Don't miss what's happening in Kingwood
People on Kingwood.com are the first to know.
Go to top of page
Close
 
Close
Back

yes,, redlight cameras unconstitutional

yes,, redlight cameras unconstitutional

« Back
This discussion has been locked.
Message Menu
by: KTownTexican Active Indicator LED Icon 11 OP 
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 11:57am  
This is good news, for those cameras. Soon it will be nation wide.key points....1. did the law enforcement official office send you the citation - or did the owners of the cameras (non-law enforcment)2. Was it being monitored by a certified police officer or by someone who then told the PD3. Was it a state highway or a city road - then which PD has jurisdiction... see above4. who was driving,,,, was it the owner of the car... where is the proofthis was challenged and won in New Mexico...now it was challenged and won in FloridaRed Light Cameras are found to be Unconstitutional in Florida Judge Rulingby Michael | posted: May 6, 20140 CommentNot only did a man in Pasco County, Florida feel it was wrong for his license plate to be taken by a traffic camera placed to catch people running red lights, but he also felt it was wrong constitutionally. A judge has given a ruling that backs up Thomas Filippone. “This is a matter of unalienable rights”, said personal injury lawyer, Michael Ehline, a California lawyer who deals with traffic incidents. “Let’s hope it happens in LA as well” said Ehline.As reported by the Tampa Bay Tribune, a $158 traffic ticket was given to Filippone that he is refusing to pay. He also plans to start being extra careful at red lights:Ehline agrees with Filippone, 45, who feels that under the law, it is their [govt's] duty to prove the identity of the person driving the vehicle. He states his 2002 Nissan Altima had just crossed the intersection an instant before the light changed to red on April 15. Filippone feels it is an unjust how the burden of proving the case is shifted to his shoulders. When Filippone brought his case before Pasco County Judge, Anne Wansboro, she not only agreed but also dismissed the case. Judge Wansboro stated the way the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant from the use of the cameras is impermissible. She states the use of the cameras is unconstitutional and does not warrant due process.The case however is not entirely closed. According to the Tribune a motion has not been filed to remove the traffic camera and they are still in place. (King George would be proud.) Appeals against the decision made by Wansboro will also be filed by some city officials in the county. City Manager, Tom O’Neill, states that they are not in agreement of the judge’s decision. He also stated there was no notification of a constitutional challenge given to the city about the cameras on two red lights located on U.S. 19. The position of the city officials is they were not given due process, which eliminated their opportunity to speak.Joe Poblick, Port Richey city attorney, said the Florida Attorney General’s Office have been notified of the judge’s ruling. Any time the statutes of a state are an issue of constitutionality, it is a requirement to notify the attorney general. The cameras are still being used; however the proceedings are being closely watched as they go through the appeals process by city officials of other counties in Florida. Filippone believes the Pasco ruling stands, and it’s doubtful he’ll get anymore red light tickets. He also plans to fight another ticket regarding the very same issue using the ruling. “If SEIU govt employees want to keep milking taxpayers, they will have to do it another way, said personal injury lawyer Michael Ehline of Ehline Law Firm PC.” 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
What are your thoughts? Log in or sign up to comment
Replies:
Message Menu
KTownTexican Active Indicator LED Icon 11 OP 
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 12:01pm  
Las Cruces driver's red-light challenge upheldBy Steve Ramirez / sramirez@lcsun-news.comPOSTED:   05/08/2013 05:42:26 PM MDTClick photo to enlargeCristobal RodriguezLAS CRUCES —A successful legal challenge to a controversial Las Cruces ordinance that governs red-light cameras has been upheld by state District Judge Manuel Arrieta of Las Cruces.In the challenge, filed by Las Crucen Cristobal Rodriguez, Arrieta issued a 31-page decision May 2 saying, among other things, Rodriguez's rights to due process were denied; the city and a hearing officer who found that Rodriguez's vehicle was apparently guilty of speeding through a red-light enforcement camera in 2009 acted outside their scopes of authority; and the city had no authority to alter or enact rules of evidence for its administrative hearings.The city will challenge Arrieta's decision after determining which court their appeal will be made, officials said."The city plans to proceed to the (New Mexico) Court of Appeals or to another court for reversal of the judge's opinion," city attorney Harry "Pete" Connelly said. "The city may seek a writ with the state Supreme Court."In Arrieta's decision, the judge wrote: "It is hereby ordered that the action of the city was otherwise, not in accordance with law and therefore the decision of the hearing officer in finding a violation is reversed," Arrieta's written opinion said. The city must refund the $100 fine Rodriguez paid, and the violation must be removed from his records.Rodriguez, an assistant professor in NMSU's College of Education, did not immediately return calls at his home or his office seeking comment on Arrieta's ruling.But Anthony Avallone, a trustee for the Due Process Foundation, a Las Cruces grassroots organization that is challenging the constitutionality of the city's Safe Traffic Operations Program (STOP) ordinance, is pleased with Arrieta's decision. Avallone, a retired attorney, said the ruling could help efforts to ultimately get the ordinance struck down."Judge Arrieta did a good job," Avallone said. "He (Rodriguez) took all of the arguments we've been making about the ordinance and presented them to Arrieta — and he accepted them. ...We want the courts to declare the ordinance unconstitutional."Las Crucen Diane Brock, said she considered Arrieta's decision a victory for city motorists."There's been too many arguments about the benefits of those cameras that have been way too argumentative," said Brock, of the enforcement cameras. "I keep seeing more of these news reports on TV talking about the unconstitutionality of these cameras, and it's got me wondering more and more if they're not right and these cameras should just be turned off. I think the city needs to take a long look at whether they want to keep these cameras around much more. Good for Mr. Rodriguez, I'm glad he was able to prove his point."Steve Ramirez can be reached at 575-541-5452. Follow him on Twitter @SteveRamirez6Red light— State District Judge Manuel Arrieta has ruled that as a result of the effects of multiple errors, Cristobal Rodriguez — who appealed a hearing officer's ruling that he allegedly violated the city of Las Cruces' Safe Traffic Operations Program (STOP) ordinance — was denied due process.