Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Please tell me how a "redlight camera" violates your civil rights

Ahem... yeah, right... that is like saying that congress & the pres ought to be subjected to SS just like we are.

Keep talkin' like that and and they'll label you a loon... or worse, an RPer .

How current is that Sam, I have not kept up much in the past couple of years. I was just talking about it this morning with a Lake Placid Captain and that was the figure that came up (10%).

Seems out in the DFW area, if you get a ticket sent to your house, the ticket does not go on your state driving record as a violation.

That's means to me the ticket is just for revenue.

A LEO writes a ticket, you pay and it goes on your driving record.

2010 Terry. I was given that reference to the State Law by the office of my State Senator a few months back. He was a long time former Sheriff in Alachua, Steve Oelrich, and one of the good guys for sure.

OK, thanks Sam. We are just grunts so misinformation does happen!

Didn't read the whole thread, but there is a short answer to the OP's question.

In a criminal proceeding, you have the right to confront your accuser, and you have the right to question that accuser under oath. How are you going to do that when your accuser is a machine? For example, according to SCOTUS, if you're on trial and if forensic evidence is presented, the lab technician who prepared the evidence has to be available to testify and to be cross examined.

Those who keep statistics on such things say that traffic cameras do not reduce traffic accidents. So if that's true, it's only about the revenue, not about your safety.

Worked with the retired officer. They were reluctant to release the number of tickets issued and the amout of revenue generated. When it was finally released it was very obvious that it was a revenue rasing device, not a safety tool. Cameras have been shut down for a couple of years. Would love to see the stats on increase/ decrease of accidents. GW

Gives them extra time at Dunken Donuts

HEY! Don't be picking on the sub-station!

now would i do something like that?

Yep

or the sales rep who sold them.

Traffic infractions aren't criminal proceedings. The accuser is the state/county/town and one can certainly go to court and refute and defend against the violation.

The S.Ct Melendez-Diaz case was probably the most discussed case and procedural nightmare causing case of the past year.

Many areas are removing them for this reason.

My concern is that we are becoming a society that is under constant surveillance. It is not difficult to envision a system where you are trackable from the time you leave your property until you return. Between traffic cams, webcams, store cams, and parking lot cams.Add electronic purchases and web browsing to that and we can paint a pretty accurate picture of your life.

You must have an I-phone or on-star

I don't know how it violates our "civil rights" but I do believe we should resist "Big Brother government" in all it's forms.

Neither, but your cell can be tracked regardless.
Here are some traffic cams: http://lb.511.idaho.gov/idlb/cameras/routeselect.jsf;jsessionid=47D9E247E8962E39B67915D33B78B579?view=state&text=m&textOnly=false
http://www.northwestwebcams.com/idaho-web-cams.shtm

It doesn't violate my civil rights. However, it is the behavior of an out of control government and should not be tolerated by the people. So far our system of government seems to be working as the proliferation of these cameras seems to have slowed and they're gradually being removed from many locations. Citizens standing up and calling BS on these schemes seems to be having the needed effect. The pressure needs to be kept up by the people to keep this crap from becoming the norm.

I agree with your concern, but so should the police. With GPS, cell phone, and video face recognition and analysis technology it's already possible for speeding and most other moving violations to be determined by computer and assigned to the driver without human intervention. It's just a matter of time before the "if it saves just one life..." crowd demands such technology be an integral part of every new vehicle. Heck, the computer can find you guilty and take the fine right out of your bank account and have a printer in the car's dashboard spit out a ticket showing how much that infraction cost you. Of course, the computer won't be able to apply the "reasonable person" test, but just think how much money can be saved by cutting all those unnecessary police jobs.

On that note, I oppose all forms of vending machine justice regardless of the cost savings or the claim that lives might be saved. Driving under constant surveillance is both stressful and boring and drivers who are not involved in the job of driving kill far more people than surveillance saves.

When technology advances to the point where cars can drive themselves then I'll support constant surveillance as a means of solving bugs in the system. As long as humans are driving then humans should enforce the laws using their experience and good judgment.

They were all over the place in AZ. Once people figured out there was a time line to pay, they started dragging their feet and not paying the tickets. Also, the word got out, mostly due to talk radio, that what they mailed you was NOT a legal ticket. If you didn't sign it, to "confess" your guilt, it meant nothing. Actual fines paid was less than 50% of tickets mailed.

Also, in Arizona, it is specified in the state constitution, that the accused has the right to confront their accuser in open court, and ask them questions under oath. You can't ask a camera a question, so YES, in AZ, your rights were violated.

I have not seen a camera, red light, or speed, since moving to N. Dakota. Don't know if there are any in the state, but none in Bismarck.