46 ms·

I Turned a Routine Traffic Ticket into a Constitutional Trial

• benburleson 10y ago
  This story makes me wish I had studied law.
  • afarrell 10y ago
    http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5 Is a basic intro, drawn by a criminal defence attorney practicing in NYC.
    • jfoutz 10y ago
      Absolutely wonderful guide. I've bought copies of the book and given them as gifts.
  • umanwizard 10y ago
    You still can.
  • PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    Read this article and previous HN discussion. It disabused me of the idea that studying law was worthwhile. Far too complicated, too ambiguous. YMMV. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10619614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10619614
• stevemk14ebr 10y ago
  Actually really interesting. It speaks of how people interpret the law to make it do what they want, and eventually precedent gets set and that made-up law becomes true.
• elastic_church 10y ago
  I'm still reading, what state is this? Montgomery City is ambiguous and it doesn't give context near the beginning. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be clever long-form of story telling where details are sprinkled letting you infer as some form of entertainment, or if this is just missing pertinent details.
  • shakna 10y ago
    MONTGOMERY, AL, following some of the links.
  • dshields1 10y ago
    Alabama. It says so near the very end.
• shakna 10y ago
  > “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?” > Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.” Damn! That is something I'd expect a certain amount of squirming before answering. It is not something that you want to do. Even if you know you have to.
  • cortesoft 10y ago
    You would think so, but it doesn't seem like there is any consequence for the officer.
  • edblarney 10y ago
    He's just a cop, doing it his job bored and/or befuddled by a fairly complex line of reasoning. He's probably just stating it as he sees it, possibly trying to avoid getting into trouble. Anything he is doing, he's being required to do by someone above him. Cops are also humans: he may be very well against the concept himself, but can't state it. Or he may be very well against it not for judicial reasons ... but for pragmatic reasons. People 'on the front lines' of justice often have a much more pragmatic view of it than others. The same applies to many fields.
    • int_19h 10y ago
      There's nothing particularly complex about this line of reasoning. If the guy has no understanding of what "probable cause" means, he is plainly not qualified to be a cop. If he does understand what it means, but he knowingly ignored it, then that's a serious violation of constitutional rights. Then there's perjury on top of that - again, something a police officer should very much be familiar with.
      • edblarney 10y ago
        He absolutely knows what 'probable cause' is. "If he does understand what it means, but he knowingly ignored it, then that's a serious violation of constitutional rights." What he's doing is what he is told. Obviously - someone far higher than 'a cop' decided to implement the policy of 'camera tickets'. The 'possible constitutional violation' is inherent in the policy, he's not doing anything but implementing the policy. He's just the schmuck who has to be in court, validating the policy, which is way beyond his rank. Also - it's debatable whether this is a 'clear violation of constitutional rights'. 'Camera tickets' are in place all over America, Canada, Europe etc. - if it were a huge violation of rights there would be a lot of court challenges. In effect the person 'on the stand' should have been whoever in the judicial system is responsible for actually implementing the system. Then it would be 'their responsibility' if there was a violation. The cop on the stand is basically the sorry dude forced to articulate the obvious incoherence of the policy.
• beardog 10y ago
  When I tried to recover my doubled appeal bond, I was told that the clerk was not authorized to give me my money. ..... Still nothing has happened now several months later. This is the problem with challenging really anything not of much financial consequence in court. Lots of red tape and expenses, even if you are in the right.
  • lsiebert 10y ago
    He could take the city to small claims court.
    • adekok 10y ago
      I doubt that very much. He wouldn't be fighting the city, he would be fighting the legal system... via the legal system. That won't end well. Small claims court will tell him to continue following the system, and reject his claim. There are processes he has to follow in order to get his money back. If he doesn't follow them, too bad. There are process that the court is supposed follow. If the court doesn't follow them, too bad. Notice any problems with this approach? No one in the court system is held responsible. The people in the court system don't even have to obey the law. Where there are legal requirements for a speedy trial, or for him to get his money back, those laws are ignored with impunity by the people in the system. In contrast, for the average person, "ignorance of the law is no excuse". The courts must not only be impartial (justice is blind), they must be perceived to be impartial. Stories like the OP show that justice is often bigoted, and quite potentially illegal.
      • curun1r 10y ago
        Recovering the double-the-amount bond will likely need to be pursued through the normal, frustrating channels. But perhaps he could take the police officer to small claims court. He could introduce the court transcript where the police officer admitted under oath that he perjured himself when signing the ticket. And he could argue that the time spent fighting the illegal ticket amounted to damages. That police officer wouldn't be paying the judgment out of pocket. The city would reimburse him rather than risk any complaint from the officer that he perjured himself and incurred the judgment in the course of doing his job the way that he was instructed to do it.
