Photo speed traps & getting the ticket in the mail - Unconstitutional?

Factual Questions
1

It’s never happened to me, but isn’t there a certain unconstitutional-ness to this practice? You’re supposed to be giving the driver the ticket, not the car.

So you’ve got a picture of my car, with my license plate, radar clocked going 70mph. So what? Isn’t the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that it was me that was speeding, not just my car?

Haven’t alot of people tried to challenge this? I know there’s a balance between making the police’s job easier and staying within the constitution, but to me this clearly goes way outside of it.

2

IANAL but . . .

It’s no different than giving a parking ticket. Those are issued to the car, not the driver, and there’s nothing unconstitutional about that.

The constitutional argument isn’t over the issue you raised, it’s a 4th amendment thing. The concept is that the camera attached to the radar gun constitutes an unreasonable search because the radar gun conducts a “search” of everyone, not just those people suspected of having committed a crime (in this case, speeding).

But, IMO, even this argument doesn’t pass muster. The camera and radar gun are observing public behavior. Since you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you drive on public roads, when such behavior is a crime, it is a crime comitted in public view, and is not subject to 4th amendment protection.

3

I have received one of those F*%*!!g tickets. The photo clearly showed me driving. I was also nailed once in a rental car, but as far as I know, nobody ever got that ticket. If there is any question, you can contest the ticket.

I have heard that if there’s anything ambiguous about the photo, the ticket does not get issued. Also, FWIW, no points are assessed, only the fine. I think these things are nothing more than revenue generators. A constitutional challenge was raised against these (in Wisconsin?) but failed. I don’t know on what grounds, & if anybody knows I’d like to hear it.

I only have experience with photo radar in Colorado, other states may differ. In Denver one learns to watch the speedometer any time there’s a white Dodge van parked on the street. :rolleyes:

4

Lawyers pardon the bad metaphors. You need to remember that a ticket is not a sentence, it is an indictment. It is an accusation. You are, as Carina42 says, free to fight the ticket.

5

The gov’t has used The Constitution for toilet paper for a long time now, what makes you think this is any diffrent?

The meaning of it has been twisted and re-written by lawmakers and judges. i.e. there is no right to privacy, no sepperation of chruch and state but there is a right against unreasonable search and a right to keep and bear arms.

6

I nominate the first 2/3 of k2dave’s posting immediately above this as most addled posting in at least a week on this board.

7

I have looked into this (it’s my current pet peeve of minor nature) and the answer, in my opinion, is that it is unconstitutional to ticket the owner of a car driven through a red light or driven over the speed limit without corroborating data that shows the owner was the driver.

Basic constitutional law applicable is from the Fourteenth Amendment, which has incorporated the provisions of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments according to the Supreme Court of the United States. Since a ticket is a summons, it is a ‘seizure’. This implicates a need for reasonableness, usually requiring some substantial reason to believe that the person seized has committed a crime. In addition, the due process clause has been held to require that conviction be upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of commission of the crime in question.

Let’s review the situation with so called photo radar/red-light tickets. You trip a sensor, either by entering an intersection after the light turns red, or by exceeding some pre-set speed limit on a radar device. The sensor triggers a camera to take one or more pictures of the car, usually designed to obtain a photo of the plate on the rear. The photo is reviewed by a company hired by the jurisdiction involved, which company determines if the license plate is clear enough to determine the actual car in question. The plate number is found in a database of such numbers and a ticket is sent to the registered owner of the car, who must either pay the ticket or appear as summoned to contest the charge.

Now, absent some reason to conclude that the driver was the owner, what does the picture show? It shows the car was used to violate the law. It does not show who violated the law. An assumption is made that the owner was the driver. Upon such assumption a summons is issued, and, assuming you contest the ticket, an attempt to prosecute is made. Notice that the state has absolutely no evidence that the person violated the law.

Analogously, what would happen if in solving a murder commited by shooting, it was determined that the bullet came from a gun registered to John Doe, and no other information linking John Doe to the murder existed. Would the police be able to arrest John Doe on this evidence alone and charge him with murder? Of course not, and it would be a violation of constitutional rights to so do. But that is exactly what the ticket does, seize you for owning a car used to commit a traffic violation, forcing you to defend yourself from charges for which there is no evidence.

Now, in light of this, many jurisdictions use a second camera, taking a photo of the person in the driver’s seat. This is done to help establish that the driver was indeed the owner. But unless the picture is cross-referenced to the picture on file for the driver’s license issued to the owner, this picture is only of value if you contest the ticket. Your constitutional rights have still been violated by the ‘seizure’.

