6 ms·

Seems the fact that it was a "red light camera" is completely irrelevant? The relevant part: > The defendant argued the statute unconstitutionally requires the

Seems the fact that it was a "red light camera" is completely irrelevant? The relevant part: > The defendant argued the statute unconstitutionally requires the registered owner to prove they were not driving — instead of requiring the government to prove who was behind the wheel. Bit like having to prove you weren't the one breaking in, rather than the police having to prove you were guilty. In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
californical 8mo ago
I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than criminal charges. And since there’s already many laws and regulations around owning a car, such as registration… isn’t it trivial to say “you are responsible for a car that you register by default” In the same way, if your car fails emissions tests, you can’t register it and it’s the responsibility of the owner to ensure that their car meets emissions standards.
- true_religion 8mo ago
  But the risks that running a red light pose aren’t civil in nature, so it feels like a perversion to use civil infractions as an excuse to get sloppy with enforcement.
  - wat10000 8mo ago
    The alternative would be an actual criminal record because you misjudged a yellow light.
    - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
      If the yellows are set correctly there should be very little of misjudging. You see yellow, if you can reasonably stop you do so. Judging only is an issue when you're going below the speed limit.
      - wat10000 8mo ago
        “If you can reasonably stop” needs to be judged and can be misjudged.
- bluefirebrand 8mo ago
  No more lending your car to a friend in need, no more letting your children learn to drive on your car or borrow it ever. Families must now own and insure a car for every individual driver because we can't be bothered to find robust solutions for traffic enforcement Shift the problem onto individuals, make it a burden for the public. Typical HN attitude
  - n8cpdx 8mo ago
    Or you could ask your friends who borrow your car not to be dipshits who run red lights. If you get a ticket for your teen running a red light, you can have your teen pay for it. Might be a good learning lesson.
    - floren 8mo ago
      But the reason for the ruling is that if your teen runs a red, YOU get points on your license.
      - crote 8mo ago
        Not if the teen takes responsibility. So don't loan out your car to people who aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions. Surely that's not a massive burden?
        xeromal 8mo ago
        Is that just?
        californical 8mo ago
        Yes, vehicle ownership is a level of responsibility, I believe it is just to be accountable for what happens with it.
        iamnothere 8mo ago
- freediddy 8mo ago
  If you read the article, you would see that issue addressed. The claim was that it wasn't civil, it was quasi-criminal which is why they had to follow due process.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago
  >I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than criminal charges. Yeah that's what they said when ICE was unilaterally kicking in doors. The way I see it anything that would prompt the government to use violence upon you without you taking action to escalate deserves the same level of protection for the accused as a "real" criminal matter. Yes I'm aware this includes just about everything beyond library late fines and would break the system at least for awhile. Worth it. The government shouldn't be able to assess the same penalties (fines) and threaten the same enforcement actions (forfeiture of property, arrest for nonpayment, etc, etc) as they do in criminal matters and side step people's rights simply because they say it's civil. The rights and procedural protections are what they are not to prevent the application of a label, but to prevent abuse at the hands of the government.
  - paulddraper 8mo ago
    Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration. Civil offenses are not. --- Mild speeding, no seatbelt, broken taillight are civil. DUIs, reckless driving, hit-and-run are criminal. All vehicular offenses, but different punishments. --- Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by incarceration. (It can result in deportation to the nation of origin.)
    - cucumber3732842 8mo ago
      >Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration. And what happens if you don't pay civil (or criminal) fines? A bench warrant gets issued and you get arrested. And if you get a contempt charge in all this guess where you can go? The only "real difference" between a criminal offense where they "can" jail you but usually just fine you is procedural. I would rather catch a bullshit DUI than have a local building commissioner coming after me for some violation. They're both $10k problems, but with one of them you have "real rights" >Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by incarceration. The problem wasn't what the statutory punishment is or isn't. The problem was the unilateral nature of it. Hence all the hoopla over warrant types, sloppy behavior, etc.
