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This discussion has been archived.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) 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.