• SolarNet 10y ago
  Municipal and County Attorneys are really really scummy. It's basically just a job to be corrupt in. They have long forgotten their constitutional duty. The lawyers who remember that are either busy earning a lot of money the hard way (being corrupt is the easy way) or protecting those who need it. Taking money from traffic cams is just another way this is expressed. Local elections matter people. (I have family members who are attorneys and public officials in small towns, I speak about this from experience listening to them rant).
• Natsu 10y ago
  Commentary on this at Volokh - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-traffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-ensues/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• developer2 10y ago
  You know what, I am going to go against the grain of supposedly intelligent people on HN. Your personal vehicle committed a traffic violation. Your license plate was captured. The vehicle is registered in your name, and thus you are liable. Unless you have reported the vehicle stolen, you are responsible for the vehicle. This kind of shit is a waste of taxpayer money. I don't agree with automated ticketing. However, if it is clear that the vehicle was speeding, and it is clear that it is your vehicle, and there is no stolen vehicle reported... give me a fucking break. Maybe it wasn't actually you. But you know who you gave your car to that day. You know who was speeding in your car. Either get them to cough up the cash to you, or deal with the fucking fact that you trusted someone else with your car - clearly, someone who doesn't deserve to be trusted. I hate cops. I hate stupid laws. But more than that, I hate people who look for loopholes to absolve themselves of personal responsibility. Don't fucking loan out your car if you're this type of asshole.
  • sneak 10y ago
    Criminal liability does not work that way.
  • kybernetyk 10y ago
    >This kind of shit is a waste of taxpayer money. No, it's not. The guy has the right to defend himself. If the system is so bloated that it generates that much cost it's not his fault. Want to save taxpayer money? Reform the system but don't deny people the right to defend themselves from legal accusations.
  • pfisch 10y ago
    The issue isn't the traffic cameras or people getting away with crimes. The issue is that the government is not operating in a way that is legal. The people give the government its power and when it doesn't follow the rules that the people set down for it then we don't live in a democracy.
  • gizmo686 10y ago
    Write to your representatives. Under current law (nationwide as far as I am aware), it is not not illegal to own a car that breaks the law or lend your car to someone who does so. Further, in this case it was specifically alleged that the poster himself sped, which is not true. He even got the charging officer to admit that there was no evidence that he committed the crime that was being charged. The issue here is not traffic tickets. If the legislature wants to pass laws that work as you describe they are free to do so (up to public opinion). However, that is not the law. The issue is that the judicial system has drifted away from the law, and it is much better to fight this drift while the immediate stakes are still low.
• makeramen 10y ago
  Excuse my ignorance here, but is this something that can become a class action against the city then? Why not find all the people given traffic tickets without due process and probable cause? That would actually get some attention no?
  • spoiledtechie 10y ago
    It currently happening in multiple states including the district of Columbia.
• jakobegger 10y ago
  Reading something like this makes me sad. We have a teacher at a law school that wastes everyones time by appealing a traffic ticket because the legal basis isn't sound enough. Did the city issue a ticket to someone whose car was parked at the time? That would be something you should appeal! Did the city issue a ticket to the owner of a vehicle instead of the driver, because they have no way to identify the driver? It sounds like this was the case. In that case, the proper thing to do is to inform the city of the identity of the actual driver. But to launch an appeal because you don't want to pay your partner's or your kid's speeding ticket... that doesn't sound fair.
  • peteretep 10y ago
    He answers his whys near the bottom
  • gizmo686 10y ago
    They charged him personally (not his car) with a crime he did not commit. And, he spent twice the cost of the ticket to get his appeal heard, and has not gotten that money returned.
  • DanBC 10y ago
    > because the legal basis isn't sound enough. He wasn't driving the car! > I wasn’t driving the car. In fact, at the time I was in a faculty meeting at the law school where I teach.
  • briandear 10y ago
    Is there proof HE broke the law? Only an allegation that SOMEONE broke the law. When does it become his duty to prove innocence? Also, you're missing the point.
• tehwalrus 10y ago
  In the UK I believe the first letter goes to the "keeper" of the vehicle, called a NIP (notice of intended prosecution). The keeper of the vehicle is required by law to fill in the NIP (under pain of perjury) and return it telling the police who was driving. The police will then criminally prosecute the person on the form. I never got a speeding ticket, but I looked this up here: http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-were-not-driver.html http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-we... It may well be wrong, but it sounds like what I'd expect in the UK.
  • DanBC 10y ago
    ...and people go to jail for lying about who was driving. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8501054/Chris-Huhne-denies-wifes-driving-penalty-points-claims.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/85...
