Missouri Red Light Challenge

A parking ticket is not a moving violation-- a Red Light camera is a moving violation and is charged against your driving record! Good arguement though!

Hi Sport Billy,

You didn't specify what part of the article you thought was a good argument. I read the article and I thought that the city was OK, and the statements supporting the use of the cameras were sound and well-reasoned, while the arguments of Mr. Hoekstra and his lawyer, Chet Pleban, were, if not rediculous, at least ridiculous.

The parking ticket comparison seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I don't know the meaning of the word rediculous.

When the government turns against us... does that mean we are bad?

When we have to start being "squealers" on others... does that mean we are getting to be a Gestopo state like Hitler had?

When we have to pay before we are allowed to prove our innocence... does that mean everyone is thought of as being bad?

But I think the government has a legitimate interest in traffic laws, not that it is "turning against us..."

As far as being a "squealer", when someone is not guilty of an offense, showing that someone else did it is a "legitimate defense:" not "squealing" in my opinion.

But paying before we have a chance to prove our innocence does sound wrong. I once paid a parking fine because, in order to appeal it, I had to pre-pay the fine as well as the "hearing costs." I would be re-imbursed only if found innocent after the hearing. (as it was only a $10 ticket, I decided not to do that)

However, when one is charged with a crime (and I really don't think of someone running a light as a "criminal") one usually has to hire an attorney, take off from work, attend a trial, etc. etc., even if one is completely innocent (until proven guilty).

The "presumption of innocence" is not the same as proof of innocence. Still the burden is on the government (in this case) to show that a red light was run, as well as who the car belongs to. The enforcement camera seems to be doing that.

There are costs, financial and personal, even for the completely innocent.

However, I am not an attorney, so I may have missed something here.

First, the City is not charging the violation as a "moving violation" because they want to be able to fine the OWNER of the vehicle - not the driver. The problem is that running a red light is in fact a "moving violation." So under Missouri law, the driver would have to be charged for a moving violation, not the owner. The cameras do not photograph the driver.

Second, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The City has changed this for Red Light violations. If you are the owner, you are presumed to have run the light unless you can prove that you were not driving. In criminal cases, the government has the burden of proof. They must prove you are guilty. Here they are unconstitutionally shifting that burden on to the defendant, forcing him to prove he is innocent.

Third, the famous case in Missouri is a guy who got a ticket while he was hospitalized. He could not have possibly run the light. The City would not dismiss the charge unless he signed an affidavit stating who was driving the vehicle that day. Can you imagine the police saying "We know you didn't commit this murder, but unless you tell us who did, we will charge you anyway."? They cannot do that.

Fourth, the powers of a City are given to them by the State Constitution. I do not believe a City can transfer it's policing power to a private corporation.

Fifth, the most difficult to prove, is that it is alleged that the private company is screwing with the lights. There have been local newspaper stories where people have claimed that the yellow lights have been shortened from 4.0 sec to 3.6 sec. I haven't see the data to know if this is true or not. If proven, I think that is a problem.

The parking comparison simply doesn't work. The red light is a moving violation, the parking is not.

BTW, pointing out a typo always makes your argument more credible

I reacall that some jurisdictions also photographed the driver, this led to funny photos of drivers in masks, etc.

If you get a ticket due to a red light camera in Montgomery, Alabama, the city is handling it as a Civl Offense. The State of Alabama says it's a criminal offense, and a number of state Legislators are opposed to the cameras for that reason. The city is going forward with installing them anyway. The City Council says they will press ahead unless someone can prove in court that they (the city) are breaking the law by having the cameras. You've got to admit, these things sure generate some interesting discussions.

Hi Sport Billy,

Thanks for clarifying your reasoning and what your thought was a good argument in the article.

We have opposite viewpoints of which part of the article was reasonable.

I remember that this was one of the reason Wash DC had to wait to install them for a while..One of our Glorious Congressmen was photographed with his mistress and the ticket was sent to his house which his wife opened up the ticket to her surprise...Thus all the Cameras were pulled for a while...LOL

Just because a camera shows a car crossing into the intersection while the light is red, does not mean guilt. It is a piece of evidence, but it does not contain the context of the act.

Let's say you are in a funernal motorcade, the police are blocking the intersections and waving the funernal motorcade through the red light. The camera shots the picture and sends you the fine. Are you guilty of running a red light, pay the fine.

You are stopped at a red light along with a couple of other cars. A fire truck, police car, ambulence, with lights and sirens on runs up to the intersection and is right behind you with no way to get by. You check traffic is clear, pull out of the way but in the process are shown in the intersection during the red light. You are guilty of running the red light. Pay the fine.

What if the yellow light is only displaying for 0.5 seconds before the red? You cross into the intersection without being given sufficient time to stop, you are caught on camera violating the law. You're guilty right, pay the fine.

One can make other examples. A picture of the "violation" is interesting, but not sufficient to establish all the facts. Assuming guilt by a picture without context is wrong.

Even if there is an appeal process, why should we have to take off work, drive downtown (in a big city this is painful), and wait for your turn to prove you are innocent?