Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional - Page 2

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.

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.

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 Sometimes the city will decide to serve you, but often times it takes so long that the ticket is no longer valid.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.

SacTown Chronic · 03-15-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Interesting. You therefore advocate obeying only the laws of society with which you agree?

That's exactly my position. Always has been. Why on earth would I ever obey laws that I don't agree with?

I makes my choices and I takes my chances.

Cadaverous Pallor · 03-15-2006, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Interesting. You therefore advocate obeying only the laws of society with which you agree?

Yes, yes I do.

Following laws blindly doesn't keep us free OR safe.

Oh, and I agree - all the above accident instances have everything to do with bad driving and nothing to do with cameras.

03-15-2006, 09:36 AM	#4
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	#5
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	#6
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	#7
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