In some jursidictions, attempts to have such tickets dismissed have succeded regularly, enough to make them question the value of the program. But I am not aware of any jurisdiction where someone has filed a suit for injunction to stop the use of such tickets. Presumably, one could attempt such a suit in federal court under one of the various civil rights acts (Section 1983, perhaps?). In the absence of the success of such a suit, I predict that the practice will continue because most people simply pay the ticket, judging perhaps correctly that, after all, if ya gets caught doing a no-no, ya oughta just pay up.

8

IAAL (maybe I ought to call myself JohnW77707Esq).

I think DSYoungEsq’s analysis is a little too strong. I say that because of Carina42’s comment that there are no points, only a fine. In my mind it then becomes like the parking ticket situation. Absent a theft, the operator of the vehicle is (in both cases) doing so with permission of the owner. It seems only fair that the fine should be assessed and then let the owner chew out the driver (or just not loan that vehicle any more).

9

I question the accuracy of this statement, if only on the common meaning of the word summons. A summons is an order to appear in court. A ticket only becomes a summons when I assert my innocence. But what am I asserting? That I did not give permission to (whoever) to drive my car?

In DC, the photo-tickets can not be contested because I am supposed to be reponsible for my vehicle if I give permission to another person to drive it. I think this was built in to the law when photo-tickets legislation was being drafted, in an attempt to close the “but I wasn’t driving!” loophole.

But let’s say for the sake of discussion that the “BIWD!” loophole was still open, and a valid defense. If, after running a red light and being photographed, the person to whom I loaned my car received a parking ticket for leaving the car in a rush hour zone. If I successfully get the photo-ticket thrown out because it could not be proved that I was behind the wheel, why can’t I get the parking ticket thrown out too? If the law can make the assumption that I left the car in a no parking zone, why can’t it also make the assumption that I drove it through a red light? Why does the law change just because the car is in motion?

Why isn’t a parking ticket considered a seizure?

10

Monty

I assume you mean:

Please tell me where in The Constitution is there a right to privacy and where is there a sep. of church and state. If you find it in the document, please let me know.

11

Just thought I’d pop in and mention that there is some question also about whether photo-radar tickets violate one’s Sixth Amendment right to confront one’s accuser. It’s not like they can put the camera on the witness stand.

Okay, back to the melee.

12

A ticket is essentially a summons to appear in court. You have the option of waiving the hearing and simply paying the fine.

You get to confront your accuser when you appeal the ticket. The accuser is the local government who issued you the ticket. The photograph is just evidence that they use.

How is there even an issue of “constitutional-ness”? The camera is simply a machine that takes a picture of any cars that speed or run a red light. It just does what it’s programmed to do without bias or personal preference.

Since the evidence shows that your car committed a traffic vilolation and you are the owner of that car, the judge can reasonably assume that you are responsible.

If you can prove someone else was driving at the time and you weren’t in the car, you may get off. I don’t know the specifics of the law by I imagine you need someone to testify that they were driving alone at the time.

Why do you think this is unconstitutional? If John Doe’s gun was identified as a murder weapon, that would certaintainly be enough evidence to question him. And he had better have a good alabi.
I think there are too many ignorant people in this country who don’t understand the Constitution/Bill of Rights and how it works. It is there to protect the citizenry from arbitrary actions taken against them by the government. If you have committed a crime, the Constitution is not there for you to hide behind.

13

No, I think the case you’re thinking about is from Oregon. It did indeed fail.
Wisconsin has never used photo radar, and wont use them because several years ago the state legislature passed a law banning them just in case some municipality got ideas about using them.

What bothers me about them is that there is no officer there running the unit. Radar guns can have errors and if there is no human there running it, there is no checks & balances.

I think these things trample over Due Process and create a presumtion of guilt.

But the best arguement against them, I think, is actually a pro law enforcement one. You see, a large percentage of people who have warrants for their arrest get picked up during traffic stops. Take a live officer out of the equation during speed enforcement and the number of wanted people getting snagged drops. That’s not good.

14

While I disagre with you, I will defend your right to argue that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution, but you have got to be kidding about separation of church and state. I found it in the document, and so I’m letting you know. It was really hard. :rolleyes:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" U.S. Const. amend. I.

15

“establised church”, back in the 18th Century when the constitution was written, meant a church recognized by law and/or (operative words here) supported by civil authority. Thus, putting aside the Lemon test for the moment, the words of the Constitution prohibit any action by the government that acts to support a religion.

Sua

16

And the right to privacy:

I swear it’s almost too easy discussing this with borderline functional illiterates. Let me know, though, if you want the annotations to it.

17

Photo radar really frosts me. This just happened to me:

A road on my way home from work used to be 60 km/h. The flow of traffic on this road goes about 65. There are no posted speed limits on the entire stretch of road that I take (about 25 blocks).