      - 8mo ago
- joecool1029 8mo ago
  Sort of. Basically you can fine the owner of the car and revoke the privileges of driving that car in a given state. Where it gets to be a problem is if the charge is against the 'driver' of the car and the state's not able to prove that. Normally, in courts we can face our adversary and cross-examine, etc. We hit this problem in NJ during the red light camera pilot program, I can remember a guy I worked with getting a ticket because his roommate borrowed a car and the front was hanging out a bit into the intersection. Some other thoughts: An illegally parked car can be fined, impounded, booted. Car with outstanding parking tickets can also have all of the above. But typically the driver wouldn't see points or a moving violation for any of these offenses. For example: NYC you can get blocking the box tickets written by parking enforcement but they don't carry the weight of a moving violation like a police officer's ticket would. (and if you don't pay it, it's not the driving privilege that's suspended in the state, it's the car itself that would be targeted for booting/impounding, etc)
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
dolni 8mo ago
If it's their vehicle and the vehicle wasn't stolen, the owner should know who was driving it. Courts do compel people to testify sometimes (when it is not self-incriminating).
- spullara 8mo ago
  They are not required to know who is driving their registered vehicle at all times, just that anyone that is allowed to drive it has a license.
  - dolni 8mo ago
    What are some scenarios where a vehicle owner knows that the vehicle is being driven by someone with a license, but not who that person is?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
      You have one spouse and several children, and all of them have a license and are allowed to use the car?
      - brewdad 8mo ago
        Your court date will be weeks after receiving the citation in the mail. Most families talk once in a while.
        HDThoreaun 8mo ago
        The state is constitutionally unable to force you to testify against yourself because the judge ruled these tickets are quasi criminal
    - riquito 8mo ago
      Happens all the time. You and your spouse do the same or similar route (e.g. bring child to school) and a month later you get a ticket. Who was driving that day?
cromka 8mo ago
Not the same. They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. If it wasn't you driving, you know who. An illegal activity was committed using your tool and you know who did it. They have every right to question you. If you do not know, you testify as such, but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. > In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with. If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further? Not very no-brainer, is it? This is how it works in Poland and, I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world.
- 0x3f 8mo ago
  They have the right to question, but I don't have to testify to anything, that's what the fifth ammendment is for. As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. They just legislate (or rule) whatever 'works' for the current definition of 'works'. > If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question you further? Not very no-brainer, is it? Nobody has said you can't be questioned.
  - throwaheyy 8mo ago
    It’s a very typically American opinion to argue that you don’t have to be personally responsible for your actions if the law legally allows you not to.
    - arijun 8mo ago
      When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.
    - 0x3f 8mo ago
      The state is so powerful that inviduals should be given such affordances, and should be allowed the put the state to strict proof. Europe is a nonsense in this regard: you have rights, except all the special cases when you don't. You have a right to free speech, except for all the ways in which you don't. You have the right to silence, except when you don't. Which is also true in the US, after all they restrict obscenity as a form of speech. It's just that they have much fewer exceptions.
tacticalturtle 8mo ago
The relevant part is that the judge declared traffic ticket proceedings “quasi criminal”: > In the order, the court found that red-light camera cases, although labeled as civil infractions, function as “quasi-criminal” proceedings because they can result in monetary penalties, a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record. Which seems to just relabel any fine from the government as a criminal matter? IMO when you register the vehicle for the right to drive on public roads, you are entering into an agreement that you will be responsible for following the rules of the road, and for lending the car to people who also do so. Similarly, if I register a firearm legally, and then lend it out to anyone who asks, regardless of whether they follow the law, I don’t think it would be crazy to hold me financially responsible if a shooting happens with my gun.
