7 ms·

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.

by 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.
  - elteto 8mo ago
    How very typical of non-Americans to misrepresent Americans!
- cromka 8mo ago
  > As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. Sure. And you advocate that in exchange in US you get havoc on the roads because anyone can say "it wasn't me speeding 50 miles over the limit, bite me"? Is that the freedom you want?
  - 0x3f 8mo ago
    The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - cromka 8mo ago
      No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! But that's irrelevant; what we're talking about here is a hypothetical scenario where this gets challenged in Supreme Court and, as a result, police in US cannot assume fault in such cases.
      - 0x3f 8mo ago
        > No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! It's literally not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... > Belgium 7.3 > Slovenia 7.0 > US 6.9 > France 5.8 Never mind all the other countries that do have presumption of guilt, which are also comparable in per-mile road deaths. And the ones with presumption but which _are_ 10x worse. Allowing the presumption is very clearly not well-correlated with safety.
        crote 8mo ago
        You are conveniently leaving out some European countries, such as Norway being at 3.0 per 1B km. You are also conveniently leaving it the per-capita figures, with US being at 14.2 per 100k while countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland being at 2.x, and Europe as a while being at 6.7. So sure, "10x more" might be an exaggeration, but "2x more" is fairly accurate and even a claim of "7x more" is arguable.
db48x 8mo ago
Sure, that would be sufficient probable cause for police to ask questions. But it’s not sufficient evidence on which to write a ticket because we specifically wrote into our Constitution that the police must know and be able to prove who the guilty party is _before_ they write the ticket (or make an arrest, in the case of more serious crimes). Poland doesn’t protect its citizens to the same degree, so what is acceptable there is not acceptable here.
archontes 8mo ago
In America, we have the fifth amendment, and the right not to divulge any information whatsoever unless we're granted immunity. It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case. If someone shot a person with my gun, I would invoke the fifth amendment, and ask the government to prove who did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  In reality the way it would work is the prosecutor and police would use every bit of circumstantial evidence to construct a claim of motive, means, and opportunity. Then threaten you with a lengthy prison sentence if you are convicted. You're not going to roll on whoever really did it (assuming you know), and trust your fate to a jury understanding presumption of innocence, and being convinced of "reasonable" doubt, without you saying a word in your own defense? Most people would not unless they had an iron-clad alibi, but if they did, they wouldn't be getting charged in the first place.
  - 0x3f 8mo ago
    There's a big difference in when you break silence though. Strategically, much better to keep it until all the facts are known to your side. At the start, the police/government have the informational advantage. In other countries, even delaying (but eventually speaking) can allow a negative inference to be drawn. The right to silence is important even if you eventually speak.
    - pclmulqdq 8mo ago
      The correct way to interact with the American legal system is never to talk at all unless you have a written immunity deal. Kids should learn to say "no questions/searches" and "slide the warrant under the door" from their parents.
      - 0x3f 8mo ago
        Pre-lawyer it's never a good idea to talk. Post-lawyer often not either. But there are some rare cases you might negotiate a disclosure through your lawyer. For example, if they're about to ransack your home or get you fired from your job and you've got a rock-solid alibi.
bluefirebrand 8mo ago
> If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question you further Running a red light is not remotely equivalent to shooting someone with a gun, get a grip
- cromka 8mo ago
  OK, so now write a law that makes a distinction here. What do you end up with? EU law.
  - multjoy 8mo ago
    The EU does not write traffic legislation, it leaves that up to the individual states. Unlike the US, the EU is a collection of fully sovereign countries.
    - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
      “fully” is optimistic - being a member of the EU means giving up some sovereignty.
    - cromka 8mo ago
      This was a mental shortcut, to exemplify EU vs US attitude in this case. I am from and live in one of EU countries, I am very well aware of that.
- Rapzid 8mo ago
  In oral arguments the supreme court uses hypothetical questions with extreme examples to explore the limits and constitutionality of law. Why shouldn't we?
some_random 8mo ago
The relevant law here is US constitutional law, not Polish nor EU law.
- cromka 8mo ago
  Did I say otherwise?
hypeatei 8mo ago
> If it wasn't you driving, you know who That's not necessarily true. What if it's a shared car in your family and you weren't home to see who took it? This comment is the tech equivalent to "falsehoods programmers believe about <thing>"... real life does not fit into such neat boxes.
- izacus 8mo ago
  Then you pay the ticket yourself or ask the family who did it so they can do it. This is normal across the world and really isn't a stretch to expect vehicle owners to figure out who's been driving dangerously with their car.
  - hypeatei 8mo ago
    > This is normal across the world I'm not arguing it isn't, but the thought exercise is: does it make sense for the government to take people's money if the accused can't prove it wasn't them driving the car based on a police accusation (also with the threat of jail time if you don't pay)? I don't think that's "normal", personally.
