Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional

The Shadoe · 03-18-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

There is no proof that the owner of a car was driving when photographed by a red-light camera. They know there was a driver in the car. They know there is an owner of the car. They know that driver might be the owner, but they don't know for sure. If they do not investigate and prove the owner of the car is in fact the driver, and then they go ahead and charge the owner anyway, then the owner is being presumed guilty and being deprived of due process. Frankly I am surprised it has taken this long to get it stopped.

Motorboat Cruiser · 03-18-2006, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

If they do not investigate and prove the owner of the car is in fact the driver, and then they go ahead and charge the owner anyway, then the owner is being presumed guilty and being deprived of due process.

As I mentioned above, at least in CA, they do ask if you were driving the vehicle when they send you the citation. If you don't respond with information otherwise, then they assume you were the driver.

Drince88 · 03-21-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

As I mentioned above, at least in CA, they do ask if you were driving the vehicle when they send you the citation. If you don't respond with information otherwise, then they assume you were the driver.

But they don't have to PROVE it's you.

In California, do they go against your Drivers License 'points' or insurance? That was one thing in Oregon when they installed the cameras for speed and red lights - they didn't count against as a moving violation that affected your insurance (Oregon doesn't do the points thing, or at least didn't when I last dealt with the DMV there).

Motorboat Cruiser · 03-21-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drince88

In California, do they go against your Drivers License 'points' or insurance?

Yes and yes, unless you opt for traffic school and it is available to you (as in, you haven't already been for a while.), then, there is no effect on your insurance or record.

Kevy Baby · 03-21-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Yes and yes, unless you opt for traffic school and it is available to you (as in, you haven't already been for a while.), then, there is no effect on your insurance or record.

If you do the traffic school route, it doesn't affect your insurance, but it is still on your DMV record.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-21-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drince88

But they don't have to PROVE it's you.

It's no different than any other moving citation. By not appearing in court, you waive the right to challenge, but the right is there. If you exercise that right and appear in court, then the burden is on the agency that cited you to prove it.

Alex · 03-22-2006, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It's no different than any other moving citation. By not appearing in court, you waive the right to challenge, but the right is there. If you exercise that right and appear in court, then the burden is on the agency that cited you to prove it.

It is different. When you're pulled over and given a ticket they are citing the person they know was driving. When given based only on ownership of a license plate they cite the person they assume was driving.

And then, if you contest a ticket you're directly issued you don't have to prove your innocence before the police first prove their case. The assumption by the court is on innocence.

With the camera tickets, if you contest the police don't have to prove their case, you have to prove your innocence (by being able to prove you weren't driving and fingering the person who was; at least in the case linked here). This is a presumption of guilt by the court.

To me they are completely different things.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-23-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

With the camera tickets, if you contest the police don't have to prove their case, you have to prove your innocence (by being able to prove you weren't driving and fingering the person who was; at least in the case linked here). This is a presumption of guilt by the court.

To me they are completely different things.

Okay, I didn't realize they shifted the burden of proof like that. That is a bit troubling.