RE: [tips_and_tricks] red-light camera
- E Junker asked:
> Could you subpoena the red-light camera?You could if you had the brains and the guts, but if you had those, how
do you get so far down the slippery slope to conviction?
A real defense of rights starts a lot earlier, and people who do not
approach everything as a rights issue, or never think in terms of
rights, won't have any at the tine they are most necessary to use and
protect and defend. The urge to surrender rights for economic reasons
may once have been a valid consideration when gold and silver were in
the hands of the people no matter how "poor" they were (even including
children!) but when the imaginary-debt-mathematically-impossible
monetary base can be doubled or quadrupled with no input from anyone but
the creators, what fool would trade life, liberty and/or property for
it?! Just look around you!
Meanwhile, got silver?
- --- In email@example.com, "suavae1st" <suavae1st@...> wrote:
> I AM STEAMED!
> Any thoughts?
Steve - welcome to our group:)To bad you weren't here before your court experience.I know how frustrated and outraged you feel -- we all do.Which is why we are here :) I too doubt that you have much of a leg left.Depending on your situation, it might be worth it to pay up and assign that cost to: Tuition.If you stay active here, you may learn far more than your "fees."Our lives are far more complex than those of our great-grandparents,which creates so many big pot holes we must avoid.It's impossible for one person to be cognizant of all the laws,and is WHY forums and blogs like ours are so important!(Thank you Bear.)I am curious if we can put a handbook together for how to keep our rights in various court situations?(e.g. administrative, magistrate, small claims, landlord-tenant)The things that we all should do/not do generally.I know I am not prepared for something like Steve's ticket,and even just an essay on maintaining my rights would be a lifesaver.Ahhh... Would be lovely to have a high tech classroom get-together once a month.Unlike some of our very learned members, I am still a sheep-ie but at least I know it and want to rectify it.(BTW: a sheep-IE is 2 steps smarter than a sheep-EL. I am aware.)Thanks to you all,Melissa
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Michael" <mn_chicago@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Jake jake_28079@ wrote:
> > assuming the ticket was issued by mail because a
> >red-light camera got the vehicle's license plate &
> >the vehicle is registered to you, does that prove
> >that you were the driver @ the time? Â The burden
> >of proof is on the State as to who the driver was
> >@ the time of an infraction
> Good points made, however, this one will not always fly.
> I did not save the article, so I cannot give the
> authority, but one will not be released from the
> responsibility of a red light ticket, claiming not to
> have been the driver, only if the owner signs a form
> stating and identifying who the driver was.
Am curious about that law. Can a law slide out of it's rules of evidence this way?Seems to me that this flips the presumption of innocence on it's head.Wonder if this law will get kicked up and out.MG
- Normally one is considered innocent until proven guilty.
In an administrative hearing (traffic court, parking violations bureau, camera ticket hearing) one is considered guilty as charged and has the burden of moving forward.
Read the statute and/or ordinance that charges the motorist with the red light infraction.
You will most likely find that the charge ASSUMES that the driver is the owner of the vehicle and makes the owner liable for the infraction.
There should also be a section that provides the owner an opportunity to deny (through an affidavit or otherwise) that he was not the person driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction.
Red light camera tickets are in a class of strict liability offenses and ASSUME certain facts not in evidence.
Unless the assumptions/evidence are rebutted, they stand as acknowledged facts and evidence of the offense. (Burden of proof)
The vehicle owner must rebut the presumption (assumptions) according to the procedures outlined in the statute or ordinance. (Burden of moving forward.)
Once the vehicle owner has met the burden of going forward, the City/State then must prove the presumptions and assumptions of the statute/ordinance by preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt depending on the nature (civil or criminal) of the charged offense.
- The presumption of innocence applies only in a court of law.
When dealing with administrative law, the presumption of innocence is removed and replaced with STATUTORY presumptions.
If charged with violating a statute/ordinance, you are considered and found guilty of the statutory presumptions unless you rebut the presumptions.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "windandthestone" <mmgemmel@...> wrote:
> Can a law slide out of it's rules of evidence this way?Rules of evidence only apply if you demand them,
> Seems to me that this flips the presumption of
> innocence on it's head.
otherwise, they get waived when there is no
objection to hearsay evidence, and few ever object.
As a consequence, there is no presumption of
innocence, only that of ignorance.
1. You cannot think about law with your emotions. [Take a half-dozens Chill Pills and try to think.]
2. Of course, the Record will reflect that the 'commissioner' has your WRITTEN permission to 'hear' your case? [Research the Penal Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and Rules of Court for authority of commissioners.]
3. Unless you can affirmatively demonstrate [from information held by city or Redflex] that there a de facto quota on camera tickets, your 'argument' is 'frivilous' [BEcasue NO evidence].
