Speed/Traffic Camera laws are unconstitutional and need to be challenged in court.

The 5th amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This part nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; is in clear contradiction to the laws in many states which require the defendant to prove in court that they were not the person driving their car during the incident vs requiring the state to prove that we were the driver in the vehicle.

Requiring the owner of the car to pay all fines unless they can prove they weren't driving means that we are responsible for the actions of another person and that is unconstitutional.

Person A (the driver) broke the law, Person B (the owner) must pay the price of the action.

Person B's only defense is either 1. prove they weren't speeding, or 2. They weren't the driver.

The court should have to prove that Person A and Person B are the same.

 

I tend to agree here. The concept of being able to interrogate your accuser doesn't give one the option if, for example, it's a bot device that simply, for whatever reason, creates the charge. You certainly cannot challenge an inanimate camera system, and you cannot interrogate software. And yet, these cameras have been deployed as a source of revenue, not public safety in almost every instance. Accidents still happen in the vicinity of these cameras, and folks still ignore the speed laws.

Some call this the first step of the surveillance state. Like China. Except this isn't in China, it's in the US, where it is very much an unconstitutional affront to the civil liberties of our citizens.

 

This isn't a capital or infamous crime. Pay your parking ticket.

Anyway, are there still traffic cameras? I was under the impression that they were being scaled back because they were too expensive and not paying for themselves.

 

Maryland's biggest issue is that they are everywhere, a total money grab.

Is money property? If it is then it falls under the 5th amendment.

 

Here's an idea...don't speed and you'll have nothing to worry about. You're welcome!

 

Speed limits change randomly even on the same road

How about they keep them consistent and just raise the alcohol tax instead

 

Too hard for you to pay attention to speed limits? Perhaps driving is too hard for you. I dunno...I seem to be able to negotiate driving within speed limits.

 

I have only gotten 4 total tickets in 3 years but its safer if one doesn't need to look out for randomly shifting speed limits. Why do you support states using speed camera's for revinue?

 

Speed limit change too much for you to handle, is it?

I don’t support nor am I against states using speed camera’s to make sure people drive safety. I drive within the speed limit hence why I’ve gotten zero tickets in the last 20+ years to your four tickets in three years.

 

Stoplights with known traffic cameras are some of the most dangerous places i drive through.

People desperately trying to stop as soon as the light turns yellow is more dangers than someone passing through just as it turns red.

 

The law in the US doesn't work this way. You should already know this. How can one face their accuser in this set of circumstances?

 

My husband has gotten two camera tickets. He fought both of them on the constitutionality of cameras, and won both. Turns out, the Florida camera were being analyzed In Arizona by non law enforcement personnel.

 

How about just going the speed limit and stop acting above the law? is it that hard to do? Why is everyone so entitled these days.

 

That would be fine if a. They kept the speed limits consistent and b. didn't make them obnoxiously slow.

Like you realize its all about making the county/city money right?

 

You can dispute and fight a speeding ticket from a speeding camera. You should already know this. Go troll someone else. Goodbye

 

You're missing the point, you have to prove you didn;t do it, not the other way around.

 

Just like you would if you got a speeding ticket from a cop.

 

Because the cop has proof that you were driving, if the police officer messes up the ticket and fails to get your name you are not forced to pay the ticket, yet because its a camera it doesn't matter.

 

And yet people fight speeding ticket received by cops all the time. Tt's funny, you're whining about getting speeding tickets but speeding or not speeding in under YOUR control. Don't speed and you won't get a ticket. It's a fairly simply concept that you should be able to grasp.

 

I do realize that. And this also happened to me once but by a live cop, not a camera. A road called route 28 in NJ had a speed limit in the 40s and then for some smalls stretch of road it was 25 and i didn't see the sign. Its annoying but it happens. Rules are rules.

 

There are apps that have all the known speed traps. There are three famous traps in Florida. It’s the town’s main income source.

Stark, FL: You have to go from 50 to 25 in a mile, and there’s no warnings. There’s a 40 in there, too. The speed drops down dramatically right around a curve that can’t be seen until you are just about to hit the line. There is always a cop with a radar gun there.

 

How much of this is true and how much is taking points:

 

I don't know much about this, and it may depend on the system that gets used as well as state law. https://www.ticketclinic.com/blog/how-do-i-handle-a-red-light-camera-ticket-if-i-was-not-the-driver

"...The camera catches the tag number as well as a picture of the driver. The ticket is then mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. If you receive one of these citations, it is important to act quickly because ignoring a traffic ticket could lead to incredibly high fines or even arrest.

According to California law, the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the red light photo ticket, not the owner of the car. However, the ticket is always mailed to the address of the vehicle owner. Attached to the ticket will be the photo evidence taken at the time of the infraction. If the photo is not of you, but another driver, you can contest the ticket. It is best to hire an attorney to do this.

It is important to know that you are not required by law to identify the person in the photograph. A judge may ask you to do so and you may decline. A good traffic attorney can assist you with giving the correct answers in court.

IMO, This system meets your due process concerns assuming that if the image is blurry and indistinct and your provide the right defense in court, the ticket can be tossed. There is no duty by the jurisdiction to send the photo with the ticket, in my view, as long as it is produced in the contested court proceeding before conviction.

 

Technically no, they are not unconstitutional. If a city has traffic cameras, a police officer will look at all the footage to determine if the law was broken. If it is, then a ticket is issued to the address of record based on the license plate of the vehicle. Basically, you are running through a stop light or stop sign, or even speeding if there is a device that can measure the speed for instance. You still have a right to challenge the ticket as if the officer who wrote it, but that gets expensive with a $200 or so traffic ticket. What get's interesting is that you get the ticket but you let your friend drive your car and he sped. You are still held responsible and now you have to convince your friend to come with you and admit it was his fault and not you before the judge. Good luck with that.

Some states have done away with enforcing traffic cameras, but they are still there through recording.

 

that is not the system described in my above post to contest the driver rather than the car. Maybe California does this better than your state.