Don't bother... (you have to name the person who was driving)

A business man does his own time/distance calculations from the photo evidence.
http://thenewspaper.com/news/33/3387.asp

I liked his "toll Plaza" reference

Justice?

It may be sad, but it's no surprise. People should know better than to expect anything different in courts in general, but especially traffic court.

I live in Maryland, but Montgomery County. If a judge did that to me, I'd seriously consider not paying the fine & also challenging his statement, which is stupid, in another court to question his qualifications to be a judge.

That's really offensive.
Fred

so in Maryland the driver of car pays the ticket and doesn't have to when he/she wasn't driving?

here in NJ it doesn't matter WHO was driving the car as the ticket is issued always to the registered owner (no points are issued though for such offense), so even if your dead grandma was driving the car, you still pay ... justice it is I guess haha.

why people vote them down every chance they get

.

Yep. Guilty until you prove yourself innocent. It's a catch 22.

It might be worth the penalty to give the judge his own name and address as the driver of the car. He's declaring the driver guilty before the hearing even starts - can't you be disbarred for antics like that?

I thought you are always innocent until proven guilty. When did it change?

When the government started catering to corporations instead of its people. Few Americans are awake enough to realize this, but with this government in danger of collapsing through its own stupidity the rest of the population will become acutely aware of it soon enough, when martial law is declared and Police State Amerika is officially born.

Actually you are not even granted permission to defend yourself. Only way to not be responsible is to supply someone else in your place to be ticketed. Justice, indeed.

What a crock...

Also from Maryland....

Judge Gerard Devlin orders a 71 year old poet with crutches thrown in jail for asserting his innocence in a district court hearing for a $40 speed camera ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-EmFZg5h20

that we have come to this.

I am not sure how many people contest the citations so that judges are getting fed up. I would suspect most people just pay.

I guess spousal immunity does apply in these cases.

So, if your wife/husband was driving your car, I guess you are compelled to testify against them.

One can not just say "It was not me driving" and be done with it; compelling the state to collect and show evidence of whom was driving. This is one of the reasons you sign for receipt of a ticket when issued by an officer.

So, much for marital harmony. Matters of the State override here.

(It makes me wonder if these RLC's will have any "blowback" affecting how an actual officer will write tickets in the future. I mean, if a RLC can issue a redlight ticket without confirming who the driver is - why can't a traffic officer be allowed do the same? Why is the officer required the extra steps of pulling over the car and verifying the driver's identity when the camera is not? For the same offence that seems odd to me....

Who knows...perhaps in the future, an officer will be able to use the RLC method. When he witnesses a car running a red light he will be able to simply write-up the ticket based on the license plate and sign it himself. No need to pull the driver over and verify their actual identity.)

A rlc ticket is not a moving violation, not exactly sure where the confusion lies. A parking ticket does not require verifying the identity of the individual who parked the vehicle either. There's no "Minority Report" action there.

I'd think a lawyer could have fun with this one. How can it *not* be a moving violation, if you weren't moving the camera wouldn't have gone off!

Let's not poke the bear, eh? Giving them ideas?!

But if a person get the ticket from an officer (rather than a camera) at the same intersection then it IS a moving violation. So the same offence could be either a moving or a non-moving violation. It is the method of detection that determines what that person will be charged with.

The infration in both cases is the same - running a red light. However, based on the method of detection, two seperate rules of evidence and restitution exist; one for the camera and one for the officers.

There is no "two tier" system for parking offences.

As it is today, most of us could not imagine getting a ticket in the mail from a traffic officer we never met. And further going to court, and hearing the officer taking the stand to say:

"Well, no, your Honor. I never actually saw who was driving the car. But I got the license plate number and wrote out the ticket anyway."

Today, no judge would accept that kind of ticket or evidence as valid from a traffic officer.

But, yet, that is the basis for most states RLC ticket programs.

I would not doubt if in the future traffic officers will be given the same latitude and relaxed rules of evidence that currently match those for the camera.

I don't see anything that should keep that from happening....

Our justice system is more about expedience than actual justice.

I think people may be misunderstanding the concepts of law, evidence and court proceedings.

Most traffic offences are deemed to be Abolute Liability offences. That means that you do not have to KNOW that you broke the law and you do not have to have INTENDED to break the law to be found guilty. All that has to be proven is that the law was broken.

The defense of "reasonable doubt" is not available with Absolute Liability offences. The accused is required to prove that evidence that the law was broken is not correct or invalid.

In traffic court photo evidence from red light cameras or speed cameras is generally sufficient to establish guilt. When I read the article it sounded like the judge was (perhaps too casually) informing the accused of how difficult it is to "disprove" an Absolute Liability charge.

Traffic court is NOT the same as criminal court, and traffic court is a lot closer to what was seen on Night Court than what appears on Law & Order.

Markie Post

Precisely.

So, I would not doubt that traffic officer's rules will at some point be relaxed to match those used by the cameras. The office can simply witness the infration, note the license plate and send the ticket to the owner.

No need to identify the driver, and no need for a dangerous traffic stop.

In Spokane WA the LEO is not required to testify at the trial in traffic court. His signature is in fact, a sworn statement. In North Idaho, the ticket is dismissed if the officer is not in the courtroom.

Seems like the whole issue could be resolved with a 2nd camera to take a picture of the driver.