Civil versus Criminal Law

Why, that's not true at all. Except for these silly "civil" tickets issued in some states the laws apply equally between the states.

And that's what the thread is about.

I think it's reasonable for the government to use proper law to accuse me, and if they use a watered down method just to make their money grab "easier", well, I would put a stop to that.

I do understand the issue.

I like to have as many rights as possible.

I don't like to give up my rights and I don't want the government, who has ultimate power, to be able to take any shortcuts accusing me or my fellow Americans of anything.

I don't want them to arrange things to make it difficult or impossible for me to plead not guilty while they take shortcuts.

I especially don't want someone from another state to be able to break the law in one state while that state's citizens have to toe the line.

That does not happen if you are cited by a sworn police officer, only by a camera company and only in some states.

Fortunately I am in agreement with the people of my state, California, where the laws apply to Minnesotans and Alaskans precisely the same as to Californians.

If the government wants to accuse me of speeding I want them to have to appear in court should I dispute that. I want them to have to try hard to convict me if they can. I don't want them to use a civil law to do so to make it *easier* for them and more profitable, which is the whole reason the automated enforcement system exists.

This is all clear in the 14th amendment, and it is my position that civil enforcement of speed laws where it results in unequal treatment of persons from different states ought to be unconstitutional. If it were ever tried it would be found so. That it has not been tried yet is because the fines are kept small enough that only the ACLU or a similar organization could try that case, and they have not.

Which laws?

I think if a police officer were to cite you for speeding in Arizona you would ultimately have to address that, even if you lived in California.

I also think if you got a red light ticket in California but lived in Arizona you would have to address that as well. California does not allow speed cameras.

I assume you are speaking of traffic laws and I disagree that traffic laws have any consistency between states except for the act which occasions a ticket - like running a red light (on which almost all of us agree). The consequences are different. I am not aware that there is a "equal" fine that is required.

Consider that states have their own guidelines as to how much leeway over a speed limit is allowed before a ticket is issued. They are by no means "equal".

If what you mean is that all states forbid running a red light, I will agree with that.

Have we not determined that, in some states, traffic offenses are civil and in other criminal?

Is that applying traffic laws equally?

Have you ever been sued in a nuisance case? You do face your accuser, who costs you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees even though the case is ultimately dismissed as being without merit. Not sure what you fellas are arguing about.

Not just the government. We need a better system--if you want to sue somebody, you should have skin in the game, and pay when you lose. Here in the USA, you are able to find attorneys who work on contingencies, because they're after 1/3+ of a large amount.

Was in my own town, so I can't speak from experience. However, my understanding is that due to a compact and obviously computerization, one's own DMV is aware of violations that take place outside one's home state. However, they are not used for the jacking of insurance premiums, nor do those violations appear on one's DMV record. The exception is alcohol related offenses, which do carry over to one's home state, for those states in the compact.

It's common knowledge that CA is very harsh on lawbreakers, it's also very strict, and has always been strict, with emissions. Why does the penalty for jaywalking or speeding need to be uniform across all 50 states? I mean a rlc violation in CA is over $400, that's almost a days' pay for many people. I would prefer $110 myself, if I ever got one.

criminal law involves an action between the state and an individual, whereas civil law is an action between individuals. For these purposes, individuals are any legal entity (person, corporation, partnership, association, etc.).

Civil law deals with the disputes between individuals, organizations, or between the two, in which compensation is awarded to the victim.

Criminal law is the body of law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses.

The same conduct may produce both Civil and Criminal Liability.

The NM radar ticket I mentioned did show up on my CA driving record. I had two CA speeding tickets that year. DMV sent me a warning letter.
When I got yet another speeding ticket the next year, I had my speedometer checked. Seems my new 1965 Olds had a speedometer error. An understanding judge dismissed that ticket. Lesson learned.

No, you are spinning. That is not true at all.

The thread is about the civil tickets issued by automated enforcement in some states, whereas as I said the tickets issued by a police officer in all states is different. A criminal infraction vs a civil infraction.

That is what is wrong. I have been consistent on this. The reason civil infractions are used by camera companies and their government customers is the ease of getting money. This is their goal after all.

I have one of those Arizona speed camera tickets, it is very carefully worded. But no points on your license, you don't have to pay it if you don't live in Arizona.

