Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

State Supreme Court to Rule on Red-light Cameras

posted by janrinok on Saturday April 05 2014, @07:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-would-have-been-here-earlier-but... dept.

starcraftsicko writes:

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:

  1. 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?
  2. Is the ATES evidence hearsay?
  3. 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This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @10:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @10:46PM (#26855)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Sunday April 06 2014, @12:22AM

    by starcraftsicko (2821) on Sunday April 06 2014, @12:22AM (#26880) Journal

    Who reported the crime?

    --
    This post was created with recycled electrons.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 06 2014, @02:44AM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday April 06 2014, @02:44AM (#26923) Journal

      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

        by mendax (2840) on Sunday April 06 2014, @03:16AM (#26936)

        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.