  • rachbowyer 10y ago
    Yes, this is how it works in the UK. Basically you have to shop yourself, or if you were not the driver then the person who was driving, to the authorities. If you don't, then you have committed an offence. Presumably this approach does not work in the US due to the 5th amendment. And from the article it looks like other approaches that are being tried in the US are also unconstitutional.
    • tehwalrus 10y ago
      TBH, I prefer not to give them an incentive to the photos of people's faces at the same time as the license plates. Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable, I never quite understood the basis for the 5th amendment. Was it because of some British colonial atrocity?
      • ckinnan 10y ago
        The government, in bringing a charge, has the duty to make the case....the right to not self-incriminate flows from the presumption of innocence and protection against being coerced into a false confession or into perjury.
• omegaworks 10y ago
  Good on the author. We need people with the time and money to fight bad precedent to do so. The people who designed the red light camera system in Chicago understand this and pushed the camera install sites to poorer neighborhoods with higher concentrations of people of color. http://uchicagogate.com/2015/09/24/under-the-guise-of-safety-a-deeper-look-into-chicagos-speed-cameras/ http://uchicagogate.com/2015/09/24/under-the-guise-of-safety...
• praptak 10y ago
  Is it actually possible to have a constitution-compliant automatic system for registering traffic violations in US?
  • chinathrow 10y ago
    Shoot the front license plate and get a picture of the person. Oh wait, not all states have front facing plates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_the_United_States#Mounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of... As a comparision, most of the EU member states have both front and rear facing plates.
    • Pxtl 10y ago
      Multiple cameras, possibly recording video, could record enough info to fully reconstruc the info on the infraction and get the picture of the driver and the plate even if they're on opposing sides of the car.
• sytelus 10y ago
  So wait a minute... as per these arguments, all laws for speeding are null and void because government can't prosecute you unless some citizen brings complaint with allegations of personal injury. Is that correct?
  • jakewins 10y ago
    No that's incorrect. They can either do that, treating your speeding as a civil case, or - much more commonly - they treat it as a criminal case. The complaint here is that they are picking and choosing between the two approaches, providing the safety mechanisms of neither. Edit: Also, it appears the authors claim that the city couldn't constitutionally treat it as a civil case are being disputed elsewhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-traffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-ensues/?utm_term=.bc75cb9db24b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
• debarshri 10y ago
  It is true that many traffic cameras, depending upon the vendor, technology the camera uses and supporting infrastructure, may or may not produce the actual cause of violation. This is the reason why many cities have multiple level of validation from authorized officiers.
• new299 10y ago
  I love this. I love it partly because I could never imagine this happening in the UK. The UK doesn't have a constitution. And I could imagine this getting shut down pretty quickly. I hope this kind of attitude persists in the US. It's one of the things that continues to give me hope for western style democracy.
  • resoluteteeth 10y ago
    > The UK doesn't have a constitution. The UK doesn't have a written constitution.
    • user837387 10y ago
      So..., it does not have a constitution then?
      • user837387 10y ago
        I normally do not care about down-votes and I still don't but for people who are downvoting me explain to me this: Where can I go and read the constitution that exists but that it is not written down anywhere? It's an oxymoron. So for all practical purposes there is no constitution.
      • binarycrusader 10y ago
        It does, according to wikipedia (at least some sources are written): > The UK does not have one specific constitutional document. Instead the constitution is found within a variety of written and some unwritten sources. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
      • sampo 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
• insomniacity 10y ago
  > I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one. “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?” As a layman, can anyone explain why they are taught not to ask this?
  • spoiledtechie 10y ago
    He signed a piece of paper, stipulating someone committed a crime without evidence. In order for officers to arrest you, they need probable cause. Without evidence, he has no probable cause. He lied under penalty of perjury, saying he had evidence of a crime committed by Adam.
    • insomniacity 10y ago
      Right, that's what the officer did wrong. But MacLeod implies he asked a question during cross that they teach law students not to ask. Presumably because it's kind of a slam-dunk (and he got a slam-dunk response). But I'm curious as to why it's a bad idea to ask.
      • gvb 10y ago
        I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no." He never addresses that. Possibly the principle he refers is "never ask a question that will turn into a dead end (nowhere to go in the examination) if the witness answers in the unfavorable way" (i.e. "no").
        • sumedh 10y ago
          > I am curious what he would have done if the officer had answered "no." He can ask what evidence does the officer have to show that the author was in the car at that point of time when the photo was taken.
      • jhwhite 10y ago
• kapauldo 10y ago
  This guy should his talents to help stop cops from shoopting black people instead of helping feed his own ego. He's intellectually correct but what a waste of resources.
