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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.