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

Factual Questions
21

Just to add a data point:

In my jurisdiction of residence (and yes, the US Constitution applies here), any tickets both for parking and for moving violations considered “administrative infractions” ( * ) that are still outstanding and unchallenged after X period of time (they changed the law recently, used to be 3 months IIRC) are invoiced to the owner on the next registration renewal. No pay = no tags. This is itemized, so it can be re-disputed at renewal time, but it’s much harder.

( * ) Such things as simple speeding, illegal turns, no seatbelt, burned out taillight, etc. Things like DUI and streetracing are considered criminal offences, and are charged to the driver.

I suppose that the automatic collection from the owner may be allowable because of it being “administrative” as opposed to penal. YMMV in your jurisdiction.

jrd

22

you need an officer to check the camera is working right? If the picture is there, I’d say the camera was working pretty well.

DA: And here, in this photo here, we see the defendant’s car in the middle of the intersection, and we know it is the defendant’s car here because you can clearly read the tag: D-E-F-E-N-D-A-N-T … and in the same picture we can see the light is red because if you compare the color of the light with this tomato here you can see they are very similar in color and texture… so evidently the defendant is guilty as charged and should be euthanized.

Defendant: I object to the evidence on the grounds that what Mr DA here has in his hand is not a red tomato but a green pepper.

Judge: I’m getting hungry… I need my constitutional breakfast… case dismissed!

23

Um, what about the 9th ammendment, which states that we have other rights, not specifically listed?

Why does everyone ignore the 9th ammendment?

24

Yeah, how about the 9th amendment? huh?

I once got a $50 for letting the grass grow too tall. This must be unconstitutional too because nobody bothered to prove I had done it. They just left the ticket on my door.

Now, I most distinctly told the grass not to grow but I have this type of out-of-control grass (if you know what I mean) that just won’t listen to me. Did they review the evidence? Nooooooooo. They didn’t even see my face or present any evidence. They just wanted $50. Is that unconstitutional or what? If this isn’t the most convincing argument in support of a well armed militia then I don’t know what is. Where is the 9th amendment when you need it? huh?

25

I for one am sick and tired of having cameras constantly watching me. The best solution yet is to simply not put your license plates on your vehicle. Use paper plates (available from any local dealer) instead. You still need to pay your registration (duh!), but anything relying on license number identification won’t work. I’ve been pulled over twice in 7 years (when I first began this) and neither cop has said anything about it, though I believe legally (in CA at least) it’s a fix it ticket if the officers can prove you have had the car more than 90 days, or something similar to that.

26

As DSYoung Esq pointed out the USSCt has interpreted the 14th Amendment as incorporating the 4th Am., which it has interpreted as including the right to privacy. The USSCt has spoken and that’s that. That is the great thing about our Const. It can cover ethernet rights, rights to radio frequencies, etc. even tho it was written in the 18th Century.

Not that the right to privacy is an issue when you’re driving on a public street.

The USSCt also has incorporated the 1st Amendment into the 14th, so arguments that “Congress shall make no law…” are not valid.

These objections to the validity of the radar and other objections to the tickets are a matter of defense that you can bring up at the trial. The State will undoubtedly prove that the radar was calibrated, etc. There’s nothing unconstitutional about it. In States, which I think are most of them, where a moving violation is against the operator of the vehicle and not the owner, you could have a good defense if your picture is not also taken, as was already pointed out. It then becomes an evidentiary issue.

27

yes, the 9th Amendment is the important one here. It prohibits anyone from using the “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) maxim when deriving rights from the constitution.

That means there could be a right to privacy, a right to abortions, and a right to anal sex, even though they are not explicitly listed in the constitution.

If dave or anyone wants to argue over whether or not there is really a separation of church and state in this country (there is, and it will remain), email me and we’ll have a little discussion. I’d rather not embarrass you on a public forum.

kalt@houston.rr.com

28

just one more thought. The type of people who believe ONLY the words in the constitution should be law, and nothing should be inferred from it (i.e. strict constructionalists) are, for the most part the same type of people who read the bible and pull all kinds of crazy crap out of it that isn’t expressly said. That’s what “bible study” is for. So, if you believe “when jesus said X he really meant Y” in the bible… think of the constitution as our country’s bible and use it the same way.

29

What does the 9th Amendmt give that the USSCT has not already given?

30

I think Kalt’s nailed it. The same folks who say "The Consitution doesn’t say “sepperation [sic*] of church and state,” also say “Be prepared for The Rapture!” Of course, the word “rapture” doesn’t even appear in the Bible.

*I used this spelling as substantiation for my comment above about BLIs.

31

Time for Osip to throw 2 cents in the pot.

