St. Louis Judge Rules Red Light Cameras Are Unconstitutional

I total agree with the Judge. We as citizen have the right to remain silent, face our accuser in a court of laws. Our founding father are turning in their grave when the govt infringe on our basic right in disguise of safety but in reality of profit.

The "Founding Fathers" did not originally include this right in the 1787 Constitution.

The Confrontation Clause came about in the amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. Note, however, that this Sixth Amendment right applies only to criminal prosecutions, not civil or other proceedings.

yes

The video clearly shows that three cars stop for the red light and then another car barrels through the intersection... not on a yellow light but a red light that three other drivers had already stopped for. Fortunately the vehicle with the green light did not pull into the intersection quickly.

Obviously the fact that a red light camera might have been at this intersection did not stop the driver from running the red.

If they could roll in a grave they probably would roll based on the level of governmental (local) intrusion in our affairs, especially when it is prompted by the need to monitor us and generate revenue.

That said, the right to face you accuser, 6th Amendment, is for criminal matters.

Deleted duplicate post.

Let's see what happens now. This may still take some time before everyone says goodby to cameras.

While a judge has reaffirmed his earlier ruling that the law is invalid, the city maintains that it will continue using the cameras while appealing the decision.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/despite-...

This trend continues. The cameras are clearly designed for profit. Nothing else.

It is clearly the case that the camera vendors expect to make a profit for installing cameras.

However, I do not think that the municipalities who sign contracts with vendors are not interested in safety - as the way you have phrased your comments implies.

A recent thread had a link to an article where a city was removing its three cameras because they had not resulted in an increase in safety.

When a police officer writes a ticket for a car illegally parked car, the owner of the car is responsible irregardless of who drove the car. The person can appeal the ticket in court. The same goes for traffic cameras. In both cases the driver of the car is not confronted by an officer so they are both the same.
If a bank robber is photographed robbing a bank, that photograph has legal standings even though it was not taken by a police officer.
There are to many people who think that they have the right of privacy in public places which has never been the fact. The Constitution limits what the government can and can't do and everything else is up for making laws by Congress or state legislators and can be protested all the way to the Supreme Court.
Who cares if the city makes money from the cameras for the city also makes money from Illegal parking to other things against the law.

I couldn't agree more with this.

When moving violations are watered down to non-moving violations, for the simple fact of being able to charge money for blowing through red lights, that does present a problem. Why were the laws changed? Why were they changed so that the driver is not charged with the violation, but the owner of the car is? No points, no faults, no ups, no extras, except the governing bodies of the red light cameras get $$$. Since when is blowing through a red light the equivalent of a parking ticket? Does that mean if I get pulled over by an officer for running a red light, I have the option of it being a non-moving violation? Sign me up!

Anyone that wants to contest a red light camera ticket, pays more, and most likely does not win their case. Not being confronted by an officer is not necessarily a good thing. I do believe that's what the attorney is arguing about. In order to determine the driver, as the owner of the car, you have to incriminate yourself, or deny that you were the driver. How is that legal?

I think they should have to enforce red light cameras within existing laws. But they don't want to do that because it would cost too much, they're not allowed to photograph the driver in most states, and it wouldn't be profitable. So your whole "Right to privacy in public" is not being questioned in most instances, since it's the car that's essentially getting the ticket, not the driver.

It does make sense to issue tickets to owners of cars for being illegally parked. It wouldn't be cost effective to have an officer wait for the person that parked the car. It could take days for the person to come back. Most red light cameras issue violations for right turns on red, not stopping at the white line, and not coming to a complete stop. The true red light runners, do not make up the bulk of the profit. They're used to sensationalize the need for red light cameras.

I cannot speak for every jurisdiction, but a great deal of the jurisdictions that i am familiar with that use cameras have a "it was not me driving" form. In that situation the ticket is dismissed. Some want you to identify who the driver was but as far as I know, no jurisdiction is compelling a person to identify the driver under penalty or prosecution. Finally, in a number of jurisdictions the cameras are not allowed to take facial pictures. That is why so many of the videos/still shots are from the rear.

The construction of the sentence above implies that you believe that there is a "Right to privacy in public".

Is that what you believe, and if so, what legal basis do you assert?

Hope it sticks. I believe that red light cameras should only exist, if they were used as proper evidence, not as judge and jury as they are now. The evidence should be subject to review. In case of an accident, they would help determine fault.

The law: It seems that the same infraction is being charged in two different ways, one is a moving violation and the other is a civil penalty, with the only difference being the method of gathering the evidence.
..Safety: If I was rich, I could turn right on red without stopping as many times as I chose, just paying the fines as they come in. If a police officer issued me those tickets, I would soon be without a drivers license.
..Parking tickets: Those are issued by police officers, not cameras.

He probably got caught and therefore is not being fair. LOL. I personally don't find them offensive. Helps pay the bills without raising taxes.

..

Didn't the judge issue an injunction so the city couldn't keep using the cameras during appeal?

There is no such word as "irregardless".

In my city, parking tickets are issued by what are colloquially know as "meter maids". Do not believe they are classified as "officers". I will have to check.

