Cities May Be Forced To Pay Back Red-Light Tickets
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/11533364/detail.html?subid=22100405&qs=1;bp=t
Case To Go To Ohio Supreme Court
CLEVELAND -- There's a growing list of people who want to get rid of red-light cameras and push for refunds of millions of dollars to drivers who were issued traffic tickets.
Chief investigative reporter Duane Pohlman said the issue is headed for an Ohio State Supreme Court showdown.
what "fee" will carty come up with when the court orders repayment of thes fines? instead of invoking the "home rule" defense as to why they should be allowed to ignore the state constitution, the city should have shut down the program until the supreme court provided further guidance.
another link from that site is also good.....
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/11063550/detail.html
I got one of those red light camera tickets. But I honestly don't understand why people think they are so unfair. If you aren't speeding or running red lights, you got nothing to worry about. I was speeding, got a ticket - my own fault. If somebody has used your car, you can dispute the ticket in court, and maybe be more careful about who you loan your car to next time. I was watching an episode of Mythbusters where they were testing red light cameras & license plate blockers. They tried everything, including cars speeding at over 140 mph with license plate blockers on & the cameras still got clear photos of the speeding & light running cars with the license plate numbers very legible. Tried every kind of license plate blocker too. Their verdict was that the cameras are highly accurate & there aren't any license plate blockers that really work. At any rate - I don't see what all the fuss is about with these cameras. I'm tired of people running lights, and if cameras catch them doing it, then it's a good thing.
If it truly was about revenue then the city would have a lot more cameras and a lot more intersections and the budget would be balanced within a short time.
The amount of drivers I see running lights, stop signs is a lot.
I have seen Tarta buses running red lights, just this past Saturday and ambulance without its lights on ran a red light at the corner of Bancroft and Cherry and it was way after the light turned red.
People just need to take responsibility for their actions as it may be them that are in the unfortunate place the next time some one runs or speeds through a light.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I think it is fairly safe to say that if a city any city was to place cameras at every red light there would be a much greater out cry.
The decisions to place cameras at intersections were made based on this;
"Police selected the six worst intersections after studying the spots where the city's 21 red-light cameras are located. Red-light cameras at the six intersections were retrofitted for the speed function. The cost was covered by Redflex, the company that manufactures and operates the devices and receives most of the revenues from the citations. The city paid for some needed street work for detector strips installed at the intersections."
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040828/NEWS11/408280...
"He said the camera at Douglas and University is not being installed so much because of the accident rate but the number of red-light runners. The other camera is going in because of red-light violators and the number of accidents."
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050204/NEWS03/502040...
"Rep. Annie Keys (D., Cleveland) is no fan of Toledo's cameras. She said she receives calls from her constituents caught by digital cameras as they passed through Toledo."
"These are working people," she said. "They don't have time to go back to Toledo to argue that case."
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050421/NEWS24/504210...
Maybe if her constituents didn't run red lights in Toledo or Cleveland for that fact, there would be no return trips to Toledo.
"Mr. Navarre told the committee that the number of accidents at targeted intersections have dropped 25.9 percent compared to a prior three-year average. While conceding other factors may play a role in the decline, he said he would expect an equal increase if drivers know the cameras have been removed."
The cameras are placed at sites based on incidents, crashes, violations and so on.
NONSTOP COPS
Controversial red-light cameras are clicking away in one Ohio city. They may be coming soon to an intersection near you
"http://www.sunnews.com/news/2002/part1/0214/NONSTOP.htm"
"Sen. Kevin Coughlin (R., Cuyahoga Falls) cast the sole negative Republican vote."
"I drive on my way taking my daughter to her school through a school zone where there is regularly a camera, and I can tell you it works," he said. "It works. People slow down."
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061207/NEWS24/61...
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
While I understand the reasons people don't want these remote cameras clicking away at intersections, I also believe something has to be done to stop Toledo drivers from running red lights. I am very nervous when the light turns green and I refuse to move until both directions are positively clear of traffic. That means that cars have to be stopped or obviously slowing down for the red light. I don't know how many times vehicles have zoomed through a red light several seconds after I've had a green light. It's scary! Every week I seem to see the aftermath of a collision between two cars in an intersection. And it's even worse at intersections where a corner building blocks a clear view of the side traffic.