Why in the world is a non Arizona resident able to violate speed laws and ignore Arizona tickets whereas Arizonans cannot?

I think its wrong that our state municipalities (Arizona State Gov did away with revenue cams years ago) do not issue the same civil action to Mexicans and out of state drivers, Photo Cam Tickets. The do this to keep the profit margin up, that is wrong and immoral, but again that's why they use the civil loop hole.

Please look at http://www.courts.state.hi.us/self-help/traffic/types_of_vio...

I read the following as indicating that states vary in their practices which you seem o be denying - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_ticket#United_States

I just cannot believe that you are making this claim - BUT if you are saying that all traffic tickets issued by a police officer are criminal offenses in all states, please clarify your position by indicating "yes"

Gotta love when they play 'double or nothing' with us.

I had something similar. My ticket showed a $250 fine. The county had a provision of asking for probation and after 180 days, the violation would be taken off your record. So I went to court and was granted the probation. "Pay the clerk $500," he said. Yup - $500 'court costs' to process the probation and waive the $250 fine.

My two youngest sisters are very aggressive drivers.. They gladly opt for probation and pay double court costs to keep their car insurance affordable.
I won't ride with either one of them.

That is exactly correct and what I am complaining about. I do not think (though I have no proof of this) that the same issue exists with tickets issued by a police officer.

Arizona ticket cameras only were used against Arizona citizens. Because of the civil nature of the tickets they were not effective on non Arizonans.

I never said traffic laws or fines were consistent between states. What I said is some states in improper collusion with ticket camera firms use civil laws for their convenience, and this is inconsistent with citations issued by their own police officers.

Their choice of law results in camera infractions that are not effective against non residents of that state. They do this because using proper law is too *hard*. And I consider that improper.

That Hawaii has civil traffic infractions surprises me.

Glad California doesn't have that. That is just ridiculous. Do any other states have that, or is Hawaii the only one? Maybe Hawaii does not find the need to concern themselves with automated enforcement issues against vehicles licensed in neighboring states, which makes a lot of sense.

You seem to say this Civil infraction stuff is widespread and I have no information that it is. BTW, the Hawaii tickets are kept on your license, but from the article it's not clear that there is any downside to this. In California, if you get too many points your license could be suspended. In Hawaii, that doesn't seem to be the case.

But it's not important, the fact remains that in Baltimore, as in Arizona, they had those automated enforcement civil infractions which they only used against their own citizens.

This thread was about how Baltimore's civil tickets were only issued by the camera company against their own citizens, not against persons from other states who could violate the laws there with impunity, like in Arizona.

I keep trying to get to facts.

While you accuse me of spinning, you have my head spinning trying to keep up with you, because you are contradicting yourself in trying to avoid making simple factual answers to questions I have posed to you.

First note that we are in the thread Civil versus Criminal Law. But you just said in your last post here

Now, I went back and reread the thread:
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/40013
and could not find any discussion of "persons from other states". So, I do not know what your are referring to in that thread. If I missed the referrences about "persons from other states", please let me know which comments they were in.

The thread we are in right now got started because you have said in
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/40013?page=2#comment-342359

[sidenote - I still have not commented on what I think are several false statements you made (photoshopped and below minimum)]

BUT - in your last post in this thread, you quoted me - where I was quoting you - saying

I was dealing with the fact that I knew there were some states that treated red light running and speeding tickets as "civil" offenses. My grandson got a ticket in Georgia and paid the fine in Probate Court, not Criminal Court.

In the Baltimore thread, we were dealing with your statement about facing your accuser which seemed to invoke the Sixth Amendment - so I included in my response to you the text of the Sixth Amendment which starts out "In all criminal prosecutions,..."

But, because my state and adjoining states treat many traffic offenses (including speeding and running red lights/stop signs) as civil offenses regardless of whether or not they were issued by a police officer or automated traffic camera, I said that "face your accuser" did not apply and noted that DanielT had given a good commentary
on the fact that you - in automated traffic enforcement cases - actually "face your accuser". See:
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28351#comment-182899

So, we had been debating civil vs criminal and you determined that all traffic violations in California are considered criminal (and responding to your post on that, I noted that the Sixth Amendment would indeed apply there).

Even though by this time we were also debating "equal protection" and non-resident violators, I tried to bring closure to the civil versus criminal debate and posted a link to Hawaii that indicates that traffic infractions there are civil.