• czep 10y ago
  I was with the author until reading this unfortunate quote: > Traffic camera laws are popular in part because they appeal to a law-and-order impulse. If we are going to stop those nefarious evildoers who jeopardize the health of the republic by sliding through yellow lights when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones, then we need a way around such pesky impediments as a lack of eyewitnesses. This is an unfair rhetorical attack that trivializes the motivations for necessary enforcement of traffic laws. Whether or not you are a fan of traffic cameras, traffic violations are in fact serious and should not be brushed off. The problem is, one day you make it easy for people to think it's ok to do 30 in a 25, then the next day they're doing 35, then 45 the next. I honestly do think people should be ticketed for 30 in a 25. It's not a trivial laughing matter. It always dismays me to see people downplaying speeding. 30 vs 25 will increase your stopping distance more than enough to kill a child. Yet, we nonchalantly think it's cool as a society to blow through red lights and everyone speeds. The author clearly separates "the slightly more respectable offense of owning a speeding vehicle" from "armed robbery, drug dealing, and other misdeeds". Would the author feel that speeding is any more respectable than armed robbery if a speeding driver killed their kids? I agree that traffic cameras are a poor way to enforce these laws, but I want to point out that they really do need enforcing and shouldn't be trivialized.
  • chronial 10y ago
    > I was with the author until … It seems excessive to dismiss the whole article just because you disagree on this side-note.
    • czep 10y ago
      Point taken. Mine is definitely a reactionary tangent that I hope not to undermine the very important point of the article. I agree that especially in Montgomery, the traffic camera enforcement is overreaching. My response was more to higlight the dangers of making speeding socially acceptable.
      • msandford 10y ago
• OliverJones 10y ago
  The real WTF here? Municipal executives who sign contracts with distant third party tech companies containing revenue quotas for those companies. Perverse incentives! the original purpose of laws against driving too fast or jumping red lights is promoting public safety. When the municipality has an obligation to issue a certain number of violations, the original purpose is subverted. Now, of course another public policy purpose of these laws is to raise revenue. When the revenue is made possible by a tech company, the municipality probably has a contractual obligation undermining its public safety mission. Municipal officials, if they were willing, could raise revenue by asking the people to pay more taxes, even excise taxes on vehicles. But there's no incentive for municipal executives to be honest any more: for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes. So dinging violators of regulations is an easier way for towns to get money. Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system! Hacker News friends, let's remember that we are, or easily could be, the creators of those distant third party tech companies whose contracts perpetuate the perverse incentives.
  • jstanley 10y ago
    > Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system! Rather reminiscent of the way religion worked in the middle ages.
    • fergbrain 10y ago
      Until Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses
      • OliverJones 10y ago
        Good catch! I'm a Lutheran minister, and my comment about making good people bad and good again is, precisely, informed by Dr. Luther's rant about selling indulgences.
    • OliverJones 10y ago
• gravypod 10y ago
  It seems like the author has a lot of time on his hand and is actually putting it to something that is good for the people. Granted this was probably just him getting mad and wanting to throw his weight around but it ends up being something that improves the quality of life for anyone who deals with these unjust systems. I wish more law-academics, or academics in general, pushed these types of reforms in their field. I wish physisists and chemists could aid the community and that lawyers who actually care can improve the legal system for everyone (remove red tape and blatantly unconstitutional lawthat no one normal can fight).
• 0x445442 10y ago
  Our family has receive four of these tickets in the eight years we've been at our current residence. Fortunately, where we live you must be physically served for the ticket to be binding in anyway. So we just throw them in the trash and don't answer the door without seeing who it is. At a prior residence in a different state I actually fought a red light ticket in court. I was able to prolong the actual hearing for six months using the government's own continuance rules. When the hearing finally arrived no law enforcement official showed up so the ticket was dismissed. Let's face reality here. These things are just an unconstitutional tax, no more and no less.
  • paublyrne 10y ago
    Were the tickets unwarranted? Or are your objections because you don't want to pay fines?
    • 0x445442 10y ago
      I guess the answer to your question depends on how you reckon warranted. I reckon the tickets were not warranted and therefore object to paying the fines.
