Camera Leguality question

 

Regarding the traffic cameras, how do the cities get around the 6th amendment that gives us the right to confront our accuser?

I had wondered about this before but this thought was reawakened when it was brought up in one of my favorite TV shows, "The Big Bang Theory"

I imagine that the answer will contain a bunch of legal mum-bo-jumbo. LOL

--
Have A Great Day! Michael

"Confront Our Accuser"

I'm not sure about other municipalities, but in Collier County, FL, you can. They state:

"A noticed vehicle owner may contest the notice by filing an appeal with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department no later than 21 days after the vehicle’s owner received the notice after paying a $50.00 administrative fee, which is reimbursable if the appeal is successful. A special magistrate – under contract with Collier County – hears and rules on the appeals."

--
Tampa, FL - Garmin nüvi 660 (Software Ver 4.90), 2019.30 CN NA NT maps | Magellan Meridian Gold

.

Miss POI - can you please move this thread to the Ticket Camera forum.

And could people please post all redlight/speed camera topics in the correct forum rather than posting them in the Welcome/Open talk forum. I hate wading through the stupid camera posts and shouldn't be forced to, that's why they now have their own forum.

Not a "criminal" offense.....

mwbritt wrote:

Regarding the traffic cameras, how do the cities get around the 6th amendment that gives us the right to confront our accuser?

Pretty simple really. That right (generally) only applies to criminal cases. Most (all?) juristictions that do the camera thing are careful NOT to impose any penalties (like jail time, license points or forced service) that would turn it into a criminal matter rather than an "administrative penalty".

NOW......having said that, what I wonder about is: If you refuse to cooperate with the "administrative process", how can they try to force you to comply WITHOUT it becoming a criminal matter ???? Don't know about that part.

--
Magellan Maestro 4250// MIO C310X

I think the show was wrong on a couple details...

I saw that episode of "The Big Bang Theory," but I think they were mistaken about a couple of things. In the story, Penny got the ticket, she complained and said Sheldon was driving her car--she didn't want to pay the fine and she didn't want "the three points" on her record for the violation--and the city transferred the ticket and points to him. I don't know how it's done in Pasadena, where the show is set, but in most places, it's the car owner that's ticketed (they don't care who's driving--that's between the owner and the driver), and partly for that reason, or as suggested, partly to avoid crossing the sixth amendment line, no one's driving record gets docked any points for traffic camera enforcement.

As to the question of why it's not a violation of the sixth amendment, it has been argued to be one, of course, and some jurisdictions, notably Tennessee, have had to go back and rewrite their laws for enforcement cameras and have had to rework judicial hearing procedures so as not to violate the principle. A test has not yet reached the US Supreme Court on the general question. Maybe someday. Others say it is possible to write, enforce, and hold hearings with traffic cameras so that the sixth amendment is not violated, but that may be for the USSC to decide.

--
JMoo On

A Couple Of Things...

I speak of only Kalif law, this may not be the case in any other state:

According to the Rules Of Evidence (in criminal matters) only a PERSON may testify in court. Cameras cannot. Pictures are only allowed as evidence, if the PERSON that took the picture is there to testify as to what that picture depicts.

The Rules Of Evidence were modified in Kalif. to allow pictures introduced into evidence in civil proceedings.

The Red Light Camera tickets are a civil matter, and if you don't pay them they cannot put you in jail because then we go back to the origin of the case being civil in nature.

There, clear as mud?

--
If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there.

It's still not criminal

alpine1 wrote:

I speak of only Kalif law, this may not be the case in any other state:
The Red Light Camera tickets are a civil matter, and if you don't pay them they cannot put you in jail because then we go back to the origin of the case being civil in nature.

There, clear as mud?

You can certainly be jailed for failing to obey a civil court judgement; it's called contempt of court. What happens to a parent who fails to pay child support? Not a underlying criminal case, but a person who fails to obey a judicial finding can be jailed.