posted by
janrinok
on Saturday April 05 2014, @07:03PM
from the I-would-have-been-here-earlier-but... dept.
from the I-would-have-been-here-earlier-but... dept.
The legality of red-light camera evidence in California is set to be reviewed by the California Supreme Court.
Ars Technica reports, the California Supreme Court is hearing the case in an attempt to answer three basic questions:
- What testimony, if any, regarding the accuracy and reliability of the automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) is required as a prerequisite to admission of the ATES-generated evidence?
- Is the ATES evidence hearsay?
- If so, do any exceptions apply?
Cameras in Ohio are also facing state supreme court scrutiny. The SCOTUS has been silent so far on traffic cameras but has previously ruled on the need to be able to be able to question diagnostic equipment operators to ensure a fair trial to avoid hearsay.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
State Supreme Court to Rule on Red-light Cameras
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fliptop on Saturday April 05 2014, @07:22PM
I don't know how these things ever became legal in the 1st place, don't you have the right to face your accuser in court? How is that possible w/ an automated camera?
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @07:38PM
Are you retarded? Obviously you face off against the State's representative accusing you of the crime. That's as stupid as trying to claim security cameras should be illegal because you can't face the DVR system in court.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Saturday April 05 2014, @10:09PM
Anyone who can read a Medical Examiner report can discover the cause of death. Why would we want to wast the ME's time puting him on the stand?
.
Police reports always contain all of the relevant information, why should they ever testify? The State's representative can just read the report.
.
Except that both may leave things out or forget things or not consider alternatives. In the US System, asking them about it in public is how we bring that to light. Evidence from an absent third party is virtually irrefutable. (and if you disagree, I heard your neighbours say you were a child molester.)
.
Speed cameras are neat in part because they work one way -- but pretend to work another way when the evidence is presented.
.
Prosecutors allege that they are just like a convenience store camera system that sees the owner get shot. The owner is dead and the video is the evidence. The owner set up the camera and is dead and the video is the evidence. But there are problems with this.
If the owner who setup the video system is not dead (just a clerk?), he might well be asked to testify about the video system.
Someone (The wife who reported that her husband was missing; the next customer who found the dead clerk)reported that a crime had been committed. That person can be called to testify.
Until the report of the crime, the police don't investigate.
.
The device/installer/programmer/company that installed the camera is alive. Why shouldn't they testify?
.
Police investigate red-light and speed cameras because the device/installer/programmer/company ask them to. They watch only particular frames or bits of video again based on the word of the device/installer/programmer/company. Seems like they should testify.
.
Camera operators (profiteers?) want us to treat these devices as though policemen watch 8 hours of video to spot the infractions that happen to occur in 8 hours. But they don't work that way.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @10:46PM
Nice strawman argument. Of course a cop, or medical examiner, etc. should be in court to present their opinion and be cross examined. I was not saying or implying otherwise. That has nothing to do with the fact that their argument is dumb as shit.
His argument is equivalent to claiming that security camera footage shouldn't be allowed to used in proving a crime because one can't face the camera or the DVR in court. It's a stupid argument that no court would buy into.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Sunday April 06 2014, @12:22AM
Who reported the crime?
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 06 2014, @02:44AM
What does crime have to do with it?
Red Light Cameras record infractions, not crimes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday April 06 2014, @03:16AM
They may be infractions but the criminal rules of evidence nevertheless apply, hence the state Supreme Court's interest in this case. If the rules were more along the lines of those in civil court, it would be a different matter entirely. Incidentally, in California, parking violations are handled under civil law.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 06 2014, @02:22AM
There are different problems depending on the camera system, and in practice the right to face your accuser is often denied with the camera systems. For example, some cameras don't clearly show the traffic light in frame. Other than "that's how it's supposed to work" how do we know that in this particular instance the light was actually red? (pretty much any answer other than an eye witness is questionable). Was the length of the yellow long enough? Far too often the courts (for reasons I can't imagine) allow a general representative answer the questions, not the actual technician that worked on the camera last, and often not even an employee of the camera company.
If the right to face your accuser and rules of evidence were strictly followed, many camera cases that went to court would fail.
This as opposed to a security camera where anyone viewing the footage can answer all of the relevant questions. They clearly see the defendant committing a crime.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 06 2014, @02:53AM
All the camera systems in my area record the stop light as well as the car, and have polarized class in front of the lense so that the winshield reflections would be removed. The single image has everything you need to determine that the infraction occured.
What is missing is if the shortening of the yellow. They are not supposed to trigger if the car crossed the line on the yellow, but a short yellow tricks many drivers into doint this.
