I got what’s called a red light camera ticket. If you don’t know this is an automated system to take pictures if you run a red light. I can appeal this to some board but they don’t give a lot of details about who exactly this board is.
First off , it seems this is not allowed because there is no ability for me to confront the “accuser” since that is just a machine. I think they are trying get around this by saying it’s civil case and not criminal. Not sure that makes sense in a civil case can the all the evidence come from a machine? From what I have read nobody will be at the appeal hearing from anyone on the side of the city. So how can I question how this happened if nobody is there?
I hate red light cameras. One of the reasons is they are ONLY there for revenue and have nothing really to do with safety. Anyway… that’s another argument.
Most of the time there is a video of your ‘incident’ as well as other photos although you probably only receive one still photo in the mail. You can request to see that video and any other photos they have. Now, most of the ones I have seen show the vehicle fairly well including the license plate, but often do not show who is actually driving the vehicle. If that is the case you may have a valid argument that is wasn’t you driving. They will say it doesn’t matter it is still your vehicle and you are responsible. I would then ask for a jury trial (remember many jurors hate cameras too). You shouldn’t have to prove who was driving, just that you were not.
yes you can claim you were not the person driving. You can also claim the car was stolen or that you sold the car before the ticket was issue. The funniest thing is that you can “rat out” who the driver was if it was not you.
I also may bring up the fact that by law the camera is supposed to be in good working order and make them prove that .
My advice would be to not pay and just forget about it all together. That is what a number of people in the state of Arizona did and the law itself went away.
Here is a page about the traffic light cameras in Raleigh. Based on past experience and general practices I think you’d be very silly to fight the ticket. There’s almost no upside and lots of downside, but it’s your time and money.
the guy who put up that website got my town, Cary, to get rid of these cameras.
It won’t cost me any money to fight this and maybe a few hours of my time. I am mostly just curious as to how these people will react when I bring up the arguments I mentioned above. Maybe they have heard this stuff before and don’t care.
The few bits of law I feel confident I know well leads me to believe that the guy who wrote that just might be totally full of crap. But he could be right on some things, who knows. Reader beware.
Firstly, there’s still a human being who reviews the camera data before the ticket is issued. In that sense it’s not really much different than a cop using a radar gun. If you challenge the ticket, the person who reviewed the information before the ticket was issued will send in a sworn statement, just like what the police do in jurisdictions where they also aren’t required to appear in person.
In most jurisdictions (including it sounds like NC), traffic camera tickets are infractions which come with lower standards of evidence and due process so you usually can’t compel people to appear. No jury trials either. If you appeal it, the prosecutor’s office will get a packet of material from the camera company that includes the photos, the operator’s statement, and the calibration info from the camera. If there isn’t anything glaringly wrong with any of that, you’ll lose. You might be able to request that information ahead of time and review it to decide whether you want to challenge it or not.
On the upside, camera tickets usually don’t go on your driving record so it shouldn’t affect your insurance rates!
You might be responsible for some court costs if you lose. They’re probably not going to be a whole lot for what will be a very perfunctory hearing, but there might be some.
no court costs. As I mentioned, this is not considered court.
The only way this was passed into law was it does not go on your driving record. It’s basically like a parking ticket.
At least in court, you have a judge that has a law degree and experience in the law. In this situation I have no idea who will hear the appeal. It seems like your basic kangaroo type court.
I frequent a legal forum and see this posted by one poster quite often. The law did not go away, it was changed. If one ignores the mailed summons a police officer will deliver another. This also includes an increase in the fine. Ignore that and your license get suspended. Things get real expensive then.
So far the points you have made are very basic legal issues (right to confront your accuser etc). Do you think you are the first one who thought of it? If those are your arguments you will probably be shut down befor you open your mouth. I know that when we had red light cameras there would be a courtroom full of angry people ready to take on the system. After the judge gave his introduction explaining the red light camera law there was a line of deflated defendants lined up at the window to pay.
In our system there was a way to use a link to watch the video of the infraction. Did you watch it? Was the car in violation? If so your arguments are probably dead in the water. Maybe you can do extensive homework and somehow prove the camera or light was not working properly. Our red light camera law had guidelines as to how long the yellow had to be on for instance. But chances are many others have looked into it before you. I can pretty much guarantee any of the legal loopholes you thought of were known to the lawyers drawing up the bill.