Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional

I hope he's right.. Dump the cameras.

Judgement is not always so Black and White and Cameras are not psychic and cannot read what the drivers thought was. Sometimes there is a fine line and pressing on is better than slamming on the brakes, especially when being followed too close! (or other circumstances)

JMHO

I was not surprised that someone did not post the
May 24, 2012 newsletter from thenewspaper.com even though the headline was "Another Court Rules Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional". This article was a fairly balanced account of the ruling which resulted in the Fox News video provided by romanviking.

It should be noted that Andrew Napolitano is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge. He is a political and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel.

In his role as a consultant/analyst, he was asked by the Fox newscaster about the Missouri court decision.
She specifically asked him if he thought that red light cameras were unconstitutional.

His answer was "I think that they're just a gimmick to raise money for local governments and I'm not the only one who thinks that way."

Here is the newspaper.com article

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3802.asp

This was a very limited decision indicating that the St. Louis red-light camera ordinance violated due process requirements.

The ordinance was unconstitutional but that was not the headline. It always makes better press to say that red light cameras are unconstitutional.

As I read the case, due process was not provided. I agree with the court decision which you can find at
the last link above.

You're pretty quick to give up your constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I'm sure not.

That's irrelevant. The issue here is whether a camera can provide evidence against you as to a crime. As the judge mentioned San Diego, CA had to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars because their camera vendor falsified the camera evidence.

The unfair part of that is those people who falsified that got off scott free. They should have been prosecuted for falsifying evidence to make money.

As the judge said, what if the camera saw something on the front seat of your car you didn't want photographed?

Can the camera photo be used as evidence against you, or does the government have a higher standard, burden of proof that they must meet?

I think they do have a higher burden. And I am glad of that, I don't want the government and government workers prosecuting us on falsified evidence to raise money.

Money for those same government worker's underfunded pensions, for example. See the potential conflict of interest?

I'm no fan of RLC's but it seems that we're caught up in an anger spiral where we go for an indignance-first strategy.

It seems to play well into the hands of the cable "news" channels and talk-radio shows that only make money if they keep the consumers interested, but I wonder what the long-term cost will be to our society.

It's probably semantics but the camera provides evidence of a civil infraction rather than a misdemeanor.

A Red Light Camera wouldn't see anything on a seat as it photographs the vehicle as it proceeds away from the camera. If this was truly stated by the judge, it shows the judge's ignorance as to what the camera does provide.

This is the crucial point. The camera isn't accusing anyone or anything, it is providing a document piece of evidence an infraction occurred. It would be up to the person using the photos and video to introduce the documentation into evidence. For that, there are rules which must be met. The rules of evidence can't be adjusted because of the type, as all evidence has to meet the same criteria.

This is your opinion and you offer no rationale for why the rule of evidence needs to be changed. Remember, the rule of evidence would apply to all evidence of the same type, so video and stills from a bank surveillance camera in a robbery case are the same as for the RLC. Remember, the camera only documents the vehicle's presence, not the operator's presence.

WHAT??? I'm morally outraged by your statement.

(Was I the first to say this?)

I think that is a very important point. It is not considered a 'crime'.

What does he have on his front seat that a camera would see and not someone in a car next to you? A naked minor? A large bag of heroin?

As to the civil infraction, that depends on the state. In California the ticket must be to a person, not a vehicle. So if for example you cannot see the face of the driver you cannot issue the ticket.

Arizona didn't have that, had no points on your license based on those tickets and issued the ticket to the owner of the vehicle. Why? Because they wouldn't be bothered in their ticket sending as to anyone's "rights".

Clearly that was illegal in California but not in Arizona.

Well, it may have turned out illegal there too. But not till millions of tickets had been paid. I received one, btw. Not me driving, but my car. I said "that's not me". That was the last I heard of it. It was very carefully worded, it was a scam to make money.

Janet Napolitano, the governor of AZ at the time and the red light camera company ATS of Australia, thrown in together to make as much money for the government as possible. Back-filling the state tax deficit.

So what some Arizona residents did is register the husband's car in the wife's name and vice versa. No tickets could be issued. This actually happened.

As to something on the seat that is a specific example the judge gave. It doesn't matter whether the camera can photograph anything on the seat, whether it's designed to do that or not.