A while ago, they apparently lowered the speed limit. As soon as they did, they also posted a photo radar unit on that road. About three weeks later, I got THREE tickets in the mail - one for each day that the radar was set up.

Now, I had no way to know that the limit had changed, and the flow of traffic was still 65 km/h. Had a real cop pulled me over, I would have been at least notified about the new speed limit, and therefore would only have been ticketed once. But without any notification, and no posted limits, what was I supposed to do? So I got ticketed three days in a row.

IMO, this was done intentionally in order to build revenue for the police department.

A recent study also shows that when police mount ‘red light’ cameras to automatically ticket people that run lights, they tend to lower the time interval between yellow and red in order to raise more revenue.

18

The police are allowed to do this and in England it is a blessing because with their CCTV network, they save millions on having to add more cops and cars. People get crazy over here over constitutional ‘rights’ and split hairs over their meaning, but if you aint willing to pay the price, don’t break the law!

They get a picture of you speeding by, being zapped by radar at the same time. You may dispute the ticket if you were not driving, having loaned your car out, but you will still be fined. After you pay the fine, you then take the real driver to small claims court and recover all expenses. The reason? You are responsible for your vehicle no matter who drives it.

They are not invading your privacy, not searching your car nor do they have to be there in person. Think about the Citizen’s Arrest laws, the crimes caught on video cam by private citizens and on store security cameras. They have simply taken a picture of you doing an illegal speed. Actually, you have no excuse to defend yourself if you were speeding and most ticked off over such laws and cameras are those who feel that it is their Constitutional Right to blast down the roads if no cop is around.

CCTV is slowly being installed in some cities now and it catches a whole lot of criminals, but you would be astonished how many ‘regular folks’ get steamed up over ‘invasion of privacy’ issues, even though they are in public, can be taped by anyone with a camera and know the CCTV is there to protect them! It has been proven that where CCTV is, crime drops from 50 to 90%.

Americans, though, start screaming about constitutional rights when these systems go in, but scream even louder about insufficient police protection when they get hit over the head and mugged in areas they kept CCTV out of. Anyone screaming about these systems, in my opinion, habitually commit minor crimes, like speeding, jay walking, kicking a neighbors car or get in violent arguments with other drivers and don’t want to be caught. Especially if smoking a joint in the privacy of their car.)

Yet, they love CCTV in stores, around their condos and apartments, in parking garages, and even in their buildings, in open air parking lots and convenience stores because it protects them.

Employees complained like heck when CCTV went into a lot of businesses and suddenly, we discovered why. They could not steal as much stuff anymore, slack off or damage things. Register girls could not sell $200 worth of goods to their friends for $5, sell $50 worth of goods to a customer, claiming the register was down, and pocketing the cash when no one was looking. Irritated stock boys could no longer throw goods around, breaking them and claiming ignorance of how it happened or leaving unchecked in deliveries outside, hidden in the dock, to pick up after work or after the store closes.

I used to work retail and I know all of the tricks.

I’m all for CCTV. I might have to behave in areas covered by it, but I stand a much better chance of not being a victim of a criminal act of aggression.

19

this my point it say congress shall make no law… not that a city hall can’t have a manger or a star of David. Seperation of church and state was infered from this BUT latter rulings used ‘sepperation of church and state’ as if it were in the Constitution to make other rulings instead of going back to the original doc.

Thank you for the insult, correct forum for it, way to go, you would make Manhattan proud :wink:

This is where the so called right to privacy is inferred, but again isn’t really there. I would argue that just being protection from ‘unreasonable’ searches (&seiz.) is not the right to privacy. Unless you take it as an conditional right to privacy - but that’s not the right to privacy. (isn’t the right to abortion inferred from this?)

From this point on I think we should take this over to the Great Debates forumn - but I will be away from this board for the next week. From that point, if you care to go further I’ll meet you there. If you want to take it to the pit howevey - you can go by yourself as I am not interested in a insult competition.

20

Precisely the problem. In a conventional speeding ticket situation, an officer is there to testify concering his training, the proper use of the unit, his confirmation that the unit was working properly, other facts about conditions at the time that the ticket was issued…a radar-triggered camera does none of these. Hell, it can’t even confirm that the camera and radar are pointed in the correct direction at the time of the snapshot.

This “right to confront”, by the way, was used successfully as a defense against photo radar tickets in Alaska.

The evidence shows that my car was in front of the camera when the shutter went ‘click’. What person can verify that the radar was working properly at that moment, that camera and radar were properly aimed at that moment, that the radar signal wasn’t from another vehicle in front of, beside, or behind mine, and that the camera photographed the correct car?