I've lived in many other places in the U.S. and have never seen such drivers as Toledo has. They don't use turn signals, they speed through red lights, they slip into the line of cars in front of you on the freeway with just inches to spare, and when they do stop for a red light, they pull so far up into the intersection that if you're making a turn, you have to swing way far out and around them; I could go on and on. It's downright dangerous out there. I don't know what the solution is.
Mainly the east coast, although I have spent time on business in other cities.
The weaving in and out and slipping into lanes with little room doesn't bother me so much, having driven on the New Jersey Turnpike outside of Newark and the Long Island Expressway and NYC streets but the red light and stop sign running is excessive and dangerous and all too common place.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I'm comparing to Detroit, Baltimore (MD), Georgia, Florida and I too have seen some weird things here. The locals I know refer to it as 'timing the lights'. It's very prevalent on the A.W. I understand we have a really high accident rating here with the insurance companies.
Also, native Toledoans - take note!!! If you will look, the next time you get in your car, there is a handy, dandy little lever sticking out of the left side, (most cars) of your steering column. You can locate it by putting your hands on the wheel in the driving position and then look around behind your left hand.
If you pull down or push up on it - it will activate these really cool lights on the outside of you car.And more likely than not - these lights are already installed. You can just start using them!
These lights on the outside of your cars are actually used to send information out to let other drivers know when you plan to change direction or 'turn'. Oddly enough, most people call these 'turn blinkers'. Try it! You will love it.
i recently heard a comparison of the red light cameras to the smoking ban. the connection was people have a personal opinion and that opinion casuses them to lose sight of principle and constitutional issues. can't say i disagree with that.
if it were about safety, they'd also add points to you record. why don't they do that?
is it because it would then be a criminal violation instead a civil matter? that becomes a slam dunk of a constituional violation. they try to circumvent the state constitutional issue by making it a civil matter.
there is also a obvious issue with incentive as well. the more citations written, the more company profits. with many posters' contempt and lack of faith in the private industries, i'm suprised by the apparent faith in redflex.
"In 2001, San Diego attorney Arthur Tait defended several motorists who felt they'd been unfairly nabbed by red-light cameras. He won, big time. A judge tossed out 300 tickets, saying the systems as configured were unreliable and so the results were inadmissible".
that came from this piece....
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/AreRedLight...
"you don't see any constitutional issue? none whatsoever?"
I cannot think of any infringment. Please describe for us what an enfringment would be and the Amendment that would be cited. I enjoy these discussions.
"would you support changing the cameras for delays in the "red to green" transition?
Yes
"would you support longer yellows instead of cameras?"
Yes
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"There is no doubt that red-light running is a big problem. Drivers running red lights account for about 22% of traffic accidents in the U.S., according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."
but....
According to a comprehensive, 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, red-light cameras indeed reduced total "T-bone" crashes by 25%. But because drivers at camera-equipped intersections seem to slam on the brakes so they won't get a ticket, total rear-end crashes increased 15%, and injury rear-end crashes jumped 24%.
i'm sure we can cherry pick more stats/ info if we wanted, but that's not really my point.
ps...i enjoy the discussion as well, especially w/o the name-calling and nastiness.
from wtol article....
"We asked the Toledo Police Department for the number of accidents each year from 2000 to 2004 at 10 of the red light intersections in east, west, north and south Toledo. Overall, a News 11 analysis shows crashes are down about 11% since 2000 when no cameras were up. In some cases, the number of crashes was down dramatically.
Since they were installed at Summit and Cherry outside the News 11 studios, there has been a drop of more than 48% in crashes. At Reynolds and Heatherdowns, crashes are down 35%. Toledo Police Lieutenant Kevin Keel says that's proof that red light cameras are effective. Keel's in charge of the traffic division. "People are becoming cognizant and they're adjusting their behaviors to prepare for the red lights to come on and are stopping for there red lights," said Keel.