Then, you said

which I assume would cause your answer to the question I posed to you, saying:

will have to be "No" since Hawaii is clear.

I also assume that you did not follow the Wikipedia link because it says:
In the United States, most traffic laws are codified in a variety of state, county and municipal laws or ordinances, with most minor violations classified as civil infractions. What constitutes a "minor violation" or infraction varies, examples include non-moving violations, defective or improper vehicle equipment, seat belt and child-restraint safety violations, and insufficient proof of license, insurance or registration. A trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s also saw an increased tendency for jurisdictions to re-classify certain speeding violations as civil infractions. In contrast, for more "serious" violations, traffic violators may be held criminally liable, accused of a misdemeanor or even a felony. Serious violations tend to involve multiple prior offenses, willful disregard of public safety, death or serious bodily injury, or damage to property. A frequently used penalty is a fine, and this is ordinarily a fixed amount of money, instead of being an amount of money determined based on the facts of each individual case.

you might also look at
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c008/index.shtml

So, unless you want to pursue the civil vs criminal traffic discussion any further, shall we agree that there are states where traffic offenses issued by police officers are civil infractions?

If so, maybe we can close this thread on Civil vs Criminal Law and open a new one on Equal Protection.

You switched over to "equal protection" because some states were not pursuing tickets incurred by non-residents saying:

You have indicated you are against the fact that persons from other states ... could violate the laws [of other states] with impunity. I am not sure how accurate that is.

I do not think you followed my link to
http://autos.aol.com/article/out-of-state-speeding-ticket/
which indicated that

This article talks about the Driver License Compact, the Non-Resident Violator Compact and the Driver License Agreement. Links to these are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Resident_Violator_Compact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement

You have been wanting "equal protection" which seemed to invoke the 14th Amendment. I have already given you the text of that amendment and asked you to give us your interpretation of whether or not it applies to fact that some states have decided to not pursue (other than mailing the offender a ticket in the mail) non-resident owners of vehicles caught by traffic enforcement camera.

You have not yet done so - perhaps because it is hard to interpret that amendment as requiring states to vigorously pursue non-resident traffic violators which is what you seem to want. I do not see how it can be interpreted that way.

Ya know, we discussed this all on the other thread.

I will just have to agree to disagree.

I think your standards are too low, and low standards are the scourge of our society the last few years.

I have stated my position and I cannot debate it online with no end in sight.

If you want to be a usenet lawyer you are doing a great job of that, I gave up debating usenet lawyers some years ago. Maybe before you were born.

Ya know, we discussed this all on the other thread.

I will just have to agree to disagree.

I think your standards are too low, and low standards are the scourge of our society the last few years.

I have stated my position and I cannot debate it online with no end in sight.

If you want to be a usenet lawyer you are doing a great job of that, I gave up debating usenet lawyers some years ago. Maybe before you were born.

@steevo, we may very well agree on what the standards ought to be, but what we think about standards has little to do with the facts of a situation.

I have no problem with you saying that "it ought to be this way". Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Everyone is not, however, entitled to their own "facts".

I think the "scourge" of our society is the misinformation and often outright lies that are made because someone does not like something and uses lies and misinformation to try to garner support for their position.

That is why I ask questions about statements posters make. And, before I ask the questions, I do some research to see if I can find support for the statement someone made. If I can't find support, I ask for links.

For example, you have made a statement about San Diego.

I have spent time on Google trying to find any factual support for that claim. I find none.

I do find blogs, etc. where someone makes that claim (and it usually if said to be in the 2001 timeframe). There is never and source cited.

Can you provide any links to a source on San Diego?

Note that the answer could easily be yes or no.

What is a fact:
You do not have the right to drive but the states give you permission to drive. This means you are not giving up any rights pertaining to driving except when you get caught breaking the laws.
Each state controls their police department and the feds have no jurisdiction unless asked by the states for help.
Each state issues drivers licenses according to their rules set by law. Several states have speed limits over 70mph on certain roads and other states don't. The only case where the federal government can control this is by controlling the purse.
Each officer has certain leeway in enforcing the law which is not written in stone and unless there is an intensive revue. Some people will be stopped going 4 miles per hour over the limit and others 10.
All of this is because of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

If I personally observed yellows being shortened, then I have a indisputable fact. If I report it to the San Diego Union Tribune, and they choose not to print my story, then does my fact go away?
If the mayor & Redflex say that the lights were not shortened, should we accept the statement as fact, just because the paper did print their story.
Remember, Redflex promised the mayor much needed revenue.