- 0x3f 8mo ago
  Seems untenable because I can just lie to you about my intended use. I borrow your hammer to build a cabin. Oops, I actually used it to murder people. Enjoy the millions in damages.
  - bootlooped 8mo ago
    The justice system can generally deal with gray areas like this. For example the parents of school shooters are usually not held liable for the crimes their kids commit. It depends on a lot of variables.
    - pixl97 8mo ago
      More states are enacting laws that directly charge the parents in these cases.
      - GuinansEyebrows 8mo ago
        example of a very recent case: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-shooting-parents https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-sh...
maratc 8mo ago
I think that administrative charges do not need to clear the "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar -- that is reserved for criminal cases only. (So indeed, breaking in or killing.) "Preponderance of the Evidence" which is probably used for traffic cases means only "more likely than not" (or about 51% certainty).
mikkupikku 8mo ago
I don't see why the government should have to prove who was driving to issue a ticket, it's not like they have to prove who parked the car to issue a traffic ticket.
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  Parking tickets don't go on your driving record. They are just a tax on parking improperly.
  - mikkupikku 8mo ago
    I thought the same was true of automated red light and speeding tickets too.
    - pixl97 8mo ago
      No, they are considered moving infractions in many states.
- Ekaros 8mo ago
  In Finland there is fun thing on that. There is both tickets by municipality where the ticket goes to keeper. But as private parking fines are contractual violations they need to track down or at least reasonably prove the person who parked... Still, seems to me that it is reasonable to prove who did such violation. Maybe photo could identify person. Or maybe other data could be requested like phone location data. Doesn't seem unreasonable or high hurdle. Probably not cost effective in every case.
dangood 8mo ago
This is such a strange argument, as any reasonable person should know or be able to find out who was driving their car at a specific point in time. But also easy to solve such absurd positions - Change the law to say the owner is responsible for any and all infractions and loses the right to ride and own a car for such infractions unless they identify another driver. But I don't see who wins in this scenario, it is much more logical and fair to go in with the aim to penalise the driver, and for this purpose ask the owner to confirm the driver.
smsm42 8mo ago
Yeah, keeping this would be a dangerous precedent. If the state can presume you're guilty in a traffic case, why not extend it to other cases? Stuff like that is routinely used in legal arguments, "we are doing X so why can't we do Y which is essentially the same?" So say they'd go for "we have your phone located within the vicinity of where murder is committed, now prove you're not a murderer!" or "your license place was tagged next to the store that was robbed, now prove you didn't rob the store!" And yes, very likely some people would abuse it to get out of traffic tickets. I'd rather have that than constitutional due process protections eroded. We're not doing super-great on that anyway, we don't need to do worse, and if some scoundrel occasionally not paying traffic ticket is a price we have to pay to avoid that, I am fine with it.
- LorenPechtel 8mo ago
  Yup. Camel's noses should always be shot. Otherwise they creep in more and more. Some examples that come to mind: Look how the exception for searches at border crossings has expanded. The use of actions against licenses for behavior that has nothing to do with the license. The use of permits to get companies to do things only marginally related to the purpose of the permit. The encouragement of universities to expel those accused of criminal acts--just because the punishment isn't jail should not mean the state can hand it off to a kangaroo court. Pressuring financial companies to cut ties with disliked things. (For example, getting Steam to remove games with any whiff of incest. Either declare them illegal or don't take action against them!)
  - smsm42 8mo ago
    You can add using banks as a leverage to suppress legal but "undesirable" activities - see Operation Choke Point.
    - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
      How is that not covered by my last example?
jonahhorowitz 8mo ago
In California at least (I'm not sure about Florida law), you can go to court and state "the state hasn't proved that I was the driver," and if the photos are too blurry to show who the driver was, the state loses. You don't have to tell them who the driver was, just show that they don't have enough evidence that it was you. I believe this approach is more consistent with the constitution.[1] [1]:https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-help/photo-red-light-defenses/ https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-help/ph...