But the number of crashes is actually up 14% at the corner of Alexis and Lewis, which is considered one of the busiest intersections in Toledo. Crashes jumped 35% at Monroe and Secor. "These places are just experiencing, I believe, a large volume of traffic and it's probably increasing from year to year as the areas are becoming more built up," said Keel."
i really enjoy lt. keel's last response. i wonder if he had anything to back that up.
additionally, i suppose i could argue the the decrease in accidents at summit and cherry are directly related to a large decrease in traffic. who really goes downtown? isn't that the intersection near the broken bridge?
the same could be said about the other area of decrease. do people even travel out towards reynolds and heatherdowns?
my comments about the decreases are simply making light of the cop's response (although there may be some truth to it). ok, i think i'm done for the day.
You are supposed to have the right to defend yourself, face your accuser and if there is conflict in the situation to be accused and put up a defense for yourself in the courts before being penalized.
Additionally these lights smack of 'Big Brother'. Do we really want a society where the police are monitoring us as we navigate through life? If you don't have a problem with cameras out watching to see if you'll be caught making a mistake, then you probably don't have a problem with this concept.
I like the cameras in the single aspect that the notion that a holdup man/woman will be caught on camera.
But there is that slippery slope. How much of my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness am I willing to surrender to have that visibility? Does anybody else do things when they can't see anyone else they'd be uncomfortable with knowing was being seen?
Picking stuff out of your teeth. Adjusting your underwear, scratching itches etc. What expectation to privacy do we really have? When we are out in public, it has pretty much always been safe to perform some personal activities because no one WAS monitoring you.
Just the way I see it :-)
"Do we really want a society where the police are monitoring us as we navigate through life? If you don't have a problem with cameras out watching to see if you'll be caught making a mistake, then you probably don't have a problem with this concept."
While I understand your position I do not see the wider loss of privacy.
When you are out in public you are very much less private.
There is no active monitoring that I am aware of, unlike the UK, where there are CCTV and some larger cities, NYC, etc.
But, does a person who has done nothing wrong or intend to do anything wrong need worry about the cameras?
I use a privacy service to keep my internet connection safe and secure but if the NSA wanted to tap it they surely would and could.
But I cannot make a loss of privacy connection to the red light cameras. If you run a red light you are breaking a long held traffic law and are endangering others. If we use self restraint then there is no need for the camera's. If we were not murder, steal and so on, there would be no need for the laws on the books.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
We should have the right to face our accuser - who, the cop that is handing you a ticket for running a red light? You think he's going to care a whit what you say in your defense? It'll go to court & you can face the judge, who'll see that you were cited for running a red light - you pay the fine unless you can prove you did not (and the camera did catch you running it - as Mythbusters proved, these cameras are highly accurate - they found it impossible to 'trick' the cameras.
Rep. Annie Keys (D., Cleveland) is no fan of Toledo's cameras. She said she receives calls from her constituents caught by digital cameras as they passed through Toledo."
"These are working people," she said. "They don't have time to go back to Toledo to argue that case"????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I would bet that most people traveling through Toledo are working people - what arrogance.
little our civil rights mean sometimes. Am I misunderstanding - you're saying in some fashion that if I'm not a criminal I shouldn't worry about civil rights?
How does that happen? I hold every inch of our Bill of Rights to heart. I don't want to give an inch. On any of them.
Our country fought a Revolution to free themselves from a tyrannical government. And then created our rights, our freedoms - and we just go 'pah - rights, schmits, if you aren't guilty then you don't need any civil rights?"
I vehemently disagree.
Michigan Attorney General Says Red Light Cameras Illegal
Michigan Attorney General ruling finds red light camera ordinances in violation of state law.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox on Thursday declared the use of red light cameras or speed cameras within the state to be illegal. State Representative Barbara A. Farrah (D-Wayne County) asked Cox to rule on whether a city could use home rule authority to issue photographic tickets. Cox found that state law established red light running as a criminal violation, so that any local ordinance declaring such a violation a civil matter would be "in conflict" with the law.