    - multjoy 8mo ago
      No, because in a functioning legislature the offence would be something like 'failing to disclose details', in the same way that refusing to participate in a DUI breath/blood draw would be a discrete offence.
- brewdad 8mo ago
  The photo will show the driver. Presumably, you recognize your partner and/or your children.
  - LorenPechtel 8mo ago
    Twins.
eweise 8mo ago
Four people in my family drive my car. I'm supposed to track that? sure.
- daveoc64 8mo ago
  The standard for this in the UK is that you should make a reasonable effort to work out who was driving. e.g. checking your calendar/diary, looking through receipts or bank statements to work out where you likely were. There's also a requirement that a request for information is sent within 14 days for minor incidents like speeding or red light violations, so it's not like you have to work out who was driving on a Tuesday morning three years ago.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - quickthrowman 8mo ago
    That’s not how it works in the United States. I was driving my (female) partner’s car and received a citation. I gave the cop my license but he pulled the owner’s (my female partner) driving record using her vehicle’s license plate (is what I’m guessing happened) and issued her the citation instead of me. I was very excited since this meant I was going to get away without a citation. I gave her the citation and she called the cop who issued the citation and asked him who was driving at the time. He answered that a man was driving, and she told him he issued the citation to her, a woman. Her first name is one letter away from a male first name, so I’m guessing the cop saw it and assumed it was me and not her. He got frustrated and told her to go ahead and rip the citation up since he wrote it to the wrong driver, she told him she’d show up to court and the judge would instantly dismiss the ticket due to the officer pulling over a man and issuing the citation to a woman, so he canceled it. He didn’t want to look like a complete fool in front of a judge. Not once did he ask who was actually driving because he knows she is never going to tell him and he can’t force her to reveal that it was me.
    - nubg 8mo ago
      Why not just drive under the speed limit and sober instead of giggling about avoiding penalties while endangering us all? Note that not once did you mention that you were innocent.
stronglikedan 8mo ago
> but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. Why? IMHO, I shouldn't have to. It's the police's job to make sure they have the right person.
- happosai 8mo ago
  Car is a deadly machine (especially big trucks and SUVs) and the owner of the death machine should know who they give their death machine.
circuit10 8mo ago
I think it's like this in the UK, you are required to either admit to it or inform the police who was driving at the time. For speeding there's a website where you can view photos and a certificate showing the equipment was calibrated recently, and you can admit or nominate another driver (or you can do it via paper forms)
brigade 8mo ago
Most of the world also doesn't have the same degree of protections against self-incrimination that the 5th amendment provides. If someone shot a person with my gun, while the police can obviously ask questions, in the US I have the right to not answer and force them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who fired it.
stefan_ 8mo ago
You are missing a nuance. It is simply a separate offence (a misdemeanor) to not identify who was driving when the car was used to commit a violation. But also traffic cameras here generally take frontal pictures, so typically the only way you can get away with claiming it wasn't you is if they are very lazy / not interested in investigating further.
elteto 8mo ago
You don't need to explain anything to the government, that's why we have the 5th amendment. It is the government's job to bring charges against you and prove them beyond reasonable doubt. The government is right to investigate and ask questions to accomplish that and I am right to refuse to answer anything. It's basically "innocent until proven guilty". Red light cameras turn that assumption around since if your car gets ticketed it is assumed you are "guilty until proven innocent".
- cromka 8mo ago
  > You don't need to explain anything to the government, that's why we have the 5th amendment. As someone else said, this only works against self-incrimination? If you say it wasn't you then you need to testify or get prosecuted?
  - brigade 8mo ago
    First, you have the right to say nothing at all; there is no requirement to incriminate someone else to protect yourself. Second, you can still generally invoke the 5th amendment during testimony even if you already claimed someone else did it. You aren't under oath until said testimony, so it still protects against you having to choose between committing perjury or self-incrimination, and doing so cannot be used as evidence of either.
    - IncreasePosts 8mo ago
      No, you don't always have the right to say nothing at all. Courts can compel testimony and punish you if you don't. And you plead the 5th after going under oath. And you can't just plead the 5th to any question. If the prosection puts you under oath and asks you your name, you can't plead the 5th to that
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - brigade 8mo ago
Vaslo 8mo ago
Even if I know who, why would I ever give that information to the court?
- brewdad 8mo ago
  Because you'll be paying the fine if you don't.
- crote 8mo ago
  Let's say your friend borrow your car and drives through a red light. You don't have to tell the court that it was them, but as the car owner you'll be held responsible for what the car was used for if you don't.
  - tuckerman 8mo ago
    It seems like that is not the case in Florida according to this judge.
    - ratelimitsteve 8mo ago
      it's not true anywhere in america, at the very least.