Given the situation as you pose it - that is, you personally observed yellows being shortened and reported it to the paper, then you have a fact.

However, I think you will agree that it is highly unlikely that the paper would choose not to publish it. The more likely situation is that someone says that they have proof - say a cellphone video - that the light was at one duration last week and another duration this week - and report it to the paper and the paper jumps on it immediately.

What is missing from your scenario is the description of the number of people who have been ticketed because of a improper yellow and want their money refunded. This results in an investigation whereupon the facts come out.

Usually the facts will ultimately be reported in a way that conclusions can be drawn as to what happened.

So to answer your question, I will say No, a link does not make a fact. All it does is give someone the opportunity to review the claims made.

Now they won't try to extradite an out of state or Mexican. If they are stopped again they might go to the slammer and have to post bail and interest will be added to the fine.

If one can prove the yellow lights were shortened (a stop watch or video's, comparison with other lights in the city) then you can prove it but a person stating he saw the change will not actually stand up to scrutiny for there are few people that can see the difference in 1/3 of a second. An example is that the old tv sets displayed 1/2 of the picture in 1/2 of a second and then filled in between the lines the second 1/2 second but because the eye has a retention level, the eye only saw both scenes as one. Reporting it to a newspaper has no bearing on this for the paper has no legal standing. Just look at the recent 60 Minutes report on Bengazi which they had to retract because the source lied.
Seeing that the above quote is hypothetical I would suggest that one verifies the story before it is presented as fact.

That San Diego incident was Lockheed Martin, and I read it in the newspaper at the time.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/18/news/hw-23456

Your cited link discusses misplaced sensors giving wrong results.

The only reference to shortening the duration of the yellow is made by a LA official

I don't see how the cited link (dating from 2001) proves your point that San Diego deliberately reduces the yellow.

I told you I read it in the paper in 2001. If I have to prove things to you by citing an online article, well, I'll just let you do that.

I stand by my statement and you are welcome to make yourself look foolish by yelling "liar, liar, pants on fire"

The article I linked said:
"Though some critics of the cameras in San Diego allege that the yellow-light phases have been shortened to make it easier to catch people running a red light, Fisher says that's not happening in Los Angeles"

As you said, they deny that Lockeed Martin reset the signals to shorter than the minimum yellow light of 3 seconds in Los Angeles. No argument there. I notice in your response you cut and pasted selectively from the LA article. No one has denied that the yellow lights were reduced in San Diego, at least in that article.

The allegation at the time in San Diego was that the yellow light duration was indeed set to less than that by the camera vendor which is illegal, and when it came out many such red light tickets were dismissed. In San Diego. Many were paid, and my position is that was illegal.

This thread was about Baltimore who discontinued their camera program which used civil law to ticket mostly their own citizens. I say that is improper and if it's not illegal it should be. It might be illegal but like many such laws these things can go on for years before they are found to be illegal. I say that's what's been going on there. I understand you dispute that.

The law my never be properly applied because the fines are probably low enough that almost no one would hire an attorney, pay them, and get the law struck down except perhaps a civil rights group, and it's possible none have yet put their money where their mouth is.

If I had been ticketed in Baltimore I would be faced with paying a file of maybe $40 of $60, or paying $150,000 to carry the case through the appeals court. It's an easy choice for me, so all I do is free blogging. Which is what I am doing here. Free.

I told you I read it in the paper in 2001. If I have to prove things to you by citing an online article, well, I'll just let you do that.

I stand by my statement and you are welcome to make yourself look foolish by yelling "liar, liar, pants on fire"

The article I linked said:
"Though some critics of the cameras in San Diego allege that the yellow-light phases have been shortened to make it easier to catch people running a red light, Fisher says that's not happening in Los Angeles"

As you said, they deny that Lockeed Martin reset the signals to shorter than the minimum yellow light of 3 seconds in Los Angeles. No argument there. I notice in your response you cut and pasted selectively from the LA article. No one has denied that the yellow lights were reduced in San Diego, at least in that article.

The allegation at the time in San Diego was that the yellow light duration was indeed set to less than that by the camera vendor which is illegal, and when it came out many such red light tickets were dismissed. In San Diego. Many were paid, and my position is that was illegal.