"It is my opinion, therefore, that an ordinance adopted by a city pursuant to its authority under the Home Rule City Act... that allows the city to issue citations for civil infractions for disobeying a traffic control signal based on the photograph or video produced by an unmanned traffic monitoring device at a location other than a railroad grade crossing conflicts with the Michigan Vehicle Code... and, thus, is invalid," Cox wrote.
Cox also pointed out that state law authorizes photo ticketing at railroad crossings, but not red light or speed cameras. The legislators would have explicitly authorized red light cameras if the intended to do so.
"It is a well-established canon of legislative construction that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others not expressed," Cox explained.
If these are refunds are made, would the federal, state, and city consider them "taxable income"??
Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)
"Cox also pointed out that state law authorizes photo ticketing at railroad crossings, but not red light or speed cameras. The legislators would have explicitly authorized red light cameras if the intended to do so."
A case of defective legislative language lead to his opinion.
On the flip side had the legislature spelled out the rule in more defined and inclusive ways his opinion may have been different.
Thanks for the article
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"you're assuming the people of michigan want the cameras."
No I was not assuming the people wanted the cameras. I said that the language was defective and that was the reason the Attorney General gave his opinion the way he did.
Like I said before I am not advocating anything. I simply find the discussion of the issue interesting.
Well, no, let me correct that I would advocate safe driving so we would not be having this discussion.
With out the language used by the judge to make his decision it is hard to comment on a comparison, the opinion is somewhere in cyberspace and I'll try and find it.
The "Home Rule" is not an excuse but a state consititional right that the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled as valid; "
Home rule allows municipalities to adopt and enforce ordinances within their jurisdictions that are stricter than state law, so long as they don't conflict with higher law."
http://www.celdf.org/HomeRule/DoesmyStatehaveHomeRule/OhioHomeRuleandMun...
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
many feel it violates the state constitution. that may not mean much to you, but it does to me. that's largley why i fuss. you could also consider potential violations of due process.
also, their effectiveness should be questioned. it's not a matter of how well the cameras photograph the plates. they don't necessarily reduce accidents; they only shift the type of accident (t-bone vs rear end).
if money wasn't the motive for these lights, they could have easily used delays in the red to green transition. it's about revenue, not safety.
from an executive study by the federal highway administration....
"Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones."
If it truly was about revenue then the city would have a lot more cameras and a lot more intersections and the budget would be balanced within a short time.
if it were truly about safety, wouldn't we have cameras at every intersection? why wouldn't we?
we should ask redflex. afterall, redflex installs, operates, and maintains these cameras. i wonder if it doesn't make sense financially (costs vs potential revenue) to expand the program.
regardless, i was looking for criteria for the red light placement and couldn't find anything after a quick look. if anyone has anything on that, i'd like to see it.
"He said lawmakers have already voted to remove the cameras --- a bill that was vetoed by outgoing Gov. Bob Taft."
--------------------------------
Taft- yet again. Dear God, I'm so glad that worthless bastard is finally gone. He and his liberal, aloof elitist,'country club republican' policies have not only totally destroyed the Republican party in the state for decades, we'll be feeling the repercussions of his moonbat reign for just about as long in other ways. I have never in my entire LIFE HATED a governor of this state more, regardless of party. The arrogance of this swine was beyond belief, and only matched by the Noes (two more who are responsible).
----------------------
BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?
While I understand the reasons people don't want these remote cameras clicking away at intersections, I also believe something has to be done to stop Toledo drivers from running red lights."
Instead of signing up for a multi-year contract and screwing over taxpayers with devices that may or may not be constitutional, the city could have just added a clearing red light to their stoplight timers. Clearing reds are much more effective at preventing accidents and don't raise the number of rear end collisions caused by people stopping short to avoid a ticket from red light cameras. And best of all, there's no expense involved other than having a city worker spending a few minutes at each light to reprogram the sequence.
---------
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt
From this information, running a red light is not an infraction that places points against you, but speeding does.
http://www.ohioinsurance.org/factbook2001/chapter6/chapter_6g.htm
"...the more citations written, the more company profits."