mvdtnz 8mo ago
> seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with. I disagree completely. This is how speed and red light cameras operate in my country. If you weren't the one driving, it's straight forward to show that. The other party can admit to the offence or you can present evidence including the camera itself. The burden is low. Camera infractions do not carry license demerit points because of this ongerent uncertainty. What's the alternative? Use even more valuable police resources to issue these tickets? Or just not penalize dangerous infractions?
- pixl97 8mo ago
  I mean this entire case was the state attempting to have its case and eat it too. These US states considered them moving infractions with points. Now the state must adjust by removing points or doing its due diligence.
- NetMageSCW 8mo ago
  >Or just not penalize dangerous infractions? Perhaps needing to show these are dangerous infractions should come first?
ApolloFortyNine 8mo ago
The logic is fine, but hit and runs just became a lot easier to get away with then no? Especially with tinted windows being so prevalent you very well might not even be able to give a description at all of the driver, and they can just later say they found their car like that. Probably a lot of other issues arise from that. If your car gets towed for being illegally parked, what if you just say you didn't park it there? Seems like a similar violation to a red light ticket.
- dolphinscorpion 8mo ago
  Hit and run is different; the car is insured, regardless of the driver. If criminal, they will interview to see if the owner was driving, who else had access to the car, and so on.
litoE 8mo ago
Florida must be using cheap cameras. My daughter got a red light ticket in Beverly Hills a couple of years ago. They mailed the ticket to her as the registered owner of the car, including the photographs from the cameras which showed that a) she entered the intersection on a red light, b) her car front and back showing the license plates and c) the face of the driver, establishing it was her. From her expression on the photograph you could tell she was saying "oh, shit!" She just paid it.
- seemaze 8mo ago
  Same here; tickets always include the photo of the driver. If the photo is unclear or differs from the registered owner, tickets are easily dismissed. However, I agree with Florida on this; the onus should be not be on the accused to prove innocence after a citation is issued. Feels like a 'call us to unsubscribe' time-wasting dark pattern.
  - hunter2_ 8mo ago
    If the law is such that the owner is guilty regardless of who was driving, but the owner can opt to reassign the fine to the driver if they have the willingness and the evidence to do so, then proving innocence isn't really what's happening if the driver opts to do it. That said, if merely being the owner of a tool is sufficient to be guilty of whatever infraction someone else performs with said tool, that has 2 problems beyond the whole "proving your innocence" debate: 1. Why stop climbing up the chain at the current owner when you could keep climbing and say it's all the fault of the manufacturer? I jest, but this illustrates why, despite my first paragraph, it's indeed only sensible that the driver be at fault, so the government must prove who was driving. 2. Why treat cars differently from, say, weapons?
    - seemaze 8mo ago
      The whole point is that the law is not such that "owner is guilty regardless". This is the weaponization of bureaucracy to maximize profit. The cost to issue a legally dubious citation is substantially less than the cost to refute it. It also happens to fall afoul of the right to due process, as realized by the state of Florida.
paulddraper 8mo ago
The article title is: "Judge dismisses red-light camera ticket, rules law is unconstitutional" Which is better than the HN title.
socalgal2 8mo ago
There are plenty of laws where you do nothing and are still considered responsible. For one, that was Florida. In California there's the "Permissive Use" rule which means you are at least partially responsible for who you lend your car to. If they get in an accident, you can be held partially liable. There's also "Negligent Entrustment" if it can be proved you knowingly loaned your car or gun to someone intoxicated, unlicensed, etc... Businesses are generally supposed to take responsibility for their employees. That might sound obvious if the business is FAANG but it's far less obvious to a single person coffee-shop or flower stand who hires their first employee who then spills hot coffee on a customer. Parents are liable for their kids on many (most?) cases I think another is where a someone goes to bar, drinks too much, the bartender gets charged. Rather than just fight the cameras, what solution would you suggest? Just saying "more officer enforcement" doesn't seem valid as budgets are shrinking, applicants are shrinking, and people are dying from reckless drivers.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