Vidio Radar I disagree with, with no office present to verfiy correct angles of radar gun/ camera and to verify the working condition.
Vidio Stoplight runners. I dislike but agree with. How hard is it to angle the camera to capture the light as it is red, with the vehicle in question in the middle of the intersection? Not hard. Good evidence that the vehicle in question was not properly being operated.
Owners in my opinion are responsible for their cars. If someone borrows my car and gets a ticket, I should be responsible to the city goverment to pay the ticket. I will then get my money back form the person who borrowed my car.

Privacy? not on a public street. If I want privacy I shall stay home in the evening.

Osip

32

That’s somewhat of a loaded question. You are assuming the USSCT “gives” rights. It doesnt really give us rights, it interprets the constitution to determine if a law is taking away rights given by the constitution… and if so, declares that law invalid (i.e. unconstitutional).

The 9th amendment, stuck in there by Jefferson if i recall correctly, doesn’t give any rights. It says the rights listed in the constitution and the amendments are NOT to be taken as an exclusive list of rights. I.e. we have freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion - that stuff is expressly mentioned. But - the 9th amendment takes away the ability of a lawyer to use the argument “there is no right to privacy because it is not stated in the constitution.” Of course, in some dissents Scalia, for example, in the dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, has made arguments that ignore the 9th amendment and are therefore invalid. That’s why he’s stupid.

When interpreting a statute (or contract or constitution…) an express list of things means anything not listed is not included (expression unius…). For example, if i write my own constitution for my own country (Kaltland) and say you have the right to: freedom of speech, religion, sex, gun ownership, no unreasonable search and seizure, trial by jury (and i list about 20 other rights) … without something like the 9th amendment, if someone says “i should have the right to clone myself” … the opposing council could make the argument that “that right is not expressed in the list of rights in the Kaltland Constitution, so it is not a right.” The 9th amendment doesn’t allow that argument to be made in america. So, the 9th amendment is quite important even though it doesnt “give” any rights to people directly. It says there are other rights (maybe the right to time-travel, maybe the right to clone oneself, maybe the right to drive a car) that were not possible to think of at the time the constitution was written. The 9th amendment was very smart. You can tell it was smart because stupid people ignore it when they make their stupid arguments.
It’s scary that there are people who would WANT to live in a country without a right to privacy. Privacy and freedom go hand in hand. I think people like dave up there (surely a very religious person… sigh) love the idea of privacy, as long as it doesn’t apply to people he doesnt like… i.e. no right to privacy for a gay person to buttfuck in the privacy of his own home.

The right to privacy is like the right to freedom of speech - you have to tolerate what other people do in private, even if you don’t like the idea of it … just like you have to tolerate what other people say, even if you don’t agree with it. Most dumb people are not mature enough to grasp that concept, and that is unfortunate.

But those same dumb people ARE fortunate that the constitution and bill of rights apply to them, even though they don’t understand it. That is what is great about america (frustrating at times, too - of course).

Again, if anyone disagrees with me, email me so i don’t have to embarrass your idiot-ass on here :slight_smile:

33

actually it wasn’t bowers v. hardwick… he was in the majority on that one (when he ignored the 9th amendment). I can’t remember the case now where he was whining about “the constitution doesnt say that right exists” in his dissent. It was funny though.

34

It can confirm that it was pointed at your car when it took the picture. Maybe you can argue over when it was calibrated, etc, etc. I just don’t see what the diference is between an automated machine and a real live cop targeting people with a hand held gun, other than the fact that the machine would be more consistent since it is always aimed in the same spot and doesn’t have to worry about human error.

Who can say weather a cops radar gun was properly calibrated? The courts are working under the assumption that the machine is working the way it is supposed to.

And lets be honest. Those machines don’t exactly give you a ticket for going a couple of mph over the limit. Odds are, if they called you in, you were probably speeding. The machine has no reason to lie.

Besides, you never get off by arguing with the cop who gave you a ticket. If you can prove in court somehow that routine maintanance had not been done on the camera or it was not properly calibrated, you could provide the resonable doubt necessary to get you off.

35

monty
I think you are taking cheap shots and continue to insult me:
1:Even though this is not the forum for it - and you know that!
2:After you know I will be away from this board and most likely unable to respond
3:You know what goes here

This is not the place for it - please take it to the correct forum where you can complain and insult me all you want.

I have not once insulted you I only offer debate on this topic (why I suggested opening it in GD).

btw try to claim your constitutional right to privacy in a court of law

‘What were you doing the night of December 21st?’
‘I decline to answer on the grounds that is private’

36

That’s too funny! Notice that I just said the STATEMENT is too funny.

Roe vs. Wade was argued successfully on the grounds of a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Oh, and please explain your insult above about the federal government.

