6 ms·

Good. These should be ruled unconstitutional everywhere. Maybe it's just where I live but it seems like law enforcement is more focused on revenue generation.

syntheticnature 10y ago
People talk about running government like a business, not thinking about the implications of trying to turn cost centers into profit generation in that sphere.
jmcdiesel 10y ago
Devil's advocate though : you can choose to not be affected by them by simply not running red lights. So.. while I agree on the unconstitutional part (im on your side), the other side of this, its an opt-in system, in practice
- SteveNuts 10y ago
  Except for the times when it's "malfunctioning" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticket-spikes-met-20140717-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticke... If you search around, there's tons of cities that were caught manipulating the timing on the cameras to increase the number of tickets. Are you going to call the camera into court for questioning? Are they going to let a third party audit the code that runs the timers?
- mhluongo 10y ago
  Breaking any absurd law, by that logic, is "opt-in".
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    And it is. Every single action you take is opt-in, right?
- daveFNbuck 10y ago
  When a city prioritizes revenue over safety, everyone is affected. Even if you don't run a red light, you'll still be stuck in traffic when someone else crashes in the middle of the intersection.
aggie 10y ago
I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. It's unobtrusive surveillance in a public setting, so there's no expectation of privacy. It's punishing people for breaking a public-safety law. In most cases they even have signs alerting you to the presence of an enforcement camera. Now I can definitely see how automated enforcement ripe for abuse when there are revenues to be had, and it's concerning when operations like this are given to private companies with little to no transparency. But given those concerns can be resolved, what's the problem at a constitutional level?
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  > why you think it's unconstitutional They didn't say they thought it was unconstitutional. They said they thought it should be unconstitutional.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. Most of these cameras can't demonstrate that the owner of the car was the one driving at the time. In a criminal court that'd be plenty of reasonable doubt, but red light tickets (at least around here) are handled as civil manners that go to collections agencies if unpaid to circumvent that issue.
- SteveNuts 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I don't get that argument. How is a red light camera different than surveillance footage that show a murder? It's not a witness, it's evidence.
    - unprepare 10y ago
      the surveillance footage is evidence, not an accuser. in your murder example, you would still need to be arrested by a physical person in a police uniform, you would have some interaction with an agent of the state. when you get a ticket in the mail, who is your accuser? Whose name is on the ticket? what is their badge number? how do i lodge a complaint against this officer? Who is expected to show up in court to prosecute this case?

syntheticnature 10y ago

People talk about running government like a business, not thinking about the implications of trying to turn cost centers into profit generation in that sphere.

jmcdiesel 10y ago

Devil's advocate though : you can choose to not be affected by them by simply not running red lights. So.. while I agree on the unconstitutional part (im on your side), the other side of this, its an opt-in system, in practice

SteveNuts 10y ago
Except for the times when it's "malfunctioning" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticket-spikes-met-20140717-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticke... If you search around, there's tons of cities that were caught manipulating the timing on the cameras to increase the number of tickets. Are you going to call the camera into court for questioning? Are they going to let a third party audit the code that runs the timers?
mhluongo 10y ago
Breaking any absurd law, by that logic, is "opt-in".
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  And it is. Every single action you take is opt-in, right?
daveFNbuck 10y ago
When a city prioritizes revenue over safety, everyone is affected. Even if you don't run a red light, you'll still be stuck in traffic when someone else crashes in the middle of the intersection.

aggie 10y ago

I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. It's unobtrusive surveillance in a public setting, so there's no expectation of privacy. It's punishing people for breaking a public-safety law. In most cases they even have signs alerting you to the presence of an enforcement camera. Now I can definitely see how automated enforcement ripe for abuse when there are revenues to be had, and it's concerning when operations like this are given to private companies with little to no transparency. But given those concerns can be resolved, what's the problem at a constitutional level?

chrisseaton 10y ago
> why you think it's unconstitutional They didn't say they thought it was unconstitutional. They said they thought it should be unconstitutional.
ceejayoz 10y ago
> I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. Most of these cameras can't demonstrate that the owner of the car was the one driving at the time. In a criminal court that'd be plenty of reasonable doubt, but red light tickets (at least around here) are handled as civil manners that go to collections agencies if unpaid to circumvent that issue.
SteveNuts 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
- matt4077 10y ago
  I don't get that argument. How is a red light camera different than surveillance footage that show a murder? It's not a witness, it's evidence.
  - unprepare 10y ago
    the surveillance footage is evidence, not an accuser. in your murder example, you would still need to be arrested by a physical person in a police uniform, you would have some interaction with an agent of the state. when you get a ticket in the mail, who is your accuser? Whose name is on the ticket? what is their badge number? how do i lodge a complaint against this officer? Who is expected to show up in court to prosecute this case?