californical 8mo ago

I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than criminal charges. And since there’s already many laws and regulations around owning a car, such as registration… isn’t it trivial to say “you are responsible for a car that you register by default” In the same way, if your car fails emissions tests, you can’t register it and it’s the responsibility of the owner to ensure that their car meets emissions standards.

true_religion 8mo ago
But the risks that running a red light pose aren’t civil in nature, so it feels like a perversion to use civil infractions as an excuse to get sloppy with enforcement.
- wat10000 8mo ago
  The alternative would be an actual criminal record because you misjudged a yellow light.
  - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
    If the yellows are set correctly there should be very little of misjudging. You see yellow, if you can reasonably stop you do so. Judging only is an issue when you're going below the speed limit.
    - wat10000 8mo ago
      “If you can reasonably stop” needs to be judged and can be misjudged.
bluefirebrand 8mo ago
No more lending your car to a friend in need, no more letting your children learn to drive on your car or borrow it ever. Families must now own and insure a car for every individual driver because we can't be bothered to find robust solutions for traffic enforcement Shift the problem onto individuals, make it a burden for the public. Typical HN attitude
- n8cpdx 8mo ago
  Or you could ask your friends who borrow your car not to be dipshits who run red lights. If you get a ticket for your teen running a red light, you can have your teen pay for it. Might be a good learning lesson.
  - floren 8mo ago
    But the reason for the ruling is that if your teen runs a red, YOU get points on your license.
    - crote 8mo ago
      Not if the teen takes responsibility. So don't loan out your car to people who aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions. Surely that's not a massive burden?
      - xeromal 8mo ago
        Is that just?
        californical 8mo ago
        Yes, vehicle ownership is a level of responsibility, I believe it is just to be accountable for what happens with it.
        iamnothere 8mo ago
freediddy 8mo ago
If you read the article, you would see that issue addressed. The claim was that it wasn't civil, it was quasi-criminal which is why they had to follow due process.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
cucumber3732842 8mo ago
>I see your point, but these are civil tickets rather than criminal charges. Yeah that's what they said when ICE was unilaterally kicking in doors. The way I see it anything that would prompt the government to use violence upon you without you taking action to escalate deserves the same level of protection for the accused as a "real" criminal matter. Yes I'm aware this includes just about everything beyond library late fines and would break the system at least for awhile. Worth it. The government shouldn't be able to assess the same penalties (fines) and threaten the same enforcement actions (forfeiture of property, arrest for nonpayment, etc, etc) as they do in criminal matters and side step people's rights simply because they say it's civil. The rights and procedural protections are what they are not to prevent the application of a label, but to prevent abuse at the hands of the government.
- paulddraper 8mo ago
  Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration. Civil offenses are not. --- Mild speeding, no seatbelt, broken taillight are civil. DUIs, reckless driving, hit-and-run are criminal. All vehicular offenses, but different punishments. --- Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by incarceration. (It can result in deportation to the nation of origin.)
  - cucumber3732842 8mo ago
    >Criminal offenses are punishable by incarceration. And what happens if you don't pay civil (or criminal) fines? A bench warrant gets issued and you get arrested. And if you get a contempt charge in all this guess where you can go? The only "real difference" between a criminal offense where they "can" jail you but usually just fine you is procedural. I would rather catch a bullshit DUI than have a local building commissioner coming after me for some violation. They're both $10k problems, but with one of them you have "real rights" >Unauthorized immigration to the US is NOT punishable by incarceration. The problem wasn't what the statutory punishment is or isn't. The problem was the unilateral nature of it. Hence all the hoopla over warrant types, sloppy behavior, etc.
    - 8mo ago
joecool1029 8mo ago
Sort of. Basically you can fine the owner of the car and revoke the privileges of driving that car in a given state. Where it gets to be a problem is if the charge is against the 'driver' of the car and the state's not able to prove that. Normally, in courts we can face our adversary and cross-examine, etc. We hit this problem in NJ during the red light camera pilot program, I can remember a guy I worked with getting a ticket because his roommate borrowed a car and the front was hanging out a bit into the intersection. Some other thoughts: An illegally parked car can be fined, impounded, booted. Car with outstanding parking tickets can also have all of the above. But typically the driver wouldn't see points or a moving violation for any of these offenses. For example: NYC you can get blocking the box tickets written by parking enforcement but they don't carry the weight of a moving violation like a police officer's ticket would. (and if you don't pay it, it's not the driving privilege that's suspended in the state, it's the car itself that would be targeted for booting/impounding, etc)
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

dolni 8mo ago

If it's their vehicle and the vehicle wasn't stolen, the owner should know who was driving it. Courts do compel people to testify sometimes (when it is not self-incriminating).

spullara 8mo ago
They are not required to know who is driving their registered vehicle at all times, just that anyone that is allowed to drive it has a license.
- dolni 8mo ago
  What are some scenarios where a vehicle owner knows that the vehicle is being driven by someone with a license, but not who that person is?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
    You have one spouse and several children, and all of them have a license and are allowed to use the car?
    - brewdad 8mo ago
      Your court date will be weeks after receiving the citation in the mail. Most families talk once in a while.
      - HDThoreaun 8mo ago
        The state is constitutionally unable to force you to testify against yourself because the judge ruled these tickets are quasi criminal
  - riquito 8mo ago
    Happens all the time. You and your spouse do the same or similar route (e.g. bring child to school) and a month later you get a ticket. Who was driving that day?

cromka 8mo ago

Not the same. They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. If it wasn't you driving, you know who. An illegal activity was committed using your tool and you know who did it. They have every right to question you. If you do not know, you testify as such, but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. > In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with. If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further? Not very no-brainer, is it? This is how it works in Poland and, I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world.

0x3f 8mo ago
They have the right to question, but I don't have to testify to anything, that's what the fifth ammendment is for. As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. They just legislate (or rule) whatever 'works' for the current definition of 'works'. > If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question you further? Not very no-brainer, is it? Nobody has said you can't be questioned.
- throwaheyy 8mo ago
  It’s a very typically American opinion to argue that you don’t have to be personally responsible for your actions if the law legally allows you not to.
  - arijun 8mo ago
    When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.
  - 0x3f 8mo ago
    The state is so powerful that inviduals should be given such affordances, and should be allowed the put the state to strict proof. Europe is a nonsense in this regard: you have rights, except all the special cases when you don't. You have a right to free speech, except for all the ways in which you don't. You have the right to silence, except when you don't. Which is also true in the US, after all they restrict obscenity as a form of speech. It's just that they have much fewer exceptions.

