Legality of intersection cameras?

[Skunkle]

Per a desire to not threadjack on the "Eyes in the sky" thread...

A guy I know, who knows little about laws but seems to be quite insistent that he's read the Constitution in detail (I don't honestly know whether he has - I haven't since high school and I remember very little) insists that the remote cameras in intersections are unconstitutional.

To explain, for those who don't know: At an intersection, the old method was for police to just watch for people running the red and then pull them over. Problem was, people could and sometimes did argue that, as the officer only saw that direction B was green but, from their position, (could know by proxy of direction B being green BUT) could not verify visually that direction A was red, had no business stopping them and no evidence. An officer sitting where he COULD see the light itself usually has to cross oncoming traffic in the wrong direction to stop someone who just ran said light.

The first solution was the "tattletale light", which aimed up the street; when the signal light was on, the stoplight to which it was attached was verifiably red. Since then, many cities have set up cameras; when a vehicle crosses a section of the intersection for which the light is red, a strobe flashes and the camera snaps a shot or, in some cases, an infrared light and camera are used. Said person then receives a ticket in the mail.

My friend insists that there is some sort of clause - in the Constitution, or somewhere - that a person has the right to "face his accuser", and that in practice this means that unless a cop stops you and the cop accuses you on the spot, said law is being broken. I have argued for my opinion on why I think these are a great idea: namely that live traffic stops are a big danger to cops, for countless reasons, many of which I've listed for him.

Doesn't matter, he says - it's unconstitutional. Thankfully he's not dumb enough to DO this, but he wishes he could just go out with a BB gun and shoot out the cameras!

Does anyone know how the law would officially and properly see this?

The one downside to these that I admit is that there are a zillion manufacturers of these systems, and some of them have been known to flash people who ran a yellow (or even went on green) -- and then, naturally, the automated system sends them a ticket. My friend, leaning slightly into conspiracy territory, also insists that this may in some places be intentional, in hopes that people will feel helpless and just pay the darned thing; similar is his belief that companies (such as cellular providers) will often slap little unrequired charges on peoples' bills, under the belief that most people don't read their bill and simply pay whatever arrives. (Yes, he's an "Everyone is out to FUCK you so be careful!" type, admittedly not totally out of true belief but partly because this belief makes him feel good.)

[Andara Bledin]

Since you can go to court to fight the red light camera tickets, you have the opportunity to "face your accuser," essentially leaving his argument dead in the water.

As for flashing yellow or green, the one time I've seen a ticket issued by one (to a co-irker), the image included the signal itself as part of the picture, so there's no mistake that the light was red well before she entered the intersection. It's highly unlikely that it isn't standard procedure with the lights in question, but it is a possibility.

^-.-^

[Beckpatton]

I was going to say the same thing, he can 'face his accuser' by going to court. He should also be able to request a copy of the photo, at least in Oz we can do that, and as far as I know the light is visible in the pic.

It's not like he just has to suck it up and pay, so I don't see how it could breach his constitutional rights.. but then I've never read the American constitution so forgive any ignorance on my part!

[Greenday]

It's kinda like any other traffic ticket. I don't know about every state, but in NJ, the cop who gave you the ticket doesn't have to show up. They have a prosecutor appointed to represent officers at court for traffic violations. So you are facing your accuser, the department.

[Panacea]

The friend of the OP doesn't have it quite right.

Not being able to confront your accuser is the REASON some advocacy groups cite for why traffic cameras are not constitutional. However, since you can fight them in court and question representatives of the company who install and maintain them, this argument hasn't held much water in court.

What courts HAVE said is there is a conflict of interest between the companies that run the cameras and the state in some cases. Usually, the company that runs the camera gets to keep part of the fine. This keeps government costs down since it doesn't have to become part of the annual budget.

So the companies tinkered with the yellow lights to make more people run red lights and up the number of fines. Some municipalities ties have suspended traffic camera use while other cities sort out the legal issues, which are ongoing.

[Tanasi]

In my state of TN according to a new law, city and counties are not allowed to issue red-light camera tickets for those making right turns on red. In some locations that has cut down on the tickets issued 75% or more. With this drastic cut in revenues my city no longer gets a share because the minimum isn't being achieved.
Since this is a state law that the counties and cities have to follow it's putting them in breach of contract with the red-light camera companies. Those companies have brought suit against those municipalities for breach of contract. There's nothing the municipalities can do except put pressure on the elected law-makers to change the law.
AFAIK these suits haven't made it before a judge so nothing has been done. It will be interesting to see what happens.
In Oak Ridge, TN in addition to red-light cameras they also have speed cameras.
Like a lot of people I think these so-called safety cameras have little to do with promoting safety but more toward raising revinue.

[KabeRinnaul]

Facing your accuser refers to being able to face them in court. The intent was to prevent people from being forced to defend themselves against (possibly baseless) charges from anonymous sources. Since you can face a representative of the police and/or manufacturer in court, they're covered.

I find more controversy regarding red light cameras comes from the following:
- Using law enforcement as a way to raise revenue.
- People being mistakenly cited as having run a light when they were making a turn.
- Causing people to speed more as they try to beat the yellow to avoid a ticket.
- People slamming on their brakes suddenly to make sure they stop before the red and avoid a ticket.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

My friend insists that there is some sort of clause - in the Constitution, or somewhere - that a person has the right to "face his accuser", and that in practice this means that unless a cop stops you and the cop accuses you on the spot, said law is being broken. I have argued for my opinion on why I think these are a great idea: namely that live traffic stops are a big danger to cops, for countless reasons, many of which I've listed for him.

Doesn't matter, he says - it's unconstitutional. Thankfully he's not dumb enough to DO this, but he wishes he could just go out with a BB gun and shoot out the cameras!

Bring these points up with your friend.

A rape and murder has taken place. Forensic teams scour the body and the crime scene for evidence. They find fingerprints and blood not belonging to the victim on the knife used to kill the victim as well as skin cells under the fingernails and seminal fluid in the vagina. They run the prints and get a match. They take the person into custody and run DNA. It matches the blood, tissue and the semen as well as there being fresh scratches on the accused's face. So now we have evidence that clearly points out the rapist murderer.

The accused has the right to face his accuser. But who IS the accuser? Is it the victim? Do they dig her up and drag her decomposing carcass into court? No they do not.

Is it the Evidence? No because evidence does not accuse. It verifies or disproves a person's involvement.

The accuser in this case is the police who investigated the case and let the evidence lead them to their prime suspect. Who, while innocent until proven guilty, certainly looks to be the person who committed the crime.

You have a store. In this store you have security cameras. You lock up for the night and go home. In the morning you fond that your store was broken into and that several thousands of dollars worth of merchandise has been stolen.

-or-

You have the police bring up the security camera footage and there is a clear picture of the person's face. The police use that image and canvas the area looking for a match. They get a lead, they show it to someone who rats him out. The police arrest the person and they go to court.

Again who is the accuser? In this case it is both the store clerk and the police who investigated the crime. The camera footage is not the accuser but once again the evidence of the crime.

So...in the case of the red light or intersection camera, the camera is the evidence that the police use to accuse the person thus ticketed. The accuser is the police who use the camera's footage as the evidence entered into the record when the case goes to court.

So as long as the arresting (or in this case ticketing) officer is there, the accused is getting their right to face the accuser.

If the officer didn't show up, then the case is usually (but not always) dismissed.

I lucked out of a ticked once for that very reason. The officer did not show up and so the case was dismissed.

[Skunkle]

His claim is that when you go into court for said ticket, it isn't even in front of a judge, just a magistrate, and they want to slam the gavel, shuffle you out and shuffle the next guy in, wham bam thank you ma'am, and you DON'T get to say, "I want someone from the police here". I've never been in court for a traffic ticket, so I don't know, but this is his claim.

I did once argue that you could just have a cop come in court and there ya go - the above was the gist of his response.

I still have a feeling he's full of crap. He often is. Especially in regards to things related to laws.

[Tanasi]

In my state the red light camera tickets aren't heard in criminal court but in civil court. What the city/county is saying is that your car broke the law and since you're the recognized owner then you're responsible for the ticket(s). That's also how they get around putting points on your driving record. So far I haven't been ticketed by one of these devices (knock on wood) and I hope I don't.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, this sounds more like a wishful thinking interpretation of the Constitution. -.-

I find more controversy regarding red light cameras comes from the following:
- Using law enforcement as a way to raise revenue.
- People being mistakenly cited as having run a light when they were making a turn.
- Causing people to speed more as they try to beat the yellow to avoid a ticket.
- People slamming on their brakes suddenly to make sure they stop before the red and avoid a ticket.

Using law enforcement as a way to raise revenue isn't something new though. Nor can you argue that the camera causes an increased risk of accidents when you compare it to the alternative. Which is an increased risk of accidents by people running a red. The risk involved doesn't change in any negliable way.

