SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
You will step on the night soil of many countries.
(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.