tacticalturtle 8mo ago

The relevant part is that the judge declared traffic ticket proceedings “quasi criminal”: > In the order, the court found that red-light camera cases, although labeled as civil infractions, function as “quasi-criminal” proceedings because they can result in monetary penalties, a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record. Which seems to just relabel any fine from the government as a criminal matter? IMO when you register the vehicle for the right to drive on public roads, you are entering into an agreement that you will be responsible for following the rules of the road, and for lending the car to people who also do so. Similarly, if I register a firearm legally, and then lend it out to anyone who asks, regardless of whether they follow the law, I don’t think it would be crazy to hold me financially responsible if a shooting happens with my gun.

0x3f 8mo ago
Seems untenable because I can just lie to you about my intended use. I borrow your hammer to build a cabin. Oops, I actually used it to murder people. Enjoy the millions in damages.
- bootlooped 8mo ago
  The justice system can generally deal with gray areas like this. For example the parents of school shooters are usually not held liable for the crimes their kids commit. It depends on a lot of variables.
  - pixl97 8mo ago
    More states are enacting laws that directly charge the parents in these cases.
    - GuinansEyebrows 8mo ago
      example of a very recent case: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-shooting-parents https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/04/us/colin-gray-verdict-mass-sh...

maratc 8mo ago

I think that administrative charges do not need to clear the "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar -- that is reserved for criminal cases only. (So indeed, breaking in or killing.) "Preponderance of the Evidence" which is probably used for traffic cases means only "more likely than not" (or about 51% certainty).

mikkupikku 8mo ago

I don't see why the government should have to prove who was driving to issue a ticket, it's not like they have to prove who parked the car to issue a traffic ticket.

SoftTalker 8mo ago
Parking tickets don't go on your driving record. They are just a tax on parking improperly.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  I thought the same was true of automated red light and speeding tickets too.
  - pixl97 8mo ago
    No, they are considered moving infractions in many states.
Ekaros 8mo ago
In Finland there is fun thing on that. There is both tickets by municipality where the ticket goes to keeper. But as private parking fines are contractual violations they need to track down or at least reasonably prove the person who parked... Still, seems to me that it is reasonable to prove who did such violation. Maybe photo could identify person. Or maybe other data could be requested like phone location data. Doesn't seem unreasonable or high hurdle. Probably not cost effective in every case.

dangood 8mo ago

This is such a strange argument, as any reasonable person should know or be able to find out who was driving their car at a specific point in time. But also easy to solve such absurd positions - Change the law to say the owner is responsible for any and all infractions and loses the right to ride and own a car for such infractions unless they identify another driver. But I don't see who wins in this scenario, it is much more logical and fair to go in with the aim to penalise the driver, and for this purpose ask the owner to confirm the driver.

smsm42 8mo ago

Yeah, keeping this would be a dangerous precedent. If the state can presume you're guilty in a traffic case, why not extend it to other cases? Stuff like that is routinely used in legal arguments, "we are doing X so why can't we do Y which is essentially the same?" So say they'd go for "we have your phone located within the vicinity of where murder is committed, now prove you're not a murderer!" or "your license place was tagged next to the store that was robbed, now prove you didn't rob the store!" And yes, very likely some people would abuse it to get out of traffic tickets. I'd rather have that than constitutional due process protections eroded. We're not doing super-great on that anyway, we don't need to do worse, and if some scoundrel occasionally not paying traffic ticket is a price we have to pay to avoid that, I am fine with it.

LorenPechtel 8mo ago
Yup. Camel's noses should always be shot. Otherwise they creep in more and more. Some examples that come to mind: Look how the exception for searches at border crossings has expanded. The use of actions against licenses for behavior that has nothing to do with the license. The use of permits to get companies to do things only marginally related to the purpose of the permit. The encouragement of universities to expel those accused of criminal acts--just because the punishment isn't jail should not mean the state can hand it off to a kangaroo court. Pressuring financial companies to cut ties with disliked things. (For example, getting Steam to remove games with any whiff of incest. Either declare them illegal or don't take action against them!)
- smsm42 8mo ago
  You can add using banks as a leverage to suppress legal but "undesirable" activities - see Operation Choke Point.
  - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
    How is that not covered by my last example?