      - tuckerman 8mo ago
        I agree that's likely true but I'm not sure if there are any jurisdictions finding things differently? I'm not aware of any rulings from appeals courts with broader jurisdiction but I imagine if they don't exist they will soon.
  - ratelimitsteve 8mo ago
    here's the thing about that: it's absolutely not true at all. once again, in the place where this ruling took place (and, therefore, the place we're talking about) the people who accuse you of a crime have to prove that it was definitely you that did it. an accusation doesn't put the burden of proof on you to prove that you didn't, or to find who actually did. this isn't a phoenix wright game, or an argument with your mom. if the state can't prove that it was you, then it wasn't.
terminalshort 8mo ago
Of course they are going to question you further. But they still do have to prove it to convict you. If the prosecution provides no evidence that you were the shooter other than the fact that you were the owner of the gun, then you are going to get off.
smsm42 8mo ago
> you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment Says who? If the car is mine, I am free to do with it whatever I like (of course, excepting criminal acts). I do not owe anybody an account of what I - or the care - did at any particular moment. If the car was used in the commission of a crime, it's up to the prosecution to prove I had something to do with it. If they think I know who did it - prove it and prosecute me under the law. You can't just prosecute because you think I should know, that's not how proper law works - otherwise every cop in the country would be 100% sure who they caught is the criminal - because why not, if it's enough for conviction, why work harder! > If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further? They can question all they like, but to secure a criminal conviction, they must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that I was the person who did it. Otherwise you get no conviction. If they strongly suspect I did it, they would find a proof - but the fact that I owned a gun is not that proof (for one, guns can be easily stolen, and frequently are).
- jan_g 8mo ago
  But couldn't you then have the same argument for speeding tickets (or parking tickets)? Like, "I don't know who drove my car too fast or parked my car on the curb, so it's not my problem. The state should prove who did it.".
  - satvikpendem 8mo ago
    Yes, and that is likely what will happen based on this ruling too, for parking tickets as well.
  - smsm42 8mo ago
    For the speeding ticket, if the police officer stops you, you'd get a ticket and would sign it, thus ensuring you were there. Or, if you refuse, the police officer would testify in court (if you would ask for a court hearing) that they saw you behind the wheel (and, likely now, you'd also be on bodycam). That would likely be enough evidence - which is why you probably don't want to go to court, because the judge would be annoyed at you for wasting everybody's time, and you'd probably get more severe punishment. That said, I did at times get smaller fine and less severe consequences from a speeding ticket by just pretending I am going to go to court (I didn't really want to, I wanted smaller fine :) - because policemen do not like to waste time in court either - so they would agree, that if I do not try to deny I did it, and do not force thus them to go to court and testify, they would agree to less severe violation (while still costing me $$, just not as much as it could). That's totally a thing, at least in the US. The risk, of course, if you are an ass about it and piss off the police officer, they'd say to heck with it, I'll go to court, and you'd have to go to court too, and as per above, you'd get punished more severely. So, always be polite, and it will be to your benefit. As for automated speeding tickets, I'm not a huge fan of it. Too many cases of this system being wrong or abusive.
ratelimitsteve 8mo ago
> If it wasn't you driving, you know who. I don't have to prove who was driving. I don't have to prove I wasn't the one driving. The state has to prove that I was the one driving. >If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further? I don't expect them not to question me further and that's not what this is about. This is about whether your car running a red light is proof, in and of itself absent any other facts, that you ran a red light in your car. >This is how it works in Poland This is not how it works in the US >I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world. You assume incorrectly
electronsoup 8mo ago
> but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. There is no such requirement.
openuntil3am 8mo ago
In Japan the driver's face needs to be clearly visible in the photo. At least that's what I've been told. I don't drive.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
carlosjobim 8mo ago
> you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. Why? Americans liberated themselves from this kind of relationship with the government hundreds of years ago.
tsimionescu 8mo ago
> They have every right to question you. Sure, but they have no right to issue you a ticket without proving you broke the law. Same as in the gun case: they have every right to question you, but they can't convict you for murder based solely on evidence that it was your gun that killed the victim.
- otterley 8mo ago
  A ticket (citation) is a promise to appear before a court, not a conviction of anything. Law enforcement can cite anyone with only reasonable suspicion than a crime or infraction has been committed.
  - tsimionescu 8mo ago
    I may have used "ticket" in a far too imprecise way, that may get a bit too much into the weeds of terminology and specific laws in specific states for me. By my understanding, though, this case wasn't about a citation to appear in court, it was about automatic issuance of a fine + points on the driver's license of the owner of a car filmed blowing past a red light. Of course, you can sue the government to contest the penalties, but unless you do, you are liable for even worse penalties if you don't pay.