I don't know about *all* jurisdictions, but in many, including my home county, all RLC violations are reviewed before a ticket is issued. Here in Nassau County, ATS flags potential violators, and the county's Traffice and Parking Violations Bureau reviews each to determine whether a ticket is issued. A recent report said that in Nassau County, only about 50% of those identified actually received a ticket.

Citizens don't make an issue about politicians positions on cameras as part of the candidates position & present a strong lobbying effort over cameras, all you'll get is more of the same. Most politicians want revenue from as many sources as possible.

Fred

Yes!

So they can provide the services that residents want. Might as well get some of that revenue from law-breakers.

After having rebuilt the freeway in the DSM area according to government specs there was a rash of accidents by people making a turn on red. It was determine that the problem was that the concrete rail on the bridge was blocking vision of the person making the turn and when they entered the intersection got hit. The solution was to ban turn on red light at these intersections and others that had a limited sight of oncoming traffic. They placed signs about the rule and placed a turn signal light with another sign beside it. Some places even have red flags.
I could be a rich man if I was allowed to write tickets and keep the fines of those people who run those lights and I would only have to work five days a week but I am retired.
The only solution is to ban turn on red all together and then people could not complain about the money the city makes.
With that you would only have to prove that your car did not run the red light and photographs/movies do not lie.

Just like raiseing taxes won't solve our problems now, give these pigs more money and they will just find new things to spend it on. This is how they get re-elected, spend money on junk for thier voters to buy thier votes!!!!!

The right we have that bars unreasonable searches is contained in Amendment IV to the Bill of Rights. It reads as follows:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It can at least be argued that the government does not have the right to film every car going through an intersection based upon amendment 4. That argument would be based upon noting that the red light camera was, in effect, performing an unreasonable search. I believe this sort of argument has been used concerning traffic radar. It usually fails but I believe it has been used effectively too.

Amendment 4 is the reason you do not have to allow a police officer to search your car. He can hold you while he tries to get a warrant but if he can't get one, he can't search and has to let you go. Not real practical in most cases but it is your right.

Jim

So, a petition has been started in response to the recent proliferation of speed cameras in DC (and outrageous fines that come with them). Check it out!

http://www.change.org/petitions/lower-speed-camera-fines-in-...

I'm not going to complain about how the cameras are a scam to make money. I do believe that's part of their purpose, but not all. (OK, maybe a little complaining).
I was outraged (that's too strong a word, maybe incredulous or dubious? You probably get the idea though.) at the letter until I looked at the video of my car going through the red light lo-o-ong after it was red. I was clearly guilty. At least guilty of being careless or stupid.
The ticket came in the mail dated 20 days later, so my memory of it was not at all clear. It was on a street I don't normally drive, so the day kind of stood out a bit. When I opened the letter I had a vague recollection that on the day of the violation I thought to myself, "I MIGHT have just gone through a red light with a camera." I know I heard the alert thanks to the poi-factory "Red Light & Speed Cameras" POI file I had loaded. My wife even called me on that. But, I was distrcted by something. It was warm, so maybe there was a pedestrian that cought my attention, but it was probably the Maurice Lennel cookies I'd bought about 15 minutes earlier.
Anyway, I was unhappy that I had to pay the $100 fine. I was even more unhappy about my unsafe driving that day. I looked at the online video and I was appalled at what I saw. My driving was clearly wrong and unsafe. I'd like to think that I'm now a safer more alert driver. I haven't gotten any more violations of any kind since then, but I didn't have any for 20 years prior.
I think just having me watch the video would have made driving a bit safer for everyone. Of course, I might not have watched if I didn't think I "would surely be exhonerated and have proof that I was wrongly accused". If there was some way to make people observe their own bad driving, safety would be improved. Some people would have nothing to see some would have a LOT to see and some would have a wakeup call. I think I'm in the last group.
I'm not sure if my little ranting confession fits here, but maybe someone could find a real way to improve safety with these things without the "Big Brother" and "cash grabbing" problems.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
I do not see anywhere that it prohibits a police officer from photographing anyone in a public place. All it says is that without reasonable cause they can not search you, your car, your house, or your property if you do not give permission. In a public place you are fair game to be watched. Cases of where a person puts out the garbage and the police search it have been through the system many times and the police won. Just read about how the New York Police Department followed Muslims into New Jersey.

I don't know where you come up with my beliefs from that sentence? I was responding to kurzemnieks' remark about rights to privacy in public places.

In essence, I was not stating a belief, I was stating a fact. No one's right to privacy is being violated because the driver is not photographed, therefore, it is not an issue. I still haven't stated what my belief is, nor am I implying anything.

Wish there was a judge that would do that in Fl.

I misunderstood.

chalk one up for us

What will we do at POI FACTORY if all the cameras go away?

There are people on here who give awesome advice and help with all sorts of problems.

We have a lots of excellent POI of almost anything.

I'd still be here if it were no longer necessary to construct Speed & Red Light Camera POI files.

It's still up to citizens to make an issue of these revenue raisers during elections.

If they are too stupid to know what it means, they deserve the leaders they get.

Fred

I actually agree with this... There is a tension point between private and public accountability.