I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how it stands up in court. But the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle with a picture of the vehicle and then a close up of the tag. As far as I know, if you don't pay it, the state won't renew your tags. The first offense is $30.00, so it's not worth fighting.
That's incorrect. All traffic offenses are committed by the driver, not the owner of the vehicle. It makes sense, right? If you loan your car to someone, you are not responsible for their traffic violations.
They will send you a photo of not only the license plate,
but the face of the driver. If it's your face in the photo, most people will just pay the ticket. They can compare the photo to your DL.
If it's not your face in the photo, all you have to do is tell them it's not you. They cannot compel you to disclose the ID of the driver, that's not your responsibility, it's their responsibility. They have to establish that it was you driving, and they can't force you to do their job. Think about it.
Actually, in this state, they don't give you a picture of the driver. This is an example of what our tickets look like.
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/pvhgtkLl.jpg)
However, I do agree with you, ultimately the person driving the vehicle is at fault.
I found this website that defends the fact that this crap is unconstitutional and unfair. The worst part is that you are guilty until proven innocent.
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/p/arguments-against-speed-cameras.html Ticket Recipients who challenge citations have their cases heard in an unfair court proceeding commonly known as District Court 'Speed Camera Day', where dozens of defendants have their cases heard in an assembly line manner. Because the burden of proof for speed camera tickets has been lowered below that of a criminal case, below that for even ordinary traffic violations, defendants are essentially 'guilty until proven innocent'. Judges have in some cases made statements to the effect that
'the only acceptable "not guilty" plea was if someone else had been driving their car at the time the ticket was issued, and to present that driver." At Speed Camera Day hearings the government is free to present evidence without supporting witnesses, something which would normally be a violation of the "Rules of Evidence". In some cases defendants are found guilty even when they have proven that required operating procedures were not followed. In many cases even when a defendant requests the "operator" of the camera to appear, in the manner described on the citations, judges have instructed that those operators need not testify, something which goes against several supreme court rulings on the spirit of the "Confrontation Clause" of the US constitution. Not only does this set a horrible legal precedent, and risk finding innocent people guilty, but it gives no incentive for the government agencies which are enforcing the law to obey the law themselves.
