.

We have a 3rd party company running around in vans marked as highway patrol, and issuing citations without any authority. Hell, even the courts are in on the scam. A local protestor was assaulted by a Redflex employee and pressed charges. The judge dismissed the case.

Reagrdless, the cameras don't stop a crime in progress...cops do. These money making schemes will only continue as long as people allow them to.

That was one of the problems with speed and red light cameras in DC. Not only did a contractor install and operate the cams, but they got a percentage of the take.

Just a modern outsourced version of the old southern speed traps. Kind of ironic that Virginia, which is part of the south and AFAIK ran its red light camera program straight up, eliminated the cams while Maryland (of short yellow fame) and DC kept theirs.

Ken

I am kinda surprised that there is such heavy debate and flat statements regarding right turn on red or not.

Each state varies in what the "default" legal requirement is, when there is not a sign posting otherwise, and the combinations are:
- No Right on Red
- Right on Red after Stop (most common)
- Right on Red after Yield (least common, but still exists)
For all states, if there is a sign to the contrary of the default, the sign takes precedence.

So it really depends on where you are, and where the ticket is. I am not saying which one Texas is, or which one yours is, just saying please don't slam someone in a different state insisting that your state's laws are the same as theirs without some link to back it up :)

PA has had the right on red after stop for quite a while. Philly added redlight cameras on Roosevelt Blvd. a couple years ago (BTW it increased the number of rear-end accidents while decreasing the number of t-bones). $100 fine issued on running redlight (civil penalty, no points but no pic of driver needed, issued to the registered owner of vehicle).

PA State traffic law required a certain time limit after turning red before issuing a ticket. Within the past year, a person fined noted the time stamps on the photos and realized that the "grace" period was too short. Hired a lawyer, took the city to court and won, the city had to re-adjust all the lights and cameras and had to go back a period of a few months and refund tickets that were issued improperly within the "grace timing". I suspect that shortening the yellow light on camera intersections could be fought.

Sidenote, our company had a young employee who had to drive to do his job. He used a company vehicle and got a redlight camera ticket with it. The ticket came to our office and vehicle logs showed that he was driving so he was responsible for paying the ticket. The kicker though was that the ticket triggered our headquarters HR to do a license check. They found that he had lost his license about a month earlier, as a result he was terminated.

I don't think the discussion is on what the rules are. It's been about camera enforcement. Kind of educational, too. Flashwing's description of Arizona's rules, and what Arizona actually does, was very interesting.

But, sliding into rules rather than cameras, I'm curious - do you know which states allow right after yield?

Ken

California has cameras and it is a moving violation.......that requires a photo of the driver.....and I'll point out that regardless of how the state in question classifies the ticket, issuing a fine to someone for an affirmative action without being able to identify who the person is, is a blatant violation of the due process clause.

Example, your car is stolen and the thief is the guy driving your car. The way this state (Texas?) treats the law, you'd still be responsible for his illegal right on red because it doesn't matter who is driving. Are you sh***ing me?

I bet DC would try to hold you responsible. It's just their way... There was a recent news story about a cop finding a stolen car that had been used in a crime and abandoned. As he was waiting for a tow truck to retrieve it, a meter maid stopped and wrote a parking ticket. I don't know if the owner was able to get the ticket dismissed.

If a thief drove your car through a red light cam, the police would have to be satisfied that it was stolen before the incident. If it was DC, of course, you'd then have to hope that the traffic appeal board would accept their testimony.

The whole "You're off if you identify someone else" bit is interesting. In states where red light cams are criminal, can they compel you to testify? If you refuse, are you up for contempt? What if it was your spouse?

My head is starting to hurt over some of the discussion here. Like the opinions on whether a police officer has to operate the camera, or at least be involved in some way. Does the same thing apply for surveillance videos in banks?

Ken

You can't be compelled to testify against yourself or your spouse, but taking the 5th in traffic court is not likely to get you anywhere. It isn't a murder trial, it's a civil citation. Maybe you'll make enough of a stink about it that the judge will get tired of it and dismiss the ticket, but if you aren't careful you could just get yourself into more trouble.

Look, the ticket is for owning the car that ran the light, not for driving the car that ran the light. If your friend borrows your car, parks illegally, and gets a ticket, then the ticket is on you, not your friend. You might be able to fight it, but you'd better have a good reason that you can show other than just trying to avoid paying.

Stop trying to bring common sense into this. This is about the law. The law is the law, no matter how stupid it is. And if you really want to fight an unjust law, I can think of much better ones to spend your time and energy on.

Bottom line: the OP ran a red light and got a ticket, and he admitted that he ran a red light. So he needs to pay the ticket, end of story.

The answer is no you can't be compelled to testify (fifth amendment) nor (despite what cops and prosecutors might imply or threaten) are you required to rat someone out if you know who it was. Your case would simply being that the state cannot identify you as the driver. In states that get pictures of the driver, this is usually easy to prove or disprove.

In court you would question whomever is representing or acting as a witness for the state. Once you've established that the picture is not of you, the dismissal should be swift and at no point should you ever testify. Testifying opens you up to telling them who the driver is if you know and they ask.

It's not a matter of taking the fifth. It doesn't even get to that point. Taking the fifth doesn't help once you're on the stand and are asked if you committed the offense you are charged with. It best applies to offenses you are NOT charged with. The solution is to simply not offer testimony in which case it's not an issue. It doesn't prevent you from discrediting the prosecution's case. You don't offer testimony, you aren't a witness and cannot be questioned.

I could write a book on laws on the books that are either outdated, overturned, antiquated and not enforced, or are disguised money grabs.

the answer to all your problems is simple: Escort Radar 9500ix.
You would have known that red light camera was there long before you got to the intersection if you had that.

Exactly. And, FWIW, I don't think the red light camera laws are stupid.

But I think I'm going to pull some bank jobs, and if I get caught on video I'm going to hire Davey to get me acquitted. :)

Ken