Also remember these are INFRACTIONS, not crimes. So that whole bit about facing your accusers may not apply. I'm not sure this has been ruled on by the SC.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06 2014, @03:14AM
> Are you retarded? Obviously you face off against the State's representative accusing you of the crime.
Good. Then I would get on the witness stand and say I don't recognize the authority of a machine to enforce the law.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cmn32480 on Saturday April 05 2014, @07:46PM
In Maryland at least (you know, the land of taxing EVERYTHING including the rain) I believe that the citation has to be reviewed and signed by an officer, and the officer or the company that maintains the cameras are who you would face in court, should you decide to fight it.
The red light camera tickets also do not carry points in this state because they often cannot prove who was driving, and the fine goes to the owner of the car, not the driver. I believe that the speed cameras work the same way, no points, and issued to the owner of the vehicle.
Either way, both types of cameras do little to protect the safety of the public. For instance, there are speed cameras on I-95 at the END of a construction zone that has been there for at least 5 years. They are only supposed to be active when there are workers there. It has been proven that they are active 24x7. I have never gotten a ticket from them, but when driving past the site at 1am with no lights on in the construction site and 15 inches of snow on the ground, I saw the flash going off of people getting tickets.
IMHO, because there are no points attached, it looks to me like it is strictly a money grab to help balance the overspending of the state and local government.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Saturday April 05 2014, @10:11PM
I believe that was the last straw for my mom, who moved to South Carolina shortly after that tax was implemented. But, O'Malley got reelected somehow, so I guess they're reaping what they've sown.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 2) by hubie on Sunday April 06 2014, @12:00AM
You might be interested in the little town of Morningside, MD. They own about a half mile of road just outside the Andrews air base. They've set up two speed cameras and there have been many complaints about them [wtop.com]. My biggest problem with speed and red light cameras is that there is no accountability. Both the city and the contractor have a financial interest in issuing the most tickets they can, and there is no oversight to determine whether they are both doing it honestly (like in Morningside).
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Sunday April 06 2014, @09:05AM
It seems like even the testimony of a cop or an employee of the camera operator would be hearsay. They have not examined the devices for themselves, they have not verified their operation. Instead they had a very high level overview of how the cameras work explained to them, probably not even by the engineer who developed them, and then took the word of the installation and calibration reports at face value.
If accused I'd want to see source code for the embedded part of the system, full schematics and then question the engineers who developed it and the people who installed it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Saturday April 05 2014, @08:00PM
They get around the sixth amendment by making it purely a civil fine, not criminal.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Saturday April 05 2014, @10:07PM
Yes, but if a cop catches me in a radar trap, and I go to court, and the cop doesn't show, the judge always dismisses the case. IMHO, anyone that gets one of these automated tickets should take it to court. I'd think the chances are high the cops don't want to have to keep appearing for these because they have more important things to do. Just my $0.02.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @11:46PM
Cops have scheduled court days, so it isn't like they have to decide whether to go on beat or contest any particular ticket. Your chances of the cop not showing is pretty slim and subject to the same kind of things that would keep anyone from going into work (getting sick, family emergency, etc.).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07 2014, @03:17PM
In my experience, on the simplest, and easiest ways of out of a ticket is to change the court date. In some jurisdictions, you can call the police operator requesting a meeting with the officer who wrote your ticket. In my area, the scheduler will often reveal the officer's scheduled days off. You can then separately call the court to reschedule your hearing, specifically requesting one of the officer's days off. This often works due to human nature and the nature of a large bureaucracy. The clerk may not check the officer's schedule, or process the officer's own request to move to a different day. In the end, the officer does not show up for the hearing, and the judge throws out the case, and while the case could be refiled, it rarely is, because after all it is just a "minor" traffic infraction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06 2014, @05:36AM
A cop with a radar gun has the potential to ba criminal because the cop is present, they don't need the civil loophole.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday April 06 2014, @03:15AM
Montana saw through this scam and outlawed red-light cameras entirely.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday April 06 2014, @03:21AM
Not in California they aren't. Parking tickets are civil fines, not traffic tickets. As I said in an earlier posting, in California, the criminal rules of evidence apply in traffic infractions, hence the state Supreme Court's interest in this case.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by kwerle on Sunday April 06 2014, @12:36AM
Seriously. "There might be news."
Want more comments? Quit posting crap non-stories.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mendax on Sunday April 06 2014, @08:13AM
This was news to me, and since I have some self-taught legal training and a civil libertarian, I appreciate that the state Supreme Court is taking on this issue.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.