Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Did you miss the part about a clear picture of the driver being necessary before a ticket issues? That's precisely because you are off the hook as the owner if you show up with the photo and it's not a photo of you.

I've reread the linked article three times now and can't find anything about a photo of the driver being involved in the process. I may be skimming over it, though.

Here is the process described:

Under Photo Cop, which started in July, a picture was taken of the offending car's license plate and a citation was sent to the owner. The owner could contest it by demonstrating that the car's title had been transferred or by giving police the name of the person who was driving at the time.

If the person fingered as the driver denied being at the wheel, the ticket was reissued to the owner. If the owner still denied responsibility, the matter was supposed to go to court.

Again, this is a presumption that you are guilty unless you provide evidence to the contrary. This is the opposite of how it is supposed to work. Also it requires that the method of claiming your own innocence is to rat out another person.

When you contest a normal speeding ticket or other moving violation the process is still that the government must present a case proving your guilt. If the cop doesn't show up you don't even have to claim your innocence.

Now, if photos of the driver are available (and I'm willing to admit I may have missed this; though the protesting guy does say he wasn't the driver) then I'm willing to reconsider my position to some degree as long as nothing appears on your record until the state has made some due diligence effort to ensure that you were the one speeding (as opposed to just assuming the licensed owner is the person they have a picture of) and putting a moving violation on your record.