This thread was about Baltimore who discontinued their camera program which used civil law to ticket mostly their own citizens. I say that is improper and if it's not illegal it should be. It might be illegal but like many such laws these things can go on for years before they are found to be illegal. I say that's what's been going on there. I understand you dispute that.

The law my never be properly applied because the fines are probably low enough that almost no one would hire an attorney, pay them, and get the law struck down except perhaps a civil rights group, and it's possible none have yet put their money where their mouth is.

If I had been ticketed in Baltimore I would be faced with paying a file of maybe $40 or $60, or paying $150,000 to carry the case through the appeals court. It's an easy choice for me, so all I do is free blogging. Which is what I am doing here. Free.

This should not surprise you at all.

Ok, Steevo, you say that Not2Bright selectively quoted from the article - implying that you would have been vindicated is only the full article had been quoted.

Well here it is

Please quote the part of this full article that supports your statement that

I never said it was in that article, though it alluded to what I read in the paper 12 years ago.

I recently bought a new Garmin unit, and on one of the forums where the "deal" was posted, there were many links to this site. Although I am a practicing attorney in Florida (BTW, turnpike tolls are billed by mail to the plate for non-transponder users), I have been speeding (moderately of course) my entire life. I figured it was about time that I knew where the cameras were.

I have observed a few things about criminal vs. civil law in my 6 years. First, people fight much harder for money than for their freedom. Second, it is HARD to make a living as a criminal lawyer. State attorneys make nothing and private defense counsel are always fighting to get paid. Criminals are usually broke. Civil law is where the money is, and thus, where the best lawyers practice.

I am happy to answer any Florida law questions... Glad to be a member.

Welcome to the forums. Enjoy your stay.

However, I would be careful about this.

I would add that any advice you may give would not be considered a legal opinion and restrict yourself to explaining how the law works rather than giving any advice other than "contact your personal attorney."

I seem to recall that in 2001 there were three intersections in San Diego where the vendor moved the road sensors and did not adjust the timing of the cameras to account for the sensor movement. I think that, when this was discovered, all cameras were suspended until the problem was fixed and the tickets from the three intersections were refunded.

Are you saying that you read actual words in some San Diego paper (not the online link you cited) that the yellow lights were shortened (or even overlooked) to "improve revenue"?

I keep questioning that because I find it hard to believe that the NMA of thenewspaper.com would not have picked that up.

It is funny to see non-lawyers more concerned about liability than actual lawyers. If I don't know the answer to someone's question, then my answer is always, "I don't know." Otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable giving an opinion without a disclaimer. Otherwise, of what use is an attorney?

Last year while driving in Florida I had a minor traffic accident. Specifically, the car in front of me stopped at a red-light, I did not stop in time and brushed the rear bumper of the car.

The woman driver did not know what to do and tried phoning her husband, no success. Then she called the State police. The trooper turned up a couple of minutes before her husband did. Everyone agreed there was no damage, no injury. However, the trooper explained that since he had been called out, he had to give me a ticket. He also told me to go to the courtroom, find a lawyer and he'd easily get the case dismissed.

Since I was merely driving through the town I didn't want to waste time, so I just saw the court recorder, gave them a cheque for $160 (the minimum fine possible) and completed a form admitting guilt but explaining why I thought the case should be dismissed. Apparently the paper was reviewed by somebody and the fine was upheld but there would be no record kept and no points deducted. Likewise my home Province of Ontario would not be notified. this seemed reasonable to me, after all I had committed an offence. Incidentally Florida did not come after me for difference between the $160 Can and $160 US.

I still don't quite understand what review etc. took place and was wondering if you could explain it? As I say I have no complaints and am quite satisfied by the result.

I didn't say it was a San Diego paper. Why do you think I said that?

Yeah, that's what the allegations were in the newspaper at the time. Sorry you can't find that statement word for word online, but that was what it said.

Because they can. The advocacy thing vs trying to convince someone of innocence.

Or that they haven't completely proven guilt. The difference in standards.

What went on in Baltimore. Lowering standards of proof to make it easier to get money, as long as the purported lawbreaker didn't fight too hard.

And, of course, because of the "principle of the thing." Heh

So do you do civil, or criminal, or both?

You're a lawyer, but you're not our lawyer.
Welcome to the forum.