37

Ignoring the rather stupid and irrelevant constitutional argument over rights to “privacy” and “separation of church and state” (the first was found to exist; the second is only a phrase used by Madison)…
A parking ticket cannot be compared to photo radar/stop-light tickets. First of all, you don’t receive a criminal summons with a parking ticket; instead you simply are advised of the fine levied for the fact the car was illegally parked. Second of all, since parking infractions are expressly civil in nature, usually the law establishes joint liability between the owner of the car and the person operating it illegally by parking it incorrectly. An example of the rules involved can be found in the Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 4521, Sections 1 to 10.

On the other hand, both speeding violations and red-light running violations DO usually include a criminal summons; show up at the court on such-and-such date at such-and-such time or all hell breaks loose. You can waive your right to contest the charge by the state by paying the pre-determined fine, in which case the state doesn’t require your presence to establish your guilt for the record.

Some jurisdictions have attempted to avoid these difficulties by modifying the statutes involved to change the nature of the infraction when photos are involved. Thus, a state might turn a photo radar/stop-light violation into a civil infraction, by enacting a statute different from the basic traffic law, or by limiting the punishment of the violation to a civil procedure similar to parking tickets. However, if the law of which the owner is accused of violating still declares that “No person shall drive faster than …” or some similar such wording, then the attempt to turn the violation into a civil infraction still fails to provide due process, for the owner hasn’t committed a violation of the law. In addition, there is a difference between a local authority enacting an ordinance that says, “Don’t park here without paying $1.00 per two hours,” and the state saying, “Don’t go faster than 35 on a state route in a municipal corporation’s boundaries.” Still, at least such an attempt, if it decriminalizes the offence, has reduced the constitutional infirmity.

This discussion applies as well to jurisdictions where the entire moving violation process has been decriminalized. Of course, in such states, you can’t be arrested for moving violations, and you never have to appear anywhere if you fail to pay. Presumably, in such states, the traffic laws have been modified to replace language saying “no person shall” with language saying “it is a violation to …”

One side note: while the police might want to question the owner of the gun used in the murder, the would have trouble arresting the owner of the gun absent evidence that the owner was the shooter.

For what it is worth, the Sixth Amendment claim is probably a red herring. You are never “accused” by the machine; there would always be the ability to establish the accuracy of the machine through witnesses. The effectiveness of this evidence might at times indicate a need to return a not guilty verdict, but there is no constitutional infirmity unless there can be no witness.

Oh, and Sam Stone, a citation to the study you assert would be helpful. Amazingly enough, jurisdictions are much less interested in revenue than safety when it comes to things like red lights and speed limits; usually because some disgruntled citizenry is trying to make their life miserable. I doubt seriously the claim your street in question didn’t have the new limits posted; failure to post the limits would leave the speed limit at the “prima facie” speed for the type of street involved, and a ticket based on a lower limit would be dismissable accordingly (probably true in Canada as well as the U.S.). Unfortunately, we tend not to notice such changes driving, as I found out on my first ever driving test for a license, when I ran a newly installed stop sign at an intersection through which I had biked numerous times. I gathered from the comments made by the examiner I wasn’t the only one who had failed to notice the new red octagon. :wink:

38

Oh, come on now. You don’t really believe the USSCT merely interprets the Constitution. [Q] Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [/Q]

So where is the right to privacy in that amendment. When does "secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures " mean “privacy.” Of course you have to define “search,” and the USSCT has defined that very liberally.

You further state that the 9th Amendment could mean the right to privacy, but my point is that any entitled right can be found by judicial “interpretation” of the first 8 amendments. The 9th is so vague that the USSCT can “intrepet” it any way they want, which doesn’t stop them from doing just that to the others.

39

DSYoungEsq, can you help me a bit? I’m not understanding the distinction you make about a “civil infraction.” What exactly does that mean under U.S. law, and how is it consitutionally relevant?

Thanks.

40

Getting back to the OP (as the OPer) and commenting on things so far:

I am not a lawyer, so forgive my pseudo-legalize. I base my opinions on how I feel the laws regarding it should be.

A parking ticket and a speeding ticket are two totally different things. If you loan your car to someone and later find out that they accumulated a bunch of parking violations and the city is going to impound your car unless you pay them, I would say yes, you are responsible for them (and its up to you to beat the money out of your ‘friend’).

But a speeding ticket is different. Unless the photo shows beyond a reasonable doubt that its you behind the wheel I think that a photo showing your car speeding is utterly meaningless. And assuming you’re not lying and it really wasn’t you speeding, you are in no way responsible for how someone who borrows your car drives it (assuming the person wasn’t clearly drunk or underage when you gave them the keys).

The very fact that photo-radar systems make cops’ jobs easier is reason alone to make their use suspect.