garaetjjte 8mo ago
In Poland, ticket enforcement from speed cameras is about 50% (because if you don't accept it voluntarily, they need to file court case and burden of proof is on the government here, as with any other criminal case).
ssl-3 8mo ago
Please don't project the laws and norms of Poland onto the US. The US is a very big place. And in this place, we have fifty (!) different states. That's fifty different sets of rules relating to owning and driving cars -- nearly twice as many as the EU has member nations. A Florida judge might decide that red light camera tickets are unconstitutional, while an Arizona judge might decide that they're completely OK. These two very different rulings can co-exist, without conflict, potentially forever. Each state doing their own thing independently of the others is just how we roll here. A sane and rational person might reasonably conclude that this situation is literally insane -- and they may be right! -- but it is this way anyway. (And it is this way by design.)
- sejje 8mo ago
  It's a bit like the EU, in that way. I don't believe the founders intended as much federal oversight as we currently have. It was supposed to be self-governing states with a few exceptions. So much of the constitution is to limit the feds.
Nursie 8mo ago
> They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. People's spouses and kids drive their cars. I've lent cars to friends before. Unless you've got some kind of log book, you might not know (or even remember) who was driving at any given moment or location. > you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. This is the point of the judgement, under US law it seems that you don't need to plausibly explain anything, the authorities need to be able to show who was driving as the penalty is pseudo-criminal. > I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world. Under UK law which is much less definite about the state proving who was driving, one must make a good faith effort to identify the driver. But my Father got into a situation that took months to resolve when a speeding ticket arrived. The photograph of the driver didn't capture the head and was otherwise too blurry to identify from the body. It's a month after the fact on a road they both drive down frequently, and they only have one car. Was it him or his wife driving? Nobody knows. The primary vehicle owner is not allowed to just assume responsibility for the ticket, because the liability for the offence is with the specific driver. Giving the wrong information is an offence itself, because people have tried those sorts of tricks to (for example) give penalty points to their spouse and avoid a ban. So ... what do you do? It's possible to take such cases to court in the UK and receive a not-guilty verdict if the vehicle owner can show a good faith effort has been made to identify the driver but there is no reasonable way of doing so.
protocolture 8mo ago
>They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. Lol your "Tool" analogy breaks down here. Its not the responsibility of the defendant to prove their innocence, no matter how you want to twist it. > expect them not to question any you further Wow. No one expects you to not be questioned, but for questioning to take place before punishment because duh. Build a case, test it. Not issue fines based on an assumption.
asdff 8mo ago
Speed camera tickets show up in the mail weeks after the fact. Say your entire family uses your car. You know who was driving the family car at 2pm on a random sunday five weeks ago? I'm guessing not...
- defrost 8mo ago
  I'm guessing many would recognise a family member or friend from the photograph of the person in the drivers seat though . . .
  - asdff 8mo ago
    Have you seen these photos though? They barely capture the driver to be honest. The angle is shit for it, decent enough for plate ID but that is it. When I got one it didn't really catch my face and the image quality was terrible anyhow, tons of noise and blur and low resolution and lighting conditions couldn't have been better at the time too. Imagine dead of night, when my interior is unlit.
JasonADrury 8mo ago
> They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. This is an absurd assumption. I own many cars. Often, I'll borrow a car to a friend, I'm generally totally OK if they borrow it to other people. I don't care, and should not have to care, who those people are. Also, for what it's worth, the government has no idea who owns any of my cars. EU registration certificates are typically not proof of ownership (are they in any EU country? I suspect quite possibly not). At best a government might be able to figure out the registered keeper of my vehicle, but they're not going to know anything about who drives the car. >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? If I say "it wasn't me" and refuse to answer further questions, I would expect them to stop asking me pretty quickly. Being excessively bothersome about asking further questions would be a clear violation of the ECHR.
AyyEye 8mo ago
> If it wasn't you driving, you know who This is... Absolutely not true. I had some family friends and their two (adult) sons come in (from Poland!) and loaned them my car for a week while they were driving around the states. They were all licensed and it could have been any one of them driving at any given point. I've even been on road trips in my own car where figuring out the question "we got a ticket from nowhere, montana. Who was driving when we went through there?" Would be met with "that was over a month ago, I don't even know where that is much less who was driving then." My husband and I and our kid take each other's cars for various reasons and trying to figure out who was driving on any given hour of the day over a month later when the ticket arrives in the mail would be an impossible task.