— Arrieta's ruling also said the city acted outside its scope of authority; the city had no authority to alter or to enact the Rules of Evidence for its administrative hearings; and the hearing officer acted outside of his authority.— As a result, Rodriguez's conviction of the STOP ordinance is reversed, and the city is required to refund the $100 fine Rodriguez paid.— City attorneys intend to appeal Arrieta's ruling, either to the state Court of Appeals or possibly to the New Mexico Supreme Court.— The city has until June 2 to file its appeal with the appropriate court. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
KTownTexican Active Indicator LED Icon 11 OP 
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 12:02pm  
U.S. Supreme Court Could Outlaw All Red Light CamerasComments (11)By Dennis Romero Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:05 AMCategories: LawThe matter of whether California's dreaded red light camera tickets are legal is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.Howard Herships, a retiree from Rancho Cordova, has been challenging $980 worth of right-turn, red light camera tickets he received in that Sacramento-area town last year. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case in December.See also: Dreaded Red-Light Camera Tickets Are Legit, California High Court RulesSo that opened the door for him to take the matter to the highest court in the land, which he did:He filed a request for a "writ of certiorari" in the case of Howard Herships v. California. What that means is that the court can decide to take the case by granting "cert," or not. It has until April 18 to do so.If it does decide to hear the case, then it could decide for or against Herships. The Supreme Court declines to hear a vast majority of these requests, so we shouldn't get our hopes up.However, Herships says the case reflects a constitutional question about this contemporary, flashbulb justice:The Fourteenth Amendment says you have the right to confront your accuser. But how can you do so if your accuser is a camera? "You have to have a confrontation with the person accusing," the 70-year-old told us.Herships notes that in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who challenged his DUI conviction because a blood-testing company did not offer up the person who analyzed his results to testify. Essentially, the court said in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, a human has to be pointing the finger.In that case the firm in question offered up for testimony a "surrogate" who had not originally analyzed the data. Not good enough, the court said in a 5-4 ruling.Herships, who got to a third year of law school before the Vietnam War required his service, thinks his case is similar: In order to convict you of a red light violation with a photograph, the technician who reviewed that photograph should have to testify against you."You have to have the original person there because with Photoshop or other programs you can alter a digital photo," he said.Of course, if the court said photo techs have to testify, that could unravel the whole red light camera system across the United States: Most jurisdictions, including many in L.A. county, use out-of-town firms like Phoenix-based Redflex to automatically mail off tickets when their cameras allegedly catch someone busting through a red.It would take significant resources to fly a technician out every time someone appeals their ticket.Herships' Supreme Court filing puts the question like this:Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a non-testifying computer technician through the in-court testimony of a police officer who did not perform or observe the printout of the digital photos and videos used as a testimony introduced as the sole basis for the criminal prosecution?You can ignore red light camera tickets from Los Angeles county jurisdictions because the Superior Court has decided there's no way to prove you received the citations. With traffic tickets, you sign a binding "notice to appear" in court. With tickets mailed to you, there is no such contract.See also: Yes, You Can Still Ignore That Red-Light Camera TicketIn a way, the L.A. courts have said if there's not an accuser there (in this case a police officer) to get you to acknowledge receiving a ticket, then it's not 100 percent legit. The city of L.A. and many other jurisdictions have discontinued their red light cameras.On April 3 the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that's similar to Herships,' People v. Goldsmith, in downtown Los Angeles. It's open to the public 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
donnatella Active Indicator LED Icon 13 Forum Moderator
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 12:25pm  
Will they be refunding everyone that was scammed by the camera at Townsen and 1960?  I was allegedly busted at that intersection a couple of years ago.  4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
Mrb1 Active Indicator LED Icon 1
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 5:28pm  
I was busted at Towsen Blvd. too. I broke the law. I knew the law and I made the choice to violate it - three times. I paid the tickets and learned my lesson. No one is to blame but me. I take ownership of my actions. Why not take ownership? I own my actions whether I want to or not.   4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
MTechnique Active Indicator LED Icon 4
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 5:38pm  
I was busted at Towsen Blvd. too. I broke the law. I knew the law and I made the choice to violate it - three times. I paid the tickets and learned my lesson. No one is to blame but me. I take ownership of my actions. Why not take ownership? I own my actions whether I want to or not.  
 