• tptacek 10y ago
  I think this misses the forest for the trees. McLeod identifies several very real problems with traffic ticket enforcement in Montgomery. The red light cameras are operated by a third party company on a secret contract. A police officer casually perjures themselves at the hearing. The court's processes are onerous and unfair. These problems should all be fixed. But the author wants to make the case that traffic camera tickets are unconstitutional, and fails. By his own admission, there's an established constitutional framework for issuing citations against vehicles and not people (in rem jurisdiction). So, yes, the existing statutes for enforcement of traffic fines are incompatible with cameras. But it seems clearly possible to write statutes that are compatible: nothing about in rem says you it doesn't apply to a moving vehicle. Cities and states can move to a system where camera tickets are like very expensive parking tickets. That satisfies the superficial objective of cities (revenue generation) --- probably more cheaply than the current system. Meanwhile: they can collect data on drivers and run actual investigations on repeat offenders, taking them to court directly and based on evidence if the camera system produces indications that they're abusive drivers. Traffic enforcement agents can simply ask you whether you were driving your car at the time of the ticket. Most drivers will simply confirm. Some would obviously deny driving the car, or refuse to answer at all. But the car has to be insured, and insurance contracts are opinionated about who drives cars. There's recourse there as well. (It's worth noting that McLeod presumably does know who was driving his car, and presumably could have been compelled to testify as a witness in an actual criminal case --- what made his experience with Montgomery's traffic court so terrible was clownshoes procedural ineptness, not some fundamental problem with cameras). It goes without saying that cameras themselves will also improve. Does anyone believe that 20 years from now it will be all that difficult to automatically attribute a driver to a car tagged for a moving violation? If it sounds like I'm pro-traffic-camera here, it's because in some sense I am. I agree that the systems we have today are abusive and should be shut down. But the overall concept is a very good one. Armed police officers should not be the first line of traffic compliance enforcement. For "routine" violations, of the sort where a traffic officer would simply pull you over, write a ticket, and let you go, there's no reason to stop cars at all. Dozens of people are killed every year in violent confrontations with the police that begin solely because of some stupid traffic infraction. I think cameras (and sensors in general) are the future of traffic enforcement and that that's a positive thing.
• hedora 10y ago
  I got a red light ticket for a car I no longer own. I have a receipt of electronic transfer of title dated 6 months before the incident, passport stamps and travel documents proving I was out of the country, and the person in the photo was of the wrong gender and ethnicity. I fought it via mail. It took multiple round trips. At each step the potential fine more than doubled. If I did not respond correctly or in time, I waved my right to appeal. The appeal paperwork contradicted itself. (Page 1: You must do X or we will reject your appeal. Page 2: You must not do X or we will reject your appeal). I had to send a passport photo less than 30 days old of myself in, but photos taken with electronic cameras are not allowed. In the end, I sent a letter. The city of San Francisco is not obligated to inform me of a successful appeal, so either I beat the ticket, or some day (maybe years from now) they will issue a warrant for my arrest. This isn't even guilty until proven innocent. 100% of the evidence presented against me proved my innocence, and I will be in legal limbo forever. [edit: In a special kafka-esque twist, the only reason I was able to fill out the paperwork successfully is because the telephone operator at the SF courthouse took pity on me. There is a number to call for clarification, but no one picks up that phone. So, your best bet is to get your legal advice from the operator.]
  • tombrossman 10y ago
    Years ago when red light cameras were new I remember hearing a comedian say "The city sent me a photo of my car running a red light and a ticket for $100. So, I took a photo of $100 and sent that back to them with the ticket". That's completely silly but it sounds like it was just as effective as your efforts so far. Hope you get it sorted some day.
    • chris_va 10y ago
      I remember the story ending with "they sent back a picture of handcuffs, and so I sent the actual money"
      • therein 10y ago
        Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7HYmvc9AlY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7HYmvc9AlY
• inetsee 10y ago
  I confess: I got a red light ticket. I did in fact run a red light; I was late for a lunch date. In my defense, I wasn't speeding, and I crossed the limit line a fraction of a second after the light had changed to red (and before the light for crossing traffic had changed to green). The citation I got included photos from the traffic camera, before and after the light changed, clearly showing my vehicle and its license plate. The photographs had been viewed by a sworn employee of the police department, who signed off on the citation. I paid the ticket. The only criticism I have of the procedures used by the police department where I lived was that there was no photograph showing that I was the one driving the vehicle. From the article it sounds as if the municipality doesn't care about the law. It sounds as if the photographs from the traffic camera are being reviewed by an employee of a private company; the photographs are not being provided to the driver (and may not even be provided to the police), there are no photographs showing the driver of the vehicle, and the police and court are ignoring any exculpatory evidence, and there is no procedure to refund the appeal bond! This city (and many more) are relying on the difficulty of fighting these kinds of citations to gain unjustified revenue by ignoring peoples rights.
  • 11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
    I have a similar story with a different ending. I allegedly made a right turn on red without stopping. That's running a red light. My car was on video, which I could watch online. The front bumper of the car allegedly crossed the white line 400 milliseconds after the light turned red. I paid an attorney $300. He took all the standard legal means to delay the trial so that if he lost, the ticket wouldn't affect my insurance until the next year, thereby delaying a price increase. He wound up getting me an acquittal because the driver (allegedly me) was wearing sunglasses. The judge accepted his argument that, due to the sunglasses obscuring my eyes, the city could not conclusively determine that I was the driver.