It's whether it meets the rules of admissible evidence. The judge said probably not.

Yes, I think you were.

I almost responded to your original post because I have felt for many years that "sound bites" have replaced the truth in much of our culture.

This results in many people being either misinformed or uninformed and the original post in this thread illustrates this.

The thread was titled "Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional" on purpose. Nothing in the link provided would support such a statement.

However, a title that said "red light camera law in one Missouri town may be unconstitutional" would have been too bland. No "anger" there.

This misinformation was compounded by the fact that the commentator was a "former judge", so the introduction was

The saving grace was the use of the word "may" when referring to unconstitutional.

Red lights and/or red light cameras are not unconstitutional. Some of the laws authorizing red light cameras may be unconstitutional (and in this particular case it seems to be that it is).

It seems to me that the purpose of the post was to stir up members against red light cameras. Facts were not considered.

Say anything about redlight cameras and it's bound to cause a stir...

I think they are impartial, simply capture a fact. I am not for "tweaking" yellow lights to catch more people.

Today, I was cut-off by a municipal vehicle where the driver was drinking something, and talking on a cell phone. He proceeded to run 2 lights. If there were a cop present, he would have been let go, and he knows it. A camera would not care that he's driving a municipal vehicle and a state worker. It would take his pic nonetheless for running 2 red lights. Some agency in AZ would care less that some state worker ran 2 lights on the east coast, i.e. there's a chance to change the behavior. that state worker has no federal nor state Constitutional right to break the law.

I don't know if there's any cure for it, but seeing as this is an election year, I guess we better buckle up for the ride.

Consider the RLC ticket a tax rather than a fine. Now you can feel better.

It's an illegal search. It's always been an illegal search. Districts establish it's legality by benchmark trials against defendants that are common citizens that don't know their rights - "if you don't know it's illegal we get away with putting up the cameras"

It's not illegal, or unconstitutional, until the Supreme Court says so (eventually). And, since it not a trial issue, it will never get there.

This is a new claim on me.

Please expound on the reasons you would put forward to justify your claim that it this is an "illegal search".

As if the CEO of a healthcare (or the hundreds around the country) is somehow a saint because his co. is not for profit. Guess what? His 7 Series, shore house, Pebble Beach conference attendance, those are paid by your non-profit premiums. And as if profit has anything at all to do with, let alone justifies, someone who runs a red light.

t

All they are is a money grab for cities - they apparently do nothing to prevent accidents

there should never be a problem with not seeing yellow light if your following a truck at the proper distance. But if your right on his ass your too close , if you can not see his mirrors you are truly to close, the states you need to have 300 feet travelling space between two vehicles all truck drivers are taught this when they get there CDL's. Also if you PAYATEION to the crosswalk ,you would know when the light will change.

But we're not talking about following too close. This is a stoplight in the city. It's not reasonable to pull up and leave 300' while stopped behind a truck at a stoplight. No one does that. But if the light changes and 20 cars go by, the light starts to change and the truck in front of you finally gets started, you likely cannot see the signal from where you are stopped.

Which is why in California at least this is a specific reason the police officer who has to sign the citation will dismiss it, but you might have to request it.

Here is California the driver of the car is responsible for moving violations. So the RLC citaton has to have a clear picture of the driver's face. Lacking that the ticket is not issued.

Some other states have made the fine much less and the proof less and tried to apply the citation to the vehicle. Not sure how well that works.

But it's clearly illegal here in California. The vehicle cannot violate the law by itself. There must be a driver.

One guy in Phoenix was driving around with a gorilla mask on, remember those speed cameras?
Heh.

Gotta hand it to him for style.

When I'm in Phoenix area I sometimes keep the visors down as it blocks face perfectly. Some of the cams are well hidden and with traffic it is a pain getting through some intersections the way they drive up there.

I once heard that that was their main purpose.

I was taught that I ought to keep 3 seconds of distance between me and the vehicle in front of me. At highway speeds, this would indeed work out to be about 300 feet.

However in town - say 35 MPH - 3 seconds works out to be around 150 feet.

A lot of people were taught to keep a "car's length" for every 10 miles of speed they were traveling. If the average car is, say, 15 feet, then 150 feet would be 10 car lengths - higher than the 52.5 feet( 3.5 times 15) they would calculate by car length.