by cromka 8mo ago

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.
- elteto 8mo ago
  How very typical of non-Americans to misrepresent Americans!
cromka 8mo ago
> As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. Sure. And you advocate that in exchange in US you get havoc on the roads because anyone can say "it wasn't me speeding 50 miles over the limit, bite me"? Is that the freedom you want?
- 0x3f 8mo ago
  The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - cromka 8mo ago
    No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! But that's irrelevant; what we're talking about here is a hypothetical scenario where this gets challenged in Supreme Court and, as a result, police in US cannot assume fault in such cases.
    - 0x3f 8mo ago
      > No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! It's literally not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... > Belgium 7.3 > Slovenia 7.0 > US 6.9 > France 5.8 Never mind all the other countries that do have presumption of guilt, which are also comparable in per-mile road deaths. And the ones with presumption but which _are_ 10x worse. Allowing the presumption is very clearly not well-correlated with safety.
      - crote 8mo ago
        You are conveniently leaving out some European countries, such as Norway being at 3.0 per 1B km. You are also conveniently leaving it the per-capita figures, with US being at 14.2 per 100k while countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland being at 2.x, and Europe as a while being at 6.7. So sure, "10x more" might be an exaggeration, but "2x more" is fairly accurate and even a claim of "7x more" is arguable.

db48x 8mo ago

Sure, that would be sufficient probable cause for police to ask questions. But it’s not sufficient evidence on which to write a ticket because we specifically wrote into our Constitution that the police must know and be able to prove who the guilty party is _before_ they write the ticket (or make an arrest, in the case of more serious crimes). Poland doesn’t protect its citizens to the same degree, so what is acceptable there is not acceptable here.

archontes 8mo ago

In America, we have the fifth amendment, and the right not to divulge any information whatsoever unless we're granted immunity. It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case. If someone shot a person with my gun, I would invoke the fifth amendment, and ask the government to prove who did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

SoftTalker 8mo ago
In reality the way it would work is the prosecutor and police would use every bit of circumstantial evidence to construct a claim of motive, means, and opportunity. Then threaten you with a lengthy prison sentence if you are convicted. You're not going to roll on whoever really did it (assuming you know), and trust your fate to a jury understanding presumption of innocence, and being convinced of "reasonable" doubt, without you saying a word in your own defense? Most people would not unless they had an iron-clad alibi, but if they did, they wouldn't be getting charged in the first place.
- 0x3f 8mo ago
  There's a big difference in when you break silence though. Strategically, much better to keep it until all the facts are known to your side. At the start, the police/government have the informational advantage. In other countries, even delaying (but eventually speaking) can allow a negative inference to be drawn. The right to silence is important even if you eventually speak.
  - pclmulqdq 8mo ago
    The correct way to interact with the American legal system is never to talk at all unless you have a written immunity deal. Kids should learn to say "no questions/searches" and "slide the warrant under the door" from their parents.
    - 0x3f 8mo ago
      Pre-lawyer it's never a good idea to talk. Post-lawyer often not either. But there are some rare cases you might negotiate a disclosure through your lawyer. For example, if they're about to ransack your home or get you fired from your job and you've got a rock-solid alibi.

bluefirebrand 8mo ago

> If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question you further Running a red light is not remotely equivalent to shooting someone with a gun, get a grip

cromka 8mo ago
OK, so now write a law that makes a distinction here. What do you end up with? EU law.
- multjoy 8mo ago
  The EU does not write traffic legislation, it leaves that up to the individual states. Unlike the US, the EU is a collection of fully sovereign countries.
  - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
    “fully” is optimistic - being a member of the EU means giving up some sovereignty.
  - cromka 8mo ago
    This was a mental shortcut, to exemplify EU vs US attitude in this case. I am from and live in one of EU countries, I am very well aware of that.
Rapzid 8mo ago
In oral arguments the supreme court uses hypothetical questions with extreme examples to explore the limits and constitutionality of law. Why shouldn't we?

some_random 8mo ago

The relevant law here is US constitutional law, not Polish nor EU law.

cromka 8mo ago
Did I say otherwise?

hypeatei 8mo ago

> If it wasn't you driving, you know who That's not necessarily true. What if it's a shared car in your family and you weren't home to see who took it? This comment is the tech equivalent to "falsehoods programmers believe about <thing>"... real life does not fit into such neat boxes.

