4 ms·

I've contested the red light camera fines in my municipality a few times now. In every case I request the footage and each time it's been overturned because the

by yardie 2y ago

I've contested the red light camera fines in my municipality a few times now. In every case I request the footage and each time it's been overturned because the footage clearly shows me stopping before turning right on read. Ive never had to provide proof that is the states job.

lolinder 2y ago
Meanwhile, I've never had to contest a false positive because my state doesn't allow red light cameras. That's a lot of time that I haven't had to spend defending myself against spurious charges. It doesn't especially matter where the burden of proof lies if the process for contesting requires any substantial amount of effort on the part of the victim of the false positive.
garbagewoman 2y ago
You did have to provide proof! you were assumed guilty until you proved yourself innocent by using the evidence that the state themselves already had, but didn’t present as proof of the infringement.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  In this case the assumption is that the camera evidence is accurate and conclusive. If it was a blurry picture, I don’t think they would be asked to provide additional evidence to prove they weren’t guilty, the ticket would simply be thrown out. In other words, the burden of proof is still on the government to provide sufficient evidence. If they won’t or can’t, there is no case.
  - garbagewoman 2y ago
    The person I replied to was required to challenge the assumption that they were guilty, and the camera evidence exonerated them every time, so by your standards should have been thrown out. The “burden” was on them to “prove” themselves innocent, its literally in the name. Just because the state possessed the evidence to prove his case doesn’t mean the burden was on them
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Exactly. Forcing someone to challenge a fine that they've already been issued is not presumed innocence, it's presumed guilt. If someone fails to act affirmatively to challenge the fine for any reason (work commitments, disability, death in the family, the list goes on) then they're on the hook for the charge in spite of the fact that the state knowingly used an inaccurate system to issue the fine.
cgriswald 2y ago
The state should have reviewed the footage and not charged you in the first place. That should be codified into law because the state is doubly incentivized to do nothing about false positives. If you pay it, they get free money. If you don’t, they get free labor.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  In this case, the article clearly states that a human will review the footage... not sure what happened in the above cases, if there was no review, or if the review was simply rushed? I do think it would be fair if the state had to pay the same fine back to the person they incorrectly fined as compensation for their time.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

by yardie 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

Meanwhile, I've never had to contest a false positive because my state doesn't allow red light cameras. That's a lot of time that I haven't had to spend defending myself against spurious charges. It doesn't especially matter where the burden of proof lies if the process for contesting requires any substantial amount of effort on the part of the victim of the false positive.

garbagewoman 2y ago

You did have to provide proof! you were assumed guilty until you proved yourself innocent by using the evidence that the state themselves already had, but didn’t present as proof of the infringement.

janalsncm 2y ago
In this case the assumption is that the camera evidence is accurate and conclusive. If it was a blurry picture, I don’t think they would be asked to provide additional evidence to prove they weren’t guilty, the ticket would simply be thrown out. In other words, the burden of proof is still on the government to provide sufficient evidence. If they won’t or can’t, there is no case.
- garbagewoman 2y ago
  The person I replied to was required to challenge the assumption that they were guilty, and the camera evidence exonerated them every time, so by your standards should have been thrown out. The “burden” was on them to “prove” themselves innocent, its literally in the name. Just because the state possessed the evidence to prove his case doesn’t mean the burden was on them
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Exactly. Forcing someone to challenge a fine that they've already been issued is not presumed innocence, it's presumed guilt. If someone fails to act affirmatively to challenge the fine for any reason (work commitments, disability, death in the family, the list goes on) then they're on the hook for the charge in spite of the fact that the state knowingly used an inaccurate system to issue the fine.

cgriswald 2y ago

The state should have reviewed the footage and not charged you in the first place. That should be codified into law because the state is doubly incentivized to do nothing about false positives. If you pay it, they get free money. If you don’t, they get free labor.

ensignavenger 2y ago
In this case, the article clearly states that a human will review the footage... not sure what happened in the above cases, if there was no review, or if the review was simply rushed? I do think it would be fair if the state had to pay the same fine back to the person they incorrectly fined as compensation for their time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]