@Mrb1: Here everyone is exactly the kind of sap they count on to just bend over and take it up the aah I mean pay the ticket without question.
4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
BooBear Active Indicator LED Icon 16
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 5:44pm  
I was busted at Towsen Blvd. too. I broke the law. I knew the law and I made the choice to violate it - three times. I paid the tickets and learned my lesson. No one is to blame but me. I take ownership of my actions. Why not take ownership? I own my actions whether I want to or not.  
 
@Mrb1:
 
Do you call the police and self report everytime you may accidentally speed or anything?
 
Ive paid 2 tickets there. Emoticon 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
noel Active Indicator LED Icon 1
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 5:47pm  
I don't understand people who ADMIT that they ran a red light, but don't think that they should be fined for doing so. I hear the argument that there is no proof that they were the one driving the car. Do some just let random people borrow their cars? Make your friend/relative pay! 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
Sniper12 Active Indicator LED Icon 12
~ 9 years ago   Oct 21, '14 7:04pm  
I received those tickets about 4 times a couple yrs back and each time I change my plates so that would not stop me from getting my registration for my truck. and still keep getting letters to pay my fine, which I will not pay... They can Kiss my A%%... 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
This discussion has been locked.
« Back to Main Page
Views: 4
# Replies: 8

KingwoodDotCom




Radiant Facials Skin & Body Spa Logo Fox Family Pools Logo Kingwood Tire and Auto Logo The Atrium Center Logo Motorwerks Auto Group Logo Kingwood Pet Resort Logo CoCo Crepes Waffles & Coffee Logo K&M ACE Hardware Logo European Wax Center Kingwood Logo Di Maria Mexican Cuisine Logo Tachus Fiber Internet Logo K&S Sportswear Logo Ann's Teahouse Logo Sigma Auto Care Logo Marshburn's Flooring America Logo Bahama Mama Smoke Shop Green Oak Logo Agape Garage Doors, LLC Logo Kingwood Mortgage Guy Logo T & K Electric Logo HTX Soccer Logo Rosati's Pizza Logo Dogtopia Atascocita Logo
Sponsor an ad Sponsor an Ad »