izacus 8mo ago
Then you pay the ticket yourself or ask the family who did it so they can do it. This is normal across the world and really isn't a stretch to expect vehicle owners to figure out who's been driving dangerously with their car.
- hypeatei 8mo ago
  > This is normal across the world I'm not arguing it isn't, but the thought exercise is: does it make sense for the government to take people's money if the accused can't prove it wasn't them driving the car based on a police accusation (also with the threat of jail time if you don't pay)? I don't think that's "normal", personally.
  - multjoy 8mo ago
    No, because in a functioning legislature the offence would be something like 'failing to disclose details', in the same way that refusing to participate in a DUI breath/blood draw would be a discrete offence.
brewdad 8mo ago
The photo will show the driver. Presumably, you recognize your partner and/or your children.
- LorenPechtel 8mo ago
  Twins.

eweise 8mo ago

Four people in my family drive my car. I'm supposed to track that? sure.

daveoc64 8mo ago
The standard for this in the UK is that you should make a reasonable effort to work out who was driving. e.g. checking your calendar/diary, looking through receipts or bank statements to work out where you likely were. There's also a requirement that a request for information is sent within 14 days for minor incidents like speeding or red light violations, so it's not like you have to work out who was driving on a Tuesday morning three years ago.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrowman 8mo ago
  That’s not how it works in the United States. I was driving my (female) partner’s car and received a citation. I gave the cop my license but he pulled the owner’s (my female partner) driving record using her vehicle’s license plate (is what I’m guessing happened) and issued her the citation instead of me. I was very excited since this meant I was going to get away without a citation. I gave her the citation and she called the cop who issued the citation and asked him who was driving at the time. He answered that a man was driving, and she told him he issued the citation to her, a woman. Her first name is one letter away from a male first name, so I’m guessing the cop saw it and assumed it was me and not her. He got frustrated and told her to go ahead and rip the citation up since he wrote it to the wrong driver, she told him she’d show up to court and the judge would instantly dismiss the ticket due to the officer pulling over a man and issuing the citation to a woman, so he canceled it. He didn’t want to look like a complete fool in front of a judge. Not once did he ask who was actually driving because he knows she is never going to tell him and he can’t force her to reveal that it was me.
  - nubg 8mo ago
    Why not just drive under the speed limit and sober instead of giggling about avoiding penalties while endangering us all? Note that not once did you mention that you were innocent.

stronglikedan 8mo ago

> but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. Why? IMHO, I shouldn't have to. It's the police's job to make sure they have the right person.

happosai 8mo ago
Car is a deadly machine (especially big trucks and SUVs) and the owner of the death machine should know who they give their death machine.

circuit10 8mo ago

I think it's like this in the UK, you are required to either admit to it or inform the police who was driving at the time. For speeding there's a website where you can view photos and a certificate showing the equipment was calibrated recently, and you can admit or nominate another driver (or you can do it via paper forms)

brigade 8mo ago

Most of the world also doesn't have the same degree of protections against self-incrimination that the 5th amendment provides. If someone shot a person with my gun, while the police can obviously ask questions, in the US I have the right to not answer and force them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who fired it.

stefan_ 8mo ago

You are missing a nuance. It is simply a separate offence (a misdemeanor) to not identify who was driving when the car was used to commit a violation. But also traffic cameras here generally take frontal pictures, so typically the only way you can get away with claiming it wasn't you is if they are very lazy / not interested in investigating further.

elteto 8mo ago

You don't need to explain anything to the government, that's why we have the 5th amendment. It is the government's job to bring charges against you and prove them beyond reasonable doubt. The government is right to investigate and ask questions to accomplish that and I am right to refuse to answer anything. It's basically "innocent until proven guilty". Red light cameras turn that assumption around since if your car gets ticketed it is assumed you are "guilty until proven innocent".

cromka 8mo ago
> You don't need to explain anything to the government, that's why we have the 5th amendment. As someone else said, this only works against self-incrimination? If you say it wasn't you then you need to testify or get prosecuted?
- brigade 8mo ago
  First, you have the right to say nothing at all; there is no requirement to incriminate someone else to protect yourself. Second, you can still generally invoke the 5th amendment during testimony even if you already claimed someone else did it. You aren't under oath until said testimony, so it still protects against you having to choose between committing perjury or self-incrimination, and doing so cannot be used as evidence of either.
  - IncreasePosts 8mo ago
    No, you don't always have the right to say nothing at all. Courts can compel testimony and punish you if you don't. And you plead the 5th after going under oath. And you can't just plead the 5th to any question. If the prosection puts you under oath and asks you your name, you can't plead the 5th to that
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - brigade 8mo ago

Vaslo 8mo ago

Even if I know who, why would I ever give that information to the court?