  • inetsee 10y ago
    I would like to add that I have no fundamental objection to red light cameras when properly used. Police have been using technology in law enforcement for a long time. I am in favor of anything that prevents innocent people from even being charged with a crime in the first place. I would have no problem with a red light system operated by the police department, with cameras clearly showing the traffic light, the limit line, the vehicle and its license plate, and the driver, with the photos being reviewed by a sworn member of the police department. And the photos should be provided to the driver with the citation.
• newscracker 10y ago
  I very much enjoyed this article. The larger takeaways for me are that most citizens (or people) don't know the law, don't know the basis of law, and don't know the foundations of creating and defining law. Yet we're forced into submitting ourselves to what someone else wrote with deficiencies or moderately malicious intent where fundamental rights and freedoms granted in the constitution are violated. Governments the world over are becoming bigger and more powerful, while common people are subjugated and controlled through diktats. I don't know what's the best way to improve the situation (other than some activists and campaigners doing the work for the society), but a somewhat in-depth course in law seems like a fundamental requirement for everyone.
  • curun1r 10y ago
    There's another takeaway here too. This person does know the law, well enough to teach it, and successfully won his trial by proving that the officer involved perjured himself. His "success" resulted in him losing a bond for twice the cost of the ticket and no action being taken against the police officer whose perjury initiated the charge against him. His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money than they collected from him. Yay for sticking it to the man! The best case scenario we have is for both sides to lose. There's no way to win. If we want to change this situation, we need to pay more attention to the procedural semantics of our justice system, not just the law. You can be entirely vindicated in the eyes of the law and still lose every bit as badly because of the process you're forced to submit to just to contest the legal aspects of the case.
    • wutbrodo 10y ago
      > His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money than they collected from him. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually affect the involved asshole cops/officials/attorneys who blithely violated the public trust: the costs come out of citizens' taxes (or services), not out of the salaries of those people. It's pretty much lose-lose for everyone except them.
      • JoBrad 10y ago
• nfriedly 10y ago
  > The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. - Abraham Lincoln While I can't say that I'm a fan of traffic cams, and I do appreciate that the author was vindicated in this circumstance, I like the idea of laws that are enforced for every single violation. Traffic law, and indeed most of our laws, seem to be enforced so inconsistently as to be laughable. I'm sure there are instances where, financially speaking, you're better off to break the law and then just pay the fines if you get caught. Similar to when corporations break a law for years and eventually pay a fine that's less than the profit they made from breaking the law. I think if the enforcement were more consistent, we'd end up with much better laws in the long run.
  • rev_bird 10y ago
    This is a tricky topic. I think I disagree with you. I'm certainly in agreement that there's ample evidence of justice being unevenly applied in this country, at least in part because there are humans doing the enforcing. Traffic cams are a great way to get around that -- in this case, it was the (human) bureaucracy that was unfair, not the camera. However, the (main) reason I disagree is because, when you're dealing with people doing things that may not leave a paper trail, enforcement is contingent on supervision. It follows that constant enforcement is contingent on constant supervision, and I'd rather people just not get caught, to be honest. Otherwise we end up in a situation where the argument becomes, "Well of course we have to install tracking chips in all the cars, do you want people to be speeding and get away with it? Of course we have to let the government read our email, that's how people coordinate financial crimes!" This is wandering a little farther into tinfoil-hat territory than I'd meant it to. My originally intended point was that it's a tough line to walk between consistent enforcement and pervasive enforcement.
    • aithoughts 10y ago
      > It follows that constant enforcement is contingent on constant supervision I think I've found that it's neither necessary nor sufficient. Constant enforcement just means that you give the ticket no matter who you stopped.
  • mirkules 10y ago
• justinator 10y ago
  As noted on metafilter http://www.metafilter.com/164565/Law-Professor-Challenges-Traffic-Camera-Ticket-Hijinks-Ensue#6874770 http://www.metafilter.com/164565/Law-Professor-Challenges-Tr... FYI, the author is a morally repugnant conservative. He believes that a lesbian couple should not both be legally recognized as the parents of a child;[0] that Texas courts should defy the Supreme Court and further restrict access to women's healthcare;[1] and that colleges should be free to discriminate against LGBT students and employees; [2] among many other positions. He signed a statement calling on the local, state, and federal government to refuse to follow Obergefell [3] (the case legalizing same sex marriage nationally). The website this was published on is an outlet of the Witherspoon Institute.[4] The author is fanatically opposed to what he calls 'the regulatory state'. He is a far-right extremist and religious fundamentalist. [0] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/10/18106/ http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/10/18106/ [1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17328/ http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17328/ [2] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/16907/ http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/16907/ [3] https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/statement-calling-for-constitutional-resistance-to-obergefell-v-hodges%E2%80%AF/ https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/st... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute
  • cloakandswagger 10y ago
    What's your point? I'm trying to understand what you're hoping to accomplish. That the original article is invalid because the guy pushing the issue is a conservative?