Being behind a truck reduces my "sight distance" so I would probably be closer to the 150 feet if I were unable to go past the truck.

If you want to work out your ability to see a traffic light that is in front of the truck (and have no auxiliary prompts like crosswalk signals) you can do so.

The height of the average driver's eyes are 3.5 feet above the road surface. The maximum height of a truck is 13.5 feet. The average intersection traffic light height is 16 to 18 feet.

The geometry problem then is facilitated by setting the reference line at the driver's eyes. This makes the line to sight over the back of the trust (looking to see the light) 10 feet; the height of the light becomes 14.5 feet.

Let x be the distance I am from the traffic light. At 35 MPH, let's say I am 150 feet (10 car lengths) behind the truck. Then 10 is to 150 as 14.5 is to x. Thus, x is 217.5 feet. At any distance less that 217 feet, I will be unable to see the light over the back of the truck.

Try driving a BIG truck in those situations where you only have 3 seconds to stop a truck and your only 100 feet from the light when it goes to yellow.. than you have to SLAM on the brakes, dump your load all inside the trailer leaving a mess at the next customer often causing the load to be completely rejected because it fell over inside the trailer! I drive 5 sometimes 10 UNDER the speed limit to give myself time to stop - because slower speeds require less stopping distance BUT at the same time slower speeds also can cause an issue if you get within 40-100 feet of the light when it changes and you are unable to stop in time, AND your not going fast enough to completely clear the light before it turns red! They should only go after those that CROSS the "cross walk" AFTER the light turns red.. but often they ticket those that get caught in the middle when it turns red (even though it was green when they entered the intersection) Yeah its a HUGE trap and a revenue maker, I agree!

The red light cameras don't differentiate between people that actually run red lights, and people caught in a "technicality." If red light cameras were only interested in prosecuting people that blow through reds long after the light changes, I'd have no issue. The vast majority of tickets are issued for ridiculous reasons. Stopping over the white line. Rolling rights on reds. Not being able to stop at the exact second the light changes.

Is this an opinion or did you get these stats somewhere? Would love to see them.

Regards...

From my personal observations, it is the opposite of what was typed above. MOST red-light runners I see speed up to run the light as they can't be bothered to wait for ~2 minutes for the light to turn green. They have plenty of time to stop, just don't care to around here.

In the past I have read reports of large numbers of tickets being given for "right-on-red" infractions, but my impression is that the outcry (justified, I believe) from citizens has had the effect of legislatures putting the brakes on such actions. However, there are still places where the Automated Enforcement Cameras can certainly be viewed as revenue generators.

I would hope that more jurisdictions would clamp down of excessive "right-on-red" like Tennessee has.
(see http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3817.asp
Tennessee Judge Turns Back Right Turn Challenge)

I would also hope that municipalities would institute review policies that would result in tickets not being issued for violations that occur in the, say, first 3 tenths of a second after the light turned red. The grace period might even be longer if the municipality has "all red" intervals like we do in my city (it is 2 seconds here)

According to an ABC World News report, cameras have reduced the number of straight-through violations throughout the country (they did not cite sources, however). This should be the primary goal of ATE even if significant revenue is generated.

People may be reluctant to move into a a red light intersection in order to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.

Some municipalities are playing games with the yellow light timing in order to enhance revenue.

Ticketing if a driver doesn't make a full 3 second stop before turning right on red on a deserted road is for revenue not for safety.

Counter to that--many people don't understand it isn't sufficient to stop before turning right on red. The other car has the right of way. The other car shouldn't have slam on his brakes to avoid hitting you. The car has the option of waiting for the light to turn green.

Seems like even local courts can have a political agenda. I say let the Supreme Court hear a case on red light cams--whatever they say, goes. If they say it's a Constitutional right to run a red light, or do so when a police officer didn't see it, so be it, we'll all have to accept the decision.

In order to get them to make a decision,

- someone has to be 'injured' by the law.

- the case has to be tried in a judicial court and appealed all the way to a federal district court.

- the Supreme Court has to decide to hear the appeal.

I don't see that happening here.

You're right, they'd never grant cert to this issue, in the big picture, it's not even interesting.