brewdad 8mo ago
Because you'll be paying the fine if you don't.
crote 8mo ago
Let's say your friend borrow your car and drives through a red light. You don't have to tell the court that it was them, but as the car owner you'll be held responsible for what the car was used for if you don't.
- tuckerman 8mo ago
  It seems like that is not the case in Florida according to this judge.
  - ratelimitsteve 8mo ago
    it's not true anywhere in america, at the very least.
    - tuckerman 8mo ago
      I agree that's likely true but I'm not sure if there are any jurisdictions finding things differently? I'm not aware of any rulings from appeals courts with broader jurisdiction but I imagine if they don't exist they will soon.
- ratelimitsteve 8mo ago
  here's the thing about that: it's absolutely not true at all. once again, in the place where this ruling took place (and, therefore, the place we're talking about) the people who accuse you of a crime have to prove that it was definitely you that did it. an accusation doesn't put the burden of proof on you to prove that you didn't, or to find who actually did. this isn't a phoenix wright game, or an argument with your mom. if the state can't prove that it was you, then it wasn't.

terminalshort 8mo ago

Of course they are going to question you further. But they still do have to prove it to convict you. If the prosecution provides no evidence that you were the shooter other than the fact that you were the owner of the gun, then you are going to get off.

smsm42 8mo ago

> you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment Says who? If the car is mine, I am free to do with it whatever I like (of course, excepting criminal acts). I do not owe anybody an account of what I - or the care - did at any particular moment. If the car was used in the commission of a crime, it's up to the prosecution to prove I had something to do with it. If they think I know who did it - prove it and prosecute me under the law. You can't just prosecute because you think I should know, that's not how proper law works - otherwise every cop in the country would be 100% sure who they caught is the criminal - because why not, if it's enough for conviction, why work harder! > If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further? They can question all they like, but to secure a criminal conviction, they must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that I was the person who did it. Otherwise you get no conviction. If they strongly suspect I did it, they would find a proof - but the fact that I owned a gun is not that proof (for one, guns can be easily stolen, and frequently are).

jan_g 8mo ago
But couldn't you then have the same argument for speeding tickets (or parking tickets)? Like, "I don't know who drove my car too fast or parked my car on the curb, so it's not my problem. The state should prove who did it.".
- satvikpendem 8mo ago
  Yes, and that is likely what will happen based on this ruling too, for parking tickets as well.
- smsm42 8mo ago
  For the speeding ticket, if the police officer stops you, you'd get a ticket and would sign it, thus ensuring you were there. Or, if you refuse, the police officer would testify in court (if you would ask for a court hearing) that they saw you behind the wheel (and, likely now, you'd also be on bodycam). That would likely be enough evidence - which is why you probably don't want to go to court, because the judge would be annoyed at you for wasting everybody's time, and you'd probably get more severe punishment. That said, I did at times get smaller fine and less severe consequences from a speeding ticket by just pretending I am going to go to court (I didn't really want to, I wanted smaller fine :) - because policemen do not like to waste time in court either - so they would agree, that if I do not try to deny I did it, and do not force thus them to go to court and testify, they would agree to less severe violation (while still costing me $$, just not as much as it could). That's totally a thing, at least in the US. The risk, of course, if you are an ass about it and piss off the police officer, they'd say to heck with it, I'll go to court, and you'd have to go to court too, and as per above, you'd get punished more severely. So, always be polite, and it will be to your benefit. As for automated speeding tickets, I'm not a huge fan of it. Too many cases of this system being wrong or abusive.

ratelimitsteve 8mo ago

> If it wasn't you driving, you know who. I don't have to prove who was driving. I don't have to prove I wasn't the one driving. The state has to prove that I was the one driving. >If someone shoots a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question any you further? I don't expect them not to question me further and that's not what this is about. This is about whether your car running a red light is proof, in and of itself absent any other facts, that you ran a red light in your car. >This is how it works in Poland This is not how it works in the US >I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world. You assume incorrectly

electronsoup 8mo ago

> but then again you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. There is no such requirement.

openuntil3am 8mo ago

In Japan the driver's face needs to be clearly visible in the photo. At least that's what I've been told. I don't drive.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

carlosjobim 8mo ago

> you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. Why? Americans liberated themselves from this kind of relationship with the government hundreds of years ago.

tsimionescu 8mo ago

> They have every right to question you. Sure, but they have no right to issue you a ticket without proving you broke the law. Same as in the gun case: they have every right to question you, but they can't convict you for murder based solely on evidence that it was your gun that killed the victim.

otterley 8mo ago
A ticket (citation) is a promise to appear before a court, not a conviction of anything. Law enforcement can cite anyone with only reasonable suspicion than a crime or infraction has been committed.
- tsimionescu 8mo ago
  I may have used "ticket" in a far too imprecise way, that may get a bit too much into the weeds of terminology and specific laws in specific states for me. By my understanding, though, this case wasn't about a citation to appear in court, it was about automatic issuance of a fine + points on the driver's license of the owner of a car filmed blowing past a red light. Of course, you can sue the government to contest the penalties, but unless you do, you are liable for even worse penalties if you don't pay.