    • justinator 10y ago
      Perspective of who the author is. Every author and every website has an agenda. Personally, I cannot support an author who has these types of views, as it is against the inalienable rights of my friends and myself.
      • asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
• laurex 10y ago
  I recently went to court for a red-light ticket, which I received when I went through an intersection where the red light was blocked by a vehicle in another lane (this is clear from the video and photographs taken by the red-light camera). At my hearing, the judge acknowledged that I was driving slowly and that there was no way I could have seen the red light, but that he was obliged to find all red-light camera cases guilty. In general, I think we'll see that technology aids the state in "letter of the law" situations, and as the state gets more access to information about us (including the possibility of our thoughts), the ways to punish in biased or primarily revenue-generating ways will only increase.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• sjy 10y ago
  Although McLeod is a law professor, some of his legal claims have already been disputed by Orin Kerr on the Volokh Conspiracy.[1] He has published constitutional law nonsense before, and once accused a federal judge of 'tyranny' for upholding the Fourteenth Amendment argument that succeeded in Obergefell v. Hodges.[2] It is surprising to see so many commenters uncritically endorsing his conclusions. His main complaint seems to be: > [S]everal states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process. But McLeod never explains what this actually means, and goes on to describe an ordinary criminal trial where he was acquitted after the prosecution failed to prove its case to the required standard. While the focus on the trial suggests that he is complaining about criminal procedure, the real purpose of the article seems to be to deny the legitimacy of traffic cameras as a law enforcement mechanism. The vaguely-described contractual arrangements sound concerning, but he doesn't give any supporting evidence and those contracts weren't the subject of his case. Traffic cameras are common in the rest of the developed world and can be used consistently with the rule of law. This may involve the legislature infringing the rights of accused people by shifting the burden, or reducing the standard, of proof. That's something we should be careful about doing, but when the maximum penalty is a modest fine, sometimes it makes sense to qualify the accused's rights in order to save money on wasteful inquiries into trivial misdemeanours. This kind of balancing of rights and interests is routine in constitutional law. The Due Process Clause does prevent U.S. state governments from reversing the burden of proof in some criminal cases[3] – but this is not axiomatic, and McLeod didn't even show that the issue arose in his case. [1] 'Law professor gets a traffic-camera ticket. Hilarity ensues.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-traffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-ensues https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... [2] 'Yes, Tyranny is a Fitting Word' http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14709/ http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14709/ [3] 'Wrong on Red: The Constitutional Case Against Red-Light Cameras' http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=law_journal_law_policy http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
  • int_19h 10y ago
    I think that his point is that, if he didn't know enough to take it to the trial, the original "conviction" (not really, since there was no trial - but in effect, enough to force the payment of fine) of him would stand, despite all those blatant issues of lack of evidence that are inherent in traffic cameras - in particular, the lack of the ability to prove that the driver is the specific person charged. In other words, the city wanted to fine him under the "civil" rules, where they claimed simple preponderance of evidence (car being on video, and its plate number establishing him as owner, and therefore the most likely driver) - even though the infringement itself was that of a criminal law, and no harm was demonstrated to pursue it as civil. But the moment he did challenge them, then - and only then - the new higher bar applied. Logic would dictate that either the bar should be applied from the get go - i.e. that no-one should be fined unless there's clear evidence that they were the drivers (which would likely result in all traffic cam evidence being summarily thrown out as inherently incapable of meeting that bar); or else, if we want the low preponderance of evidence bar for fines, then actual harm should have to be demonstrated for the fine to apply.
• iamjdg 10y ago
  While he is a legal expert and I am not, I think he is missing the point. If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at risk. Traffic cameras are a deterrent that save municipalities lots of money not having to employ officers to act as deterrents. But a deterrent has to have a real consequence (people pay fines and other people hear about this) to work. He is using a small technicality to make a point about a huge issue of liberty which wastes tax payer money and will put the public at greater risk, cannot he do this through another means?
  • tobtoh 10y ago
    > If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at risk. And yet, the vast majority of road rules exist without any remote automated enforcement mechanism, and there isn't chaos, and for the most part, the public is safe. Using absolute worst-case extreme examples which has no bearing on reality is not a good way to make policy or law.
    • criddell 10y ago
      After reading the article, it seems like cities could make the problem go away if they changed it from a hybrid criminal-civil matter to a purely civil case. Make it an infraction more like a parking ticket and I think it would be constitutional, wouldn't it?
