Interesting Florida Court Ruling On Red Light Cameras That Could Set Precedent

 

This is a story my newspaper The Ledger posted this morning on a Polk County Judge's ruling about a red light camera lawsuit against the city of Haines City and there red light camera citations.

HAINES CITY
County Judge: State Laws Nullify 9 Red-Light Tickets for Haines City Defendants

Evidence must be qualified, and judge ruled that in some cases, it is not.

By Jeremy Maready
THE LEDGER
Published: Friday, October 21, 2011 at 11:20 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, October 21, 2011 at 11:20 p.m.

LAKELAND | If Haines City's red-light camera violators are going to be successfully prosecuted, the city and camera company need to comply with the state's rules of evidence, according to a recent court order.

Defendants in nine red-light camera cases were found not guilty Oct. 12 by County Judge Timothy Coon.

Coon based his finding on the fact that American Traffic Solutions did not properly qualify its evidence, which included photo, video and registration information, the order said.

The rest of the story is posted here.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20111021/NEWS/111029825/141...

A police officer at every RLC?

If accurate, it sounds like the Judge is saying that a police officer must be stationed at the lights and document that the conditions when the video/images are made are as they appear in the images.

--
Drivesmart 66, Nuvi 2595LMT (Died), Nuvi 1490T (Died), Nuvi 260 (Died), GPSMAP 195

I don't see that

rocknicehunter wrote:

If accurate, it sounds like the Judge is saying that a police officer must be stationed at the lights and document that the conditions when the video/images are made are as they appear in the images.

I didn't see that requirement. I saw the requirement the evidence must meet the rules and that the documentation presented didn't meet all the rules.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Agree with Box Car

Joust sayin

The law

Quote:

d)1. The owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation of s. 316.074(1) or s. 316.075(1)(c)1. when the driver failed to stop at a traffic signal, unless the owner can establish that:
c. The motor vehicle was, at the time of the violation, in the care, custody, or control of another person;
2. In order to establish such facts, the owner of the motor vehicle shall, within 30 days after the date of issuance of the traffic citation, furnish to the appropriate governmental entity an affidavit setting forth detailed information supporting an exemption as provided in this paragraph.
a. An affidavit supporting an exemption under sub-subparagraph 1.c. must include the name, address, date of birth, and, if known, the driver’s license number of the person who leased, rented, or otherwise had care, custody, or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the alleged violation.

For example, I have several adults that use my truck from time to time. I can provide the court with all their DL numbers, but I do not know which of them was driving my truck that day. After all, the alleged offense happened weeks ago.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

OK

I've been very hyperbolic in other threads lately for no good reason, so I don't want to do that here.

I based my comment on the quote from the Judge: "The (Haines City) Officer admits he was not at the scene when they were taken and as a result cannot testify as to whether they fairly and accurately portray the scene on the date and time in question."

I was just saying that I interpret this quote that the Judge will not accept any ticket from these cameras as long as there is no police officer to testify that the conditions shown in the images and video accurately reflect the conditions at the time of the alleged offense.

I'm often wrong and probably am here too.

--
Drivesmart 66, Nuvi 2595LMT (Died), Nuvi 1490T (Died), Nuvi 260 (Died), GPSMAP 195

We're close

rocknicehunter wrote:

I've been very hyperbolic in other threads lately for no good reason, so I don't want to do that here.

I based my comment on the quote from the Judge: "The (Haines City) Officer admits he was not at the scene when they were taken and as a result cannot testify as to whether they fairly and accurately portray the scene on the date and time in question."

We're close. You interpreted the ruling as stating the only thing that would satisfy the rules of evidence as being a police officer being present at the time the photo evidence was taken. You're probably pretty close to the Judge's thinking. We see the ruling was that based on the officer's testimony and other factors we can only guess, the photos by themselves didn't meet the rules of evidence in Florida. Now, would the judge have accepted the photos if an officer had been present? It's still a toss-up because of his comment about a 3rd party doing the registration search was "hear-say."

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Judges ruling on cameras

I will bet they find a way around this ruling. There is way too much money at stake. When money is at stake in will trump a Straight Royal Flush.

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!