garaetjjte 8mo ago

In Poland, ticket enforcement from speed cameras is about 50% (because if you don't accept it voluntarily, they need to file court case and burden of proof is on the government here, as with any other criminal case).

ssl-3 8mo ago

Please don't project the laws and norms of Poland onto the US. The US is a very big place. And in this place, we have fifty (!) different states. That's fifty different sets of rules relating to owning and driving cars -- nearly twice as many as the EU has member nations. A Florida judge might decide that red light camera tickets are unconstitutional, while an Arizona judge might decide that they're completely OK. These two very different rulings can co-exist, without conflict, potentially forever. Each state doing their own thing independently of the others is just how we roll here. A sane and rational person might reasonably conclude that this situation is literally insane -- and they may be right! -- but it is this way anyway. (And it is this way by design.)

sejje 8mo ago
It's a bit like the EU, in that way. I don't believe the founders intended as much federal oversight as we currently have. It was supposed to be self-governing states with a few exceptions. So much of the constitution is to limit the feds.

Nursie 8mo ago

> They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. People's spouses and kids drive their cars. I've lent cars to friends before. Unless you've got some kind of log book, you might not know (or even remember) who was driving at any given moment or location. > you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it. This is the point of the judgement, under US law it seems that you don't need to plausibly explain anything, the authorities need to be able to show who was driving as the penalty is pseudo-criminal. > I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world. Under UK law which is much less definite about the state proving who was driving, one must make a good faith effort to identify the driver. But my Father got into a situation that took months to resolve when a speeding ticket arrived. The photograph of the driver didn't capture the head and was otherwise too blurry to identify from the body. It's a month after the fact on a road they both drive down frequently, and they only have one car. Was it him or his wife driving? Nobody knows. The primary vehicle owner is not allowed to just assume responsibility for the ticket, because the liability for the offence is with the specific driver. Giving the wrong information is an offence itself, because people have tried those sorts of tricks to (for example) give penalty points to their spouse and avoid a ban. So ... what do you do? It's possible to take such cases to court in the UK and receive a not-guilty verdict if the vehicle owner can show a good faith effort has been made to identify the driver but there is no reasonable way of doing so.

protocolture 8mo ago

>They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. Lol your "Tool" analogy breaks down here. Its not the responsibility of the defendant to prove their innocence, no matter how you want to twist it. > expect them not to question any you further Wow. No one expects you to not be questioned, but for questioning to take place before punishment because duh. Build a case, test it. Not issue fines based on an assumption.

asdff 8mo ago

Speed camera tickets show up in the mail weeks after the fact. Say your entire family uses your car. You know who was driving the family car at 2pm on a random sunday five weeks ago? I'm guessing not...

defrost 8mo ago
I'm guessing many would recognise a family member or friend from the photograph of the person in the drivers seat though . . .
- asdff 8mo ago
  Have you seen these photos though? They barely capture the driver to be honest. The angle is shit for it, decent enough for plate ID but that is it. When I got one it didn't really catch my face and the image quality was terrible anyhow, tons of noise and blur and low resolution and lighting conditions couldn't have been better at the time too. Imagine dead of night, when my interior is unlit.

JasonADrury 8mo ago

> They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment. This is an absurd assumption. I own many cars. Often, I'll borrow a car to a friend, I'm generally totally OK if they borrow it to other people. I don't care, and should not have to care, who those people are. Also, for what it's worth, the government has no idea who owns any of my cars. EU registration certificates are typically not proof of ownership (are they in any EU country? I suspect quite possibly not). At best a government might be able to figure out the registered keeper of my vehicle, but they're not going to know anything about who drives the car. >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? If I say "it wasn't me" and refuse to answer further questions, I would expect them to stop asking me pretty quickly. Being excessively bothersome about asking further questions would be a clear violation of the ECHR.

AyyEye 8mo ago

> If it wasn't you driving, you know who This is... Absolutely not true. I had some family friends and their two (adult) sons come in (from Poland!) and loaned them my car for a week while they were driving around the states. They were all licensed and it could have been any one of them driving at any given point. I've even been on road trips in my own car where figuring out the question "we got a ticket from nowhere, montana. Who was driving when we went through there?" Would be met with "that was over a month ago, I don't even know where that is much less who was driving then." My husband and I and our kid take each other's cars for various reasons and trying to figure out who was driving on any given hour of the day over a month later when the ticket arrives in the mail would be an impossible task.