Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional
cbs12.com247 points by 1970-01-01 6 hours ago
247 points by 1970-01-01 6 hours ago
After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge
The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure.
Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered 'owner'". and the person whom the citation was issued to must sign an affidavit that includes the name, address, dob, of the person who was actually driving. The judge says this "...abandon(s) centuries time honored protections of hearsay as substantive evidence.".
"It is a foundational rule of constitutional due process that the government must prove every fact necessary to constitute an offense beyond a reasonable doubt before a person may be adjudicated guilty of a crime".
"Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution..." "under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..." - that's probably the core of the reasoning here.
"Section 316.074(1) provides in relevant part that "The driver of any vehicle shall obey..."" - the driver, not the registered owner.
I highly recommend reading the order. It's easy to follow and aligns with my understanding of the law within the USA.
California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this.
Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance.
Hopefully other states can follow this pattern. Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.
Consistent, low-impact enforcement is better at preventing unwanted behavior than the rare and severe but also capricious enforcement performed by human police.
It can also give permission for unwanted behavior. Cf. the Haifa study, where the rate of late pickups increased when daycares added a fine. One explanation is the fine turned a complex moral obligation into an ordinary financial transaction.
The Haifa daycare study can’t be used to extrapolate much.
They fined parents (IIRC) ~$3 per late pickup. Rerun the study with a $300 fine and let’s see how it pans out. It’s an interesting finding, but that then people take it to mean that fines don’t work (no matter their size) is insane.
I worked in childcare about 20 years ago, and we charged $1 per minute late.
We had to keep two staff there, and they would split the fine.
Many times we got stiffed.
Edit: for reference, our fee was about $14/day to keep the kid, so it was a pretty stiff penalty.
A $3 fine is a good portion of someone's disposable income and a $300 fine is not much of someone else's.. A civil penalty of that nature almost guarantees some part of the population will view it like the $3 fee.
This is exactly why license points (leading to suspension) are better than fines.
If the ticketing decision made by an automated camera system is deemed acceptable when issuing mere fines akin to parking tickets, but deemed unacceptable when issuing other penalties (which don't have this wealth inequity issue we are discussing now, at least not exclusively), that's effectively a poor tax.
I mean as a much greater "study", look at the UK - government introduced fines for parents of kids missing school, and the rate of absenced increased - because parents see it more as a cost that you just have to pay to go on holiday during school year.
Sure. Then the bill requires that all those fines you pay go towards street calming infrastructure, eventually making it physically impossible (or at least very uncomfortable) for you to continue speeding.
Kind of like if enough parents paid the late pickup fee, eventually the daycare could afford a van for dropoffs.
It seems like this rarely happens. The fines become another stream of income, and reliance on that income kills any incentive to fully eliminate the behavior the fines are ostensibly meant to discourage.
Given the many restrictions on how the income can be used in this bill, I find it unlikely that will apply here. Feel free to check back in at the end of the pilot.
As the great patio11 said:
> Raise the prices. Then raise the prices. Then when you're done with that, raise the prices.
Haifa study result was only possible with small enough fines. Larger fines would solve that easily.
>It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance.