Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional

The Shadoe · 03-15-2006, 09:00 AM

Just wondering what you all thought of this since I know that many places (especially Los Angeles and New York) have many more red-light cameras than Minneapolis does.

I can see the case for them being unconsititutional based on due-process rights and habeas corpus.

EVen though this is just for the time being, I wonder if it will go through being permanent, and if it will spread elsewhere, especially to larger cities.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-15-2006, 09:12 AM

Considering that, as with any traffic violation, you are given the right to appear in court to dispute it, I don't see where due process is denied. And I don't think habeas corpus means what you think it means. A writ of habeus corpus ad subjiciendum is granted when someone in custody petitions to be seen before a judge to be released. Those cameras are pretty fancy, but they can't detain you.

Personally, I don't have a problem with red light cameras.

scaeagles · 03-15-2006, 09:36 AM

I go back and forth on them.

I like the idea, really, as Phoenix pretty much tops the country in red light running caused accidents. I hate sitting at a light that is green because the intersection takes 15 seconds to clear due to all the morons puching their way through the light that has been red for a while.

In Phoenix, though, they are pretty much a joke. They are mailed to you. Because they are mailed through an imperfect system and there is no witness that you actually received the ticket, you can throw them away with no penalty. Sometimes the city will decide to serve you, but often times it takes so long that the ticket is no longer valid.

I live right next to the first highway in the US to have speed cameras. That's causing an even bigger battle than on the red light cameras.

In Phoenix, the photo systems are required to have an image of the driver. If there is no clear image of the driver, then the ticket is not sent out. So, since the cameras are immobile and everyone knows where they are, many people are wearing masks as they drive or hold up a piece of newspapaer or some such thing to hide their face, and then the system doesn't work.

I'm all for stopping red light running. It's dangerous and stupid. But I don't think photo enforcement is practical because it simply doesn't work with all the ways to circumvent the system.

Prudence · 03-15-2006, 09:40 AM

Actually, it was declared unconstitutional (if that's even the right term) according to Minnesota state law, not federal, and therefore may not be applicable elsewhere.

According to the article, the sticky point was that the cameras "ticketed vehicle owners, not drivers, a procedure that ran counter to the uniformity of Minnesota laws governing moving violations." Which is a bit different from saying "red light cameras are unconstitutional." I doubt this has posted on Westlaw yet, so I didn't bother looking it up, but it sounds from the article as if the city's laws conflicted with the state's laws, in which case state law wins. Nothing particularly exciting about that.

Besides - a due process claim? Over a traffic camera? I can't imagine a compelling substantive or procedural due process claim in this situation.

Cadaverous Pallor · 03-15-2006, 11:17 AM

I can be pretty scared of Big Brother, but I have no problem with red light cameras. If I were caught by one I'd pay the penalty. I have no problem with the law "don't run a red light", and I'd feel liable if I were caught.

Speeding cameras are different to me because I don't agree with speeding laws.

Moonliner · 03-15-2006, 11:35 AM

Slope, this is slippery. Slippery meet slope.

I have a big problem with both the speeding and red light cameras.

At least in this part of the world they are run by a private contractor that gets a percentage of what the evil things make. While I'm all for capitalism I'm not sure law enforcement is the place for it. These are money makers plain and simple. Even after is was clearly shown that the cameras INCREASE the rate of accidents the city/sate will not give up the revenue. As the goverment continues to grow it's appetite also increases and we'll see a never ending stream of punitive fines like this which are not aimed at public safety or security but rather just serve to feed the beast.

scaeagles · 03-15-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I can be pretty scared of Big Brother, but I have no problem with red light cameras. If I were caught by one I'd pay the penalty. I have no problem with the law "don't run a red light", and I'd feel liable if I were caught.

Speeding cameras are different to me because I don't agree with speeding laws.

Interesting. You therefore advocate obeying only the laws of society with which you agree? I am, of course, not taking into account any moral issues. Red light cameras and speeding cameras I would say are not different from one another morally.

I am not saying that I am a saint and do not ever violate the law - particularly in terms of speeding.

I just find it interesting that your opinion of the cameras varies on the type because of what laws you agree with.

Isaac · 03-15-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Personally, I don't have a problem with red light cameras.

Easy for you to say. You didn't lose your car in an auto accident that was red light camera related.

I did.

Last year in January I stopped on yellow to avoid going through the red light and was rear ended by a huge truck & lost my car due to frame damage.

What I think of red light cameras these days =

scaeagles · 03-15-2006, 12:01 PM

How is that the fault of the camera? Wouldn't that be the fault of the driver behind you who wasn't paying attention or was tailing you too closely?

tracilicious · 03-15-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapppop

Easy for you to say. You didn't lose your car in an auto accident that was red light camera related.

I did.

Last year in January I stopped on yellow to avoid going through the red light and was rear ended by a huge truck & lost my car due to frame damage.

What I think of red light cameras these days =

I'm not sure that I understand what red light cameras had to do with this.

03-15-2006, 09:00 AM	#1
The Shadoe Save Marshall Field's! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 72	Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional Just wondering what you all thought of this since I know that many places (especially Los Angeles and New York) have many more red-light cameras than Minneapolis does. I can see the case for them being unconsititutional based on due-process rights and habeas corpus. EVen though this is just for the time being, I wonder if it will go through being permanent, and if it will spread elsewhere, especially to larger cities. __________________ I am The Shadoe.
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2006, 09:12 AM	#2
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Considering that, as with any traffic violation, you are given the right to appear in court to dispute it, I don't see where due process is denied. And I don't think habeas corpus means what you think it means. A writ of habeus corpus ad subjiciendum is granted when someone in custody petitions to be seen before a judge to be released. Those cameras are pretty fancy, but they can't detain you. Personally, I don't have a problem with red light cameras. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2006, 09:36 AM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I go back and forth on them. I like the idea, really, as Phoenix pretty much tops the country in red light running caused accidents. I hate sitting at a light that is green because the intersection takes 15 seconds to clear due to all the morons puching their way through the light that has been red for a while. In Phoenix, though, they are pretty much a joke. They are mailed to you. Because they are mailed through an imperfect system and there is no witness that you actually received the ticket, you can throw them away with no penalty. Sometimes the city will decide to serve you, but often times it takes so long that the ticket is no longer valid. I live right next to the first highway in the US to have speed cameras. That's causing an even bigger battle than on the red light cameras. In Phoenix, the photo systems are required to have an image of the driver. If there is no clear image of the driver, then the ticket is not sent out. So, since the cameras are immobile and everyone knows where they are, many people are wearing masks as they drive or hold up a piece of newspapaer or some such thing to hide their face, and then the system doesn't work. I'm all for stopping red light running. It's dangerous and stupid. But I don't think photo enforcement is practical because it simply doesn't work with all the ways to circumvent the system.
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2006, 09:40 AM	#4
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	Actually, it was declared unconstitutional (if that's even the right term) according to Minnesota state law, not federal, and therefore may not be applicable elsewhere. According to the article, the sticky point was that the cameras "ticketed vehicle owners, not drivers, a procedure that ran counter to the uniformity of Minnesota laws governing moving violations." Which is a bit different from saying "red light cameras are unconstitutional." I doubt this has posted on Westlaw yet, so I didn't bother looking it up, but it sounds from the article as if the city's laws conflicted with the state's laws, in which case state law wins. Nothing particularly exciting about that. Besides - a due process claim? Over a traffic camera? I can't imagine a compelling substantive or procedural due process claim in this situation. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2006, 11:17 AM	#5
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	I can be pretty scared of Big Brother, but I have no problem with red light cameras. If I were caught by one I'd pay the penalty. I have no problem with the law "don't run a red light", and I'd feel liable if I were caught. Speeding cameras are different to me because I don't agree with speeding laws. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2006, 11:35 AM	#6
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	Slope, this is slippery. Slippery meet slope. I have a big problem with both the speeding and red light cameras. At least in this part of the world they are run by a private contractor that gets a percentage of what the evil things make. While I'm all for capitalism I'm not sure law enforcement is the place for it. These are money makers plain and simple. Even after is was clearly shown that the cameras INCREASE the rate of accidents the city/sate will not give up the revenue. As the goverment continues to grow it's appetite also increases and we'll see a never ending stream of punitive fines like this which are not aimed at public safety or security but rather just serve to feed the beast. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

03-15-2006, 12:01 PM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	How is that the fault of the camera? Wouldn't that be the fault of the driver behind you who wasn't paying attention or was tailing you too closely?
	Submit to Quotes