    • iamjdg 10y ago
      I'm just commenting based on my experience. I lived in Germany for 2 years and knowing traffic cameras were there made me a safer driver, taking less chances. Now being back at home in Canada, I noticed how my behaviour has changed knowing there was less probability I would be caught. Have you ever driven in Italy? I have, and in my opinion that experience was bordering chaos. A small difference in how traffic laws are enforced makes a huge difference in how drivers behave. Using as an example a simple tool which saves money and is effective in detering drivers from taking more risk to make a point about big issues of freedom and liberty is wasteful and not very effective.
  • criddell 10y ago
• mherdeg 10y ago
  Ha ha: ""” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,” she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we would proceed under the criminal rules."" I was hoping this to somehow turn into an admiralty court discussion.
• jrs235 10y ago
  Things are getting so dystopian. Your property is yours and you are responsible for it when the police want someone to pay a ticket for an offense in which your property was used without your consent or knowledge yet when the police want to take your property without evidence of wrong doing they sue your property, not you, so they can confiscate it and you can't defend yourself and your property without permission from the court/judge.
• pdx6 10y ago
  SF is working on installing speed cams, but it has to pass Sacto first. I spoke to the staff at the SFMTA and they are working with the ACLU and EFF, among other rights advocacy groups, to establish a fair traffic cam law for SF.
• rsp1984 10y ago
  Call me extreme but I find the whole idea that a government can do what it wants with collected fine money extremely disturbing. Unfortunately not many people question it these days but I think a lot more should. The first problem with "free" fine money is that is makes the enforcement of some laws more important to the government than the enforcement of others. The second problem is that it allows the government to protect such collection from much of the scrutiny and transparency requirements that e.g. taxes have to go through. For tax policy there are political parties and candidates to choose from and you can exercise your power as a voter. However I've not ever seen fine policy or rates being part of a political program. It's close to impossible as a citizen to have any influence on that. The solution to this problem would be to establish a law under which a government must give all fine money straight to charitable causes (the composition of which citizens can democratically vote on).
• njharman 10y ago
  The contortions Montgomery County have gone through and way they implemented it is poor. In other Jurisdictions, CA for instance, they've passed new law/ruling that running red lights is same level of misdemeanor as parking tickets. They take photo of driver and if driver is not you, you are free to prove that in court. [this is 10+year old info so may have changed]. But, from OA, the absurdity in Montgomery Co, is all around how they don't identify the driver (with photo), yet the violation is against the driver. Source: I use to work in this industry, even participated on the Montgomery County Red Light Camera Pilot.
• HNSucksAss 10y ago
  What traffic-camera system doesn't take pictures that include the driver? This doesn't necessarily change the story (because the driver can be obscured), but I've never seen such a system. In the system I've seen (Culver City, CA), if the picture is unclear or shows someone else, the case is immediately dismissed (if you demanded a hearing).
• dnautics 10y ago
  > "several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition." I've always wondered. If these things are civil trials isn't it unconstitutional for the traffic court to have a sign saying "you don't have a right to a jury" (as it does in SF)? The constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial in all civil cases with a penalty greater than $20.
  • spc476 10y ago
    But that was $20 back when the Constitution was written. Adjusted for inflation [1] and you could be looking at anywhere from $390 (CPI) to $941,000 (relative share of GDP). I have no idea how that is applied today. [1] https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_source=1795&amount=20&year_result=2016 https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_sou...
    • dnautics 10y ago
      I don't see where it says "corrected for inflation" in the Constitution. If the government wants to, by policy, devalue the dollar and make it easier to claim jury rights in civil cases, that is its own fault.
• newscracker 10y ago
  I missed mentioning this in an earlier comment of mine. This, and probably more of such, should be made into TV shows and movies. That'd get a wider reach and help inform more people.
• dredmorbius 10y ago
  This account may be true. But the source has an exceptional interest in promoting a specific point of view coming from extreme political conservativism which should be considered. The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey.[1][2][3] ... The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion and same-sex marriage[7] and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies.[8] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[2] It held a conference about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography[9] at Princeton University in December 2008.[10] Financially independent from Princeton University, its donors have included the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation.[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute
• baloneyman 10y ago
  I think the most interesting concept here is that a future with driverless cars is a future with almost no way to incriminate an American. Cars are the main way the government gets in your business. I live in a big enough city that I don't have to drive and the move has removed so much of the day-to-day anxiety of life that I was astounded What will they do when they can no longer control us via "you could be drunk" or "you're driving the wrong way"?
  • hyperpape 10y ago
    Stop and frisk. Maybe it won't be applied to you, but it will be applied to an awful lot of people.