4. WHY was a cop there? Was he actually present when the red-light camera went off? What could he possibly 'testify' about?
5. What facts/statutes/case-law lead you to believe that the evidence was illegally obtained? [A bare allegation is NOT gonna work for you.]
6. File motion to Reconsider all the denials of motions.
7. Prepaare a Notice of Appeal. [issue is failure to recuse.]
"suavae1st" <suavae1st@...> wrote:
> I AM STEAMED! Let me tell u what happened in court today re: my photo enforced red lite ticket. The cop laid out his evidence. When my turn came I motioned to exclude the camera evidence because it was illegally obtained. Judge, actually a commissioner, denied motion. I told him the contract was a direct violation of the CVC 21544.5 (g)(which states "a contract with a red light camera supplier may not include payment based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of revenue generated)& against the law because my town has signed a cost neutral contract with vendor Redflex. Didn't want to hear it. I told him his duty was to be fair & impartial, while still enforcing the law & that he should (remove) himself from the case if he couldn't do that; that he shouldn't be enforcing an illegal law in the guise of enforcing the law. He wasn't moved. I told him he was a dictator in a kangaroo court. I told him he would be over-ruled on appeal. No dice.
> Commish found me guilty & told me I could be sentenced now or w/i 5 days. I told him "I'll be back" next Tuesday. I'm either going to skip his hearing, or else appear & ask to be tried by a real, honest (to goodness) judge. If I skip out, I'll have a warrant on me. When I finally get busted, maybe a REAL judge will throw the whole thing out because it's bogus.
> This travesty of justice has got to be stopped! I'm going to try contacting the ACLU to see if they REALLY care about our civil liberties, & would they be interested in a class action suit on behalf of all citizen victims.
> Any thoughts?
- Lost in all our answers so far is the simple fact:
Most likely, within the Penal Code [or the Vehicle Code] are the procedures for the issuing agency to handle the tickets and for you to contest the ticket.
Red-light camera cases are ADMINISTRATIVE [and that ADMINSITRATIVE has NOTHING To do with 'traffic court' or 'commissioners'; despite stupid Pay-triot myths].
The administrative process is: YOU request a review [usually within ten days] of the ticket BY the POLICE DEPARTMENT which issued it [or its contractor].
When you get the results of the Review [mailed to you], then you request an administrative Hearing [NEITHER of these steps take you anywhere NEAR a 'court']. The hearing is done by the head of the Police Department, his TRAINED delegate, or a company which contracts to conduct hearings. The Hearing produces a WRITTEN record and a WRITTEN Determination. You GET a copy by mail.
If you were dissatisfied with the results of the Written Determination, YOU [in WRITING] request a judicial review of the Administrative RECORD [finally, you are 'in court'].
I bet you did not DO either of these steps, did you? [I bet you just wandered into 'court' with an attitude [and NO clues], having ALREADY defaulted on the Hearing process.]
Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:
> Â Â >Â Could you subpoena the red-light camera?
> What ??? Â Demand that the city to bring the camera in, then hire an expert witness to argue over how it works, etc.? Â Who would do such a silly thing? And if you didn't hire an expert witness (unless you're a qualified engineer & can prove it), you'd be toast - even if you were able to get the camera brought in.
> And if you argue over the camera itself, you've already admitted that you ran the red light. Â The burden of proof is on the STATE regarding WHO drove thru a red light & what you're talking about puts the burden of proof on you that the equipment is somehow defective.
> Why do people do that - take the burden of proof upon themselves ??? Â That's the last thing in the world you want to do. Â And the State loves it when you do.
> ~ ~ ~
> --- On Mon, 5/31/10, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:
> From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
> Subject: [tips_and_tricks] red-light camera
> To: email@example.com
> Date: Monday, May 31, 2010, 1:02 AM
> Could you subpoena the red-light camera?
- I'll tell you guys how I won a red light case in Garland, Tx.I got a ticket for allegedly running a red light. The only evidence was two pictures taken of a vehicle registered in my name. The first picture showed the vehicle in the intersection 0.3 seconds after the light turned red. The second picture showed the vehicle leaving the intersection allegedly at 35mph.I followed the instructions on the ticket and went to a "hearing". The "hearing officer" rubber stamped me guilty and fined me $75.00. I followed the instructions on the paper the hearing officer gave me and filed an appeal to the Garland Municipal Court of Record after posting a $150.00 cash bond.I had a trial before the judge (no right to a jury). The only evidence the prosecutor had was the two photos. I argued that there was no way to tell from the photos where the vehicle was WHEN THE LIGHT TURNED RED. The judge agreed, found me not guilty, and the clerk returned my bond about 6 weeks later.