People are going to be morons regardless of whether there's a method in place to catch them or not and whether or not it raises revenue.

[Panacea]

Since this is a state law that the counties and cities have to follow it's putting them in breach of contract with the red-light camera companies. Those companies have brought suit against those municipalities for breach of contract. There's nothing the municipalities can do except put pressure on the elected law-makers to change the law.

I think the city can prevail on this one. A contract is null and void if it violates the law. The city is not in breach if they are merely complying with state laws. It does mean the COMPANY can walk away and the city can't stop them, as well.

So as long as the arresting (or in this case ticketing) officer is there, the accused is getting their right to face the accuser.

If the officer didn't show up, then the case is usually (but not always) dismissed.

I lucked out of a ticked once for that very reason. The officer did not show up and so the case was dismissed.

Well, the ticket is not issued by a police officer in this case, but by a company with the legal authority to do so. Which is legit, that's how parking tickets are written in many places. Just nitpicking a point.

But I lucked out of a ticket for a similar reason; the witness was not subpoenaed by the police officer, and since the officer did not actually witness the traffic offense I was charged with, the case was dismissed.

His claim is that when you go into court for said ticket, it isn't even in front of a judge, just a magistrate, and they want to slam the gavel, shuffle you out and shuffle the next guy in, wham bam thank you ma'am, and you DON'T get to say, "I want someone from the police here". I've never been in court for a traffic ticket, so I don't know, but this is his claim.

That doesn't make sense to me. When I landed in traffic court after I rear ended another car (another car cut me off, I slammed the brakes, it was pouring rain so I hydroplaned and rear ended another guy), my first court appearance was my arraignment. The judge didn't want to hear the particulars of the case, true. He just wanted my plea: guilty or not guilty. So I plead Not Guilty and was given another court date, for about a month later. You have the right to bring an attorney to traffic court, which is probably why it functions like regular court.

The cases did go quickly, but that was because there just isn't a lot of issue of fact in these cases to decide. In my case, the police officer also served as the prosecutor. It was his responsibility to subpoena the witness (the guy I rear ended). I hadn't bothered with a lawyer. I was just going to tell the judge what happened, and hope for the best since I didn't think the ticket was fair (it was another cop who cut me off in the first place, btw).

The officer told me he didn't think I'd take it all the way to court because I was risking more points and a bigger fine than what he'd originally written for. I told him the ticket was not fair in the first place, that I had told him so a month prior, and that I had told him I would be fighting the ticket. He said he hadn't subpoenaed his witness since he didn't think we'd be going to trial, and would I mind rescheduling so he could have his witness.

I smiled and said, "Oh, no! I don't want to reschedule. I'm ready to go today."

He went and talked to the judge but it didn't do him any good; without the witness, there was no case and it was dismissed.

So, long story short, I'm not sure I believe the story that you can't get the accuser to confront. Even in a magistrates court you have to be able to cross examine the police officer. This guy was probably told he'd have to reschedule his case, and he didn't want to come back to court again, so he pled guilty.

I will say I never want to have to go back to traffic court again. It was a mad house.

And apparently has its regulars. Some of the defendants were on first name basis with the court staff

[Andara Bledin]

And apparently has its regulars. Some of the defendants were on first name basis with the court staff

Yes. Yes they do.

My boyfriend's mother works in the legal system here in California, and has sat the bench for traffic arraignments. If you do go in, the first run will always be the arraignment. If the people behave, it goes quickly. Wait for your name, go up, and give your plea, then go home. A lot of judges doing arraignments, to get the line down as quickly as possible, will send anyone who doesn't give their plea to the back of the line, so that nobody has to wait for someone's story, which should wait until the actual case goes before a judge (the people doing arraignments are often referees and not full judges).

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

Yes. Yes they do.

My boyfriend's mother works in the legal system here in California, and has sat the bench for traffic arraignments. If you do go in, the first run will always be the arraignment. If the people behave, it goes quickly. Wait for your name, go up, and give your plea, then go home. A lot of judges doing arraignments, to get the line down as quickly as possible, will send anyone who doesn't give their plea to the back of the line, so that nobody has to wait for someone's story, which should wait until the actual case goes before a judge (the people doing arraignments are often referees and not full judges).

^-.-^

Yeah, basically arraignment court judges are processing clerks with the authority to hear pleas.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, basically arraignment court judges are processing clerks with the authority to hear pleas.

And, at least in California (possibly just Los Angeles), the courts can arrange the schedule so that they're unpaid, too.

^-.-^