Judge Orders Speed Cameras Confiscated

More sense than judges usually demonstrate!

Fred

to move this judge to Montgomery County, MD !!!

You've got two from Monkey County now!!!

Fred

Hmm.. I wonder what set him off to find the City/Town in contempt.

I'd bet he got himself an undeserved ticket and is giving them a good slap in the face.

The traffic camera company collected the citations, and apparently continued to collect money sent in after the judge’s March order.

His finding that the cameras are "unconstitutional" will not hold up.

DITTO

To to many people who have not read the US Constitution here are complaining but if they actually paid attention they would have long ago realized that once you are in the public arena , "YOU CAN BE WATCHED"
The police have the right to photograph you breaking the law in traffic just like the stores have the right to photograph one stealing from a store and using the recording against you.
My brother in law just got a ticket for running a red light and it cost him $100 which he paid. He wanted to protest but after viewing the video he saw that he did a rolling stop which is against the law.
I believe that most people who complain against cameras are people who daily break the law and are afraid of being caught.

We need more of this judge.

If transplanted to MoCo in the People's Republic, this judge would either end up like Vince Foster, or be Borg'ed by Ike Leggit (sp?), OweMalley, Frosh, and all the rest of the uber liberals continuously saving their "phoney baloney jobs."

'The Free State' indeed.

Kudos to the Judge!!!

I believe the original ruling was for Due Process issues, lack of warnings as required by state law, and calibration (accuracy). I don't believe not allowing people to be watched was one of the points.

I hope Ft Worth police do not read these posts, they only charged me $75. I also objected until I saw the video.

This isn't about safety, it's about revenue generation.

Actually it is about people breaking the law and don't want to be caught. There is no revenue if people obeyed the law. Only lawbreaker get the privilege of paying the fines.

It always interests me to see how some people state the obvious - that fines are about revenue generation. Of course it is - regardless of whatever benefits, if any, arise.

Municipalities assess fees for all manner of traffic violations, of which running red lights is but one category. They also charge for emissions certificates, drivers licenses, car registration, etc., but few complain so publicly about those.

I would rather - as kurzemnieks says - that the lawbreaker get[s] the privilege of paying the fines for running red lights.

most likely wants to get reelected in 2017

Again I ask, why is it always these small places that are doing all the whining and complaining? San Francisco assesses $480 for a red light violation, and they will provide a pie chart showing where the fines go. Like you said, it's stating the obvious. I have yet to see anyone complain about it in SF. They kind of um, don't run red lights there.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/41/4167.asp

Ohio has a long history of running speed trap scams.

There is to much blame put on the camera and not the people using it. Blame and hold accountable the scrupulous people abusing the system. Make them follow the law. The camera cannot cheat on its own.

It just gets better and better. Thanks for posting that.

I wonder if Brekford is a publicly-held company. Sounds like it's time to short their stock and make a bundle as they're probably not long for this world.

As more and more of these abuses come to light, I believe that more and more authorities (including judges) will be forced to exercise good judgement and seriously limit these cameras or get rid of them entirely.

Another great application for class-action.

It's a problem in California too. I just haven't seen much posting about it here. By the way, it's not whining and complaining to stand up and say you are tired of being scammed.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/06/25/california-red-l...

The reason people don't complain about emission certificates, driver's licenses, car registration, city stickers, etc., is because everyone is required to pay for them. Red light cameras don't ticket only those that go through red lights long after the lights have changed. They ticket the people that don't know if they have enough time to stop safely at the white line, or go through with the light changing to red at the last second. Or those that roll through rights on red, where no pedestrians are ever present. And of course, intersections where if the yellow lights were timed properly, everyone would be able to stop without getting an unfair ticket that you can't dispute, unless you want to spend more money.

And only people who oppose having cameras installed in public bathroom stalls are those who are doing illegal drugs there.

In the meantime, law abiding AP reporters have nothing to worry about from the justice department.

Not all people have vehicles; there are even a few without driver's licenses. So not everybody pays - only those with vehicles.

Without debating whether or not someone ought to get a ticket for a roll through rights on red, where no pedestrians are ever present, the law was still broken - and the person knew they were breaking the law.

While agreeing that getting a ticket you cannot dispute without cost is unfair, I will assert that it is possible to drive in such a way - at the speed limit, maintaining distance from the car in front of you (I like the three second rule), not engaging in any distracting activities, coming to full stops when required, etc - such that it is highly unlikely you would be put in a situation where you would receive a ticket (@twix, have you gotten a ticket in the years since speed/red light cameras have been in action?). Most people do not drive this carefully - and the fact that most people are not driving at or below the speed limit has caused red light camera opponents to claim if the yellow lights were timed properly people would be able to stop.

Let's do a thought experiment. Say the yellow interval was set at 30 seconds; The implication of your timed properly reasoning would seem to be that there would be no red light running tickets. Yet, my feeling is that it would increase tickets because drivers would likely not know when the yellow light initiated and would assume it would stay yellow until they got through. A driver would constantly have to watch for the next light on the route and start a mental countdown.

I wish opponents of traffic cameras would channel their vehemence into efforts to having some sort of countdown timer installed at any location where a red light camera is installed. With countdown timers, I wonder what Automated Traffic Camera opponents would advance as reason not to have cameras.

Lets not mix black pepper with fly crap. The above quote has nothing to do with traffic cameras.
I have yet to read of a law approving rolling stops at red lights or stop signs where there are no people present. The law says STOP and if you choose to ignore the law then you must pay the price.
If there is a problem with how the cameras are used then fix that problem.

My sis was over in Davenport with grandkids. A police car was pacing her in the other lane. The light ahead turned yellow. She, not knowing the duration of the yellow, braked firmly. The policeman sailed through the light just in time. Sis stopped, but front of car was barely across the stop line. The citation came in the mail. The $100 is a hardship for her.

That strikes me as unfair - so much so that I checked with our traffic engineer to see what would have happened here in my hometown. He commented that such a citation would not be allowed by state law. Indeed, he said that he has trouble believing that it could have happened.

@spokybob, I hope your sister appeals that ticket. What was the infraction?

She said she "had" to pay it.

^ This.

And after the black helicopters get done at my house, they'll be on the way to yours.

Unless I can get them drunk on 'Victory Gin'.