I just don't get it. People get all bent out of shape about red light cameras, especially after they get caught. Just don't run the red light. Just because it is a camera rather than a person in a car seeing you doesn't mean you aren't guilty of being a safety problem.

You are quite correct, there MAY be a valid reason for running a red light - or, in fact, not complying with any law.

If you feel you have a valid reason for not complying with a law, you can "tell it to the judge" when you contest the charge (in this case, a ticket). The judge will weigh your evidence aginst the evidence displayed in the photo or video and the testimony of an police officer or RLC technician, and decide which side is right.

I'm done providing links to back up my position. You can check google just as well as I can.

The conclusion one might draw is that Twix has made a statement ("vast majority") that can not be supported in the "majority" of reports about red light cameras.

If a link is provided, then that link is subject to debate and interpretation.

Twix's statement is certainly not true in Tennessee.

From what I've seen in various forums, this is the type of statement that is made when facts are not available to support the claim.

I've read that in most of Chicago's suburbs, the municipality has a police officer review the video before sending out the tickets. Then the officer shows up in court too.

I agree with you. Let's say ok, peeps that are against red light and speed cams, what is it you really want? Whatever that is, we'll give it to you.

So what do you want? No red light or speed cams, right? Ok, fine. So how does society then behave? I live in a metro area of nearly 19 mil. To be honest, as is, there is a lot of bad things going on. If you want to have a crime holiday, then so be it. I look to MD/DC instead--you're not going to speed around and run lights, because the chances are very good that you'll be receiving a summons in the mail. Nothing at all to do with rights.

My statement, opinion, whatever you want to call it, can easily be verified by searching google. Just because you don't agree with what I say. Just because it's not true in your area, does not mean that what I'm saying has no basis in fact.

If you really want to know the "other side" do more than criticize. Do more than comment. Open your eyes, open google, and learn.

In my estimation, fundamentally, RLCs are good. They detect folks that are breaking the law, and proceed to bring them to justice. However, when the first "court" having authority to determine guilt is a private company whose profits are determined by numbers of guilty that are detected, when the interpretation of an offense is unduly strict (especially right turn on red), and when governments modify the lights (shorter yellow) to increase revenue, they're definitely bad.

However I can think of many things going on in government circles today that are much worse.

Mike, I agree with you to a point, Bottom line is, RLC's aren't about safety and never will be, they are about revenue.

In my opinion, If safety were the issue, a simple fix such as increasing the on time of the amber light, and longer red in all directions status would provide a less accident prone environment. Only drawback I can see here is...... no money for the courts and the cities.

The RLC's don't see the entire picture of a given situation. In my case, I have "ran a boarder line red light" a time or two. Once to avoid skidding into the intersection, due to a way to brief amber light and on another occasion to avoid having the tailgating vehicle behind me from entering my vehicles back seat. In the situation concerning the tailgater, there was a police officer there and he pulled both of us over. The officer first issued a ticket to the tailgater and came back to me and commended me on my alertness in avoiding a collision. My point being, had this been a RLC and not a living being in observance, I would have received a ticket, inflated fine and perhaps a trip to traffic court and higher insurance rates.

Just my take on the issue.

Take care,

Robert
Huntington Beach, California

The purpose of the cameras is two-fold. One being revenue the second being changing behaviors. The "fix" about increasing light periods is effective only for a short time. The reason this change isn't that effective is that drivers adapt. If you increase a yellow light to 4 seconds for a 35 MPH street from 3.5 seconds, drivers begin to adapt because those that push the envelope begin to realize more vehicles can get through on the yellow than before. Increasing the all red or intersection clearing time has the same effect. Drivers know that if they enter the intersection just after the light has turned they quickly learn they have extra time to get through the intersection before opposing traffic starts moving.

The only drivers that adapt to longer light cycles are those that are prone to run the lights in any event. The greatest behavior modifier are the countdown signals that tell you how long is left before the light cycles. But then they only are effective for those that normally wouldn't push the timing in any event.

@Box Car has given, I think, a well reasoned explanation of what happens with timing changes. For those prone to push the envelope it just move their timing by whatever seconds (and/or fractions of seconds) was just added to the timing. For those inclined to obey the law, the additional time makes it easier to stop, but they were likely going to try to stop anyway.

Just wait, next will be speed cameras on the side of the road eliminating the need for police and radar guns sitting on the side of the road.