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This discussion has been archived.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.
OK, enough hype.
-- Larry Wall in the perl man page
(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.