And conversely, the less infractions the less profit.
And interestingly enough in that article;
"There is no doubt that red-light running is a big problem. Drivers running red lights account for about 22% of traffic accidents in the U.S., according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."
It seems it is more of an issue that if people do not run red lights there would be no need for an escalation of methods of catching the runners.
Is it an issue of personal responsibility to abide by long held traffic rules and regulations and when technology is applied the offenders speak out and make it a claim that some rights are being infringed on.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"But because drivers at camera-equipped intersections seem to slam on the brakes so they won't get a ticket, total rear-end crashes increased 15%, and injury rear-end crashes jumped 24%."
The operator of a motor vehicle is required to keep the vehicle under control at all times, so the person still driving too fast and following too close is the reason for the increase.
This article raises a state constitutional issue because of poorly implemented rules;
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1356.asp
And this;
"The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel is unusually long, but High Point city officials won't find any encouragement in it.
Nor will Greensboro officials, who are in the same boat and will end up handing over $3 million to the school system.
At issue was the state Constitution's requirement that "the clear proceeds of all penalties and forfeitures and of all fines collected in the several counties for any breach of the penal laws of the state, shall belong to and remain in the several counties, and shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining free public schools."
High Point, Greensboro and all other cities that used red-light cameras claimed, however, that they were issuing noncriminal citations for violations of municipal ordinances.
The court didn't buy it. Running a red light in High Point may violate the city ordinance, the court said, but the offense is no less a violation of state law. The constitutional provision still applies."
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/offtherecord/archives/2006/05/probably...
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
the burden of proof is clearly on the defendant and undermines the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. if you're not the driver, it forces you to identify the driver. ohio law also states parking violations are the only driving infraction that can be considered a civil violation. the red light infractions have been turned into civil violations. what about questioning and facing your accuser? trial by jury?
as you can probably tell, i'm not a lawyer. nonetheless, those are a few matters i noticed on a couple of local/ state/ national articles.
"But, does a person who has done nothing wrong or intend to do anything wrong need worry about the cameras?"
Is condoning government intrusion into our lives worth the negligible results? There are other cost effective options such as a clearing red or a longer yellow light, but the city decided to go the route that increases their budget. Which seems to be par for the course in Toledo.
"I use a privacy service to keep my internet connection safe and secure but if the NSA wanted to tap it they surely would and could."
And if they did so without a wiretapping order issued by a judge, the NSA would be conducting an illegal wiretap and those involved would be violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The penalties for violating FISA are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both. The laws of this country not only protect us from each other, they protect us from the government.
"If you run a red light you are breaking a long held traffic law and are endangering others. If we use self restraint then there is no need for the camera's."
Then I assume you wouldn't mind the government mandating GPS units in every car to regulate speeding. After all, speed limits are a long held traffic law. Sure, there's potential for abuse by government agencies, but when you're in public there's no real expectation of privacy. And if you never speed, you have nothing to worry about.
---------
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt
"little our civil rights mean sometimes. Am I misunderstanding - you're saying in some fashion that if I'm not a criminal I shouldn't worry about civil rights?"
I am afraid I am not clear.
What I said was that my rights are not impeded by the camera's. I have no right to run a red light or stop sign.
I do have civil rights, as do you, but I do not have the right to break laws.
Keeping the issue of the camera's and running red lights I cannot see a violation of the Bill of Rights.
I have due process as I can contest the fine. People have fought the cases and won with no loss of rights.
We have the laws we have because people have chosen to act in a way that effects others, car crashes and so on, staying with traffic laws and my right to face my accuser and protest to the accuser and to file suit or make a claim against my accuser has not been diminished or taken away and I value my rights as much as anyone else but I cannot make the connection between knowingly violating a traffic law and loss of rights.
What would we say to those that lost a loved one and the right happiness with the loved one as a result of my failure to abide by the traffic laws?