jonahhorowitz 8mo ago

In California at least (I'm not sure about Florida law), you can go to court and state "the state hasn't proved that I was the driver," and if the photos are too blurry to show who the driver was, the state loses. You don't have to tell them who the driver was, just show that they don't have enough evidence that it was you. I believe this approach is more consistent with the constitution.[1] [1]:https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-help/photo-red-light-defenses/ https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-help/ph...

mvdtnz 8mo ago

> seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with. I disagree completely. This is how speed and red light cameras operate in my country. If you weren't the one driving, it's straight forward to show that. The other party can admit to the offence or you can present evidence including the camera itself. The burden is low. Camera infractions do not carry license demerit points because of this ongerent uncertainty. What's the alternative? Use even more valuable police resources to issue these tickets? Or just not penalize dangerous infractions?

pixl97 8mo ago
I mean this entire case was the state attempting to have its case and eat it too. These US states considered them moving infractions with points. Now the state must adjust by removing points or doing its due diligence.
NetMageSCW 8mo ago
>Or just not penalize dangerous infractions? Perhaps needing to show these are dangerous infractions should come first?

ApolloFortyNine 8mo ago

The logic is fine, but hit and runs just became a lot easier to get away with then no? Especially with tinted windows being so prevalent you very well might not even be able to give a description at all of the driver, and they can just later say they found their car like that. Probably a lot of other issues arise from that. If your car gets towed for being illegally parked, what if you just say you didn't park it there? Seems like a similar violation to a red light ticket.

dolphinscorpion 8mo ago
Hit and run is different; the car is insured, regardless of the driver. If criminal, they will interview to see if the owner was driving, who else had access to the car, and so on.

litoE 8mo ago

Florida must be using cheap cameras. My daughter got a red light ticket in Beverly Hills a couple of years ago. They mailed the ticket to her as the registered owner of the car, including the photographs from the cameras which showed that a) she entered the intersection on a red light, b) her car front and back showing the license plates and c) the face of the driver, establishing it was her. From her expression on the photograph you could tell she was saying "oh, shit!" She just paid it.

seemaze 8mo ago
Same here; tickets always include the photo of the driver. If the photo is unclear or differs from the registered owner, tickets are easily dismissed. However, I agree with Florida on this; the onus should be not be on the accused to prove innocence after a citation is issued. Feels like a 'call us to unsubscribe' time-wasting dark pattern.
- hunter2_ 8mo ago
  If the law is such that the owner is guilty regardless of who was driving, but the owner can opt to reassign the fine to the driver if they have the willingness and the evidence to do so, then proving innocence isn't really what's happening if the driver opts to do it. That said, if merely being the owner of a tool is sufficient to be guilty of whatever infraction someone else performs with said tool, that has 2 problems beyond the whole "proving your innocence" debate: 1. Why stop climbing up the chain at the current owner when you could keep climbing and say it's all the fault of the manufacturer? I jest, but this illustrates why, despite my first paragraph, it's indeed only sensible that the driver be at fault, so the government must prove who was driving. 2. Why treat cars differently from, say, weapons?
  - seemaze 8mo ago
    The whole point is that the law is not such that "owner is guilty regardless". This is the weaponization of bureaucracy to maximize profit. The cost to issue a legally dubious citation is substantially less than the cost to refute it. It also happens to fall afoul of the right to due process, as realized by the state of Florida.

paulddraper 8mo ago

The article title is: "Judge dismisses red-light camera ticket, rules law is unconstitutional" Which is better than the HN title.

socalgal2 8mo ago

There are plenty of laws where you do nothing and are still considered responsible. For one, that was Florida. In California there's the "Permissive Use" rule which means you are at least partially responsible for who you lend your car to. If they get in an accident, you can be held partially liable. There's also "Negligent Entrustment" if it can be proved you knowingly loaned your car or gun to someone intoxicated, unlicensed, etc... Businesses are generally supposed to take responsibility for their employees. That might sound obvious if the business is FAANG but it's far less obvious to a single person coffee-shop or flower stand who hires their first employee who then spills hot coffee on a customer. Parents are liable for their kids on many (most?) cases I think another is where a someone goes to bar, drinks too much, the bartender gets charged. Rather than just fight the cameras, what solution would you suggest? Just saying "more officer enforcement" doesn't seem valid as budgets are shrinking, applicants are shrinking, and people are dying from reckless drivers.