I am not advocating anything. Just good ol' discussion
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
defective or not, that's what it is. in fact, couldn't you argue the law is spelled out properly and that is why the cameras aren't authorized. you're assuming the people of michigan want the cameras.
anyhow, if ohio law states only parking tickets can be treated as a civil violation, that seems pretty clear.
just read this in another blade article (7/14/06)......
from the SE OH county decision (i wrote NE incorrectly earlier).....
Judge John M. Stuard ruled that Girard, Ohio, officials illegally changed traffic violations from the criminal code to a civil infraction in order to avoid the state law.
here's the entire article...
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS33/60...
the article doesn't do a good job providing more detail of the above-mentioned state law the switch to civil infractions actually violates.
judging by the response from toledo law director, one could assume toledo's program doesn't adhere to the state legislation. why else use the home-rule excuse....
"We don't think that the cameras are violating the constitution or state law. We believe it is well within our home-rule authority to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens," he said.
fair enough, but i still don't see anything that would indicate the language in michigan was defective. i see the AG pointing out what their legislation states and allows.
well said. the fact this wasn't tried is just another reason to believe it is about revenue.
from a msn money article...
"A 2003 Texas Transportation Institute study found that increasing the duration of a yellow light by just 0.5 to 1.5 seconds (but not to more than 5.5 seconds in total) would decrease frequency of red-light running by "at least 50%." And though some morons would run even that light, it would still make the intersection safer, the authors concluded."
you don't see any constitutional issue? none whatsoever?
would you support changing the cameras for delays in the "red to green" transition? would you support longer yellows instead of cameras?
I am not a lawyer either I did take 1 1/2 years of Paralegal Studies and I enjoyed research and writing and applying the law to situations.
One aspect that has to be taken in account is the severity of the "crime" or infraction.
I think it is safe to say that running a red light is different than murder especially in a case where there is no clear suspect compared to a person running a red light and having an image of it.
Can you provide a citation to the law that you have referenced.
Interestingly enough I found this just now;
"DC Court Finds Traffic Cameras Constitutional
Agomo v. Fenty (Feb. 1, 2007), D.C. App. No. 03-CV-813: The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that automated traffic cameras do not violate due process.
While this opinion may provide ammunition to cities defending the red light cameras, a recent study may help the camera's opponents. A study by WEWS-TV demonstrates that the red light cameras in Cleveland have actually increased accidents, not reduced them. See There are many similar studies with the same results. See Cleveland, Ohio Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents, The Newspaper, Feb. 21, 2007; Collisions Increase At Intersections With Traffic Cameras, NewsNet 5, Feb. 20, 2007. "
http://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/traffic_law/ind...
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"Is condoning government intrusion into our lives worth the negligible results?"
The government is not intruding into my life, in my opinion, if I knowingly run a red light, I do not see the intrusion and I am just discussing.
"There are other cost effective options such as a clearing red or a longer yellow light, but the city decided to go the route that increases their budget."
I agree with the timing of the lights and said so previously and I do not see the motivation for the budget. I do agree that the administrations and City Council are short on planning.
"The laws of this country not only protect us from each other, they protect us from the government."
Yes, I agree and after the President starting making noise about wiretapping and so on I opted to get the ssh tunnel encrypted service.
"Then I assume you wouldn't mind the government mandating GPS units in every car to regulate speeding."
No, I would mind. I am capable of driving carefully and the GPS and the Red Light Camera's are not the same issue, as I see it.
"And if you never speed, you have nothing to worry about."
And if and other people stop at red lights like the traffic laws state then we all have nothing to worry about.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"Cox also pointed out that state law authorizes photo ticketing at railroad crossings, but not red light or speed cameras. The legislators would have explicitly authorized red light cameras if the intended to do so."
Michigan's attorney general based his opinions on information here;
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1582.asp
The defective in the language was the omission that the AG pointed out.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
One aspect that has to be taken in account is the severity of the "crime" or infraction.
while i understand that, i also believe your rights are your rights. that's regardless of the severity. where would you draw the line as to what rights you have or don't have in what should be a criminal violation? would stealing a pack of gum be severe enough to guarantee rights?
here's a question.....should a defendant be able to ask for the maintence records for the camera?
Can you provide a citation to the law that you have referenced.
i don't know exactly which site i got it from (i've looked at alot of them today). i looked at wtol and the blade for alot of this stuff, but not all.
i did see this (blade, 7/8/2006) from a judge's ruling in NE ohio (judge stuard)....
"The legislature has authorized civil, noncriminal penalties to be set by municipalities for parking tickets. There has been no legislative action by the state to allow the extension of this concept to speeding," Judge Stuard wrote in his decision.
also, from decision in minnesota....
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
while that is obviously from a different state, a similar argument can be made here.
what should i be looking for? i see comments explaining home rule and then saying it isn't valid in this case.
"here's a question.....should a defendant be able to ask for the maintenance records for the camera?"
To be able to ask, yes. To suppose that the camera and equipment was poorly maintained, great question to ask.
We would need to define what right is being discussed, when asked, "would stealing a pack of gum be severe enough to guarantee rights?"
We have no right to take another's property. Is the person guilty until proven innocent, sure.
I have no right to knowingly violate a traffic law and then claim that I suffered an invasion of privacy.
I do have a right and responsibility to act responsibly and conduct myself according to accepted laws.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I found the case from N.E. Ohio in The Blade and the difference appears to be, without have the full brief to review, that unlike the town in N.E. Ohio, Toledo has a home rule provision.
The Minnesota case was thrown out by the court; "The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman."
So we could say that had the city been diligent and did not make the due process different then possibly the law may have been upheld.
"while that is obviously from a different state, a similar argument can be made here."
I dunno know. We can go to court and protest the fine and we have due process there as the city is the one that ticketed us.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"(2) A local law or portion of a local law that imposes a criminal penalty for an act or omission that is a civil infraction under this act, or that imposes a criminal penalty or civil sanction in excess of that prescribed in this act, is in conflict with this act and is void to the extent of the conflict.
Those requirements are in contrast to section 667a of the Code, MCL 257.667a, which provides for the installation and use of unmanned traffic monitoring devices at railroad grade crossings, the use of a sworn statement of a police officer based upon inspection of photographs or videotape images produced by an unmanned traffic monitoring device, and service of the citation by first-class mail on the owner of the vehicle:"
There is a conflict in the code.
I am not sure if there is a conflict in the Ohio code as there has been nothing in the form of a suit that has over turned the provisions under the Home Rule.
And further the AG states;
"It is my opinion, therefore, that an ordinance adopted by a city pursuant to its authority under the Home Rule City Act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.1 et seq, that allows the city to issue citations for civil infractions for disobeying a traffic control signal based on the photograph or video produced by an unmanned traffic monitoring device at a location other than a railroad grade crossing conflicts with the Michigan Vehicle Code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 et seq, and, thus, is invalid."
The established code says at Railroad Crossings and is silent on Red Lights. So the Home Rule conflicts with the existing legislation.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
i'm not talking the privacy issue. when asking about the maintenance records of a light, i think it applies to the "face your accuser" and burden of proof.
if you allegedly run a red light and the camera gets you, how would you face your accuser?
perhaps we're splitting hairs and my lack of legal knowledge is coming into play, but i still don't see how this is "defective".
oh, well...i think it's time to move for me.
perhaps we're splitting hairs and my lack of legal knowledge is coming into play, but i still don't see how this is "defective".
oh, well...i think it's time to move for me.
"if you allegedly run a red light and the camera gets you, how would you face your accuser?"
In the early days of the program a person pulled up on and over the plates and tripped the camera.
The person did not drive any further and there in Technicolor was the car and the driver and the driver went to the court and showed the court that he did not run the light and made a mistake.
I would do the same. Go to the court and present and plead my case.
The accuser is the City of Toledo and the court is my avenue to reach my accuser.
Technology can make mistakes as is it designed by humans.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I should have used improper application of the Home Rule with regards to the existing code.
My thought behind being defective was the omission of all the places where cars would be, instead of just train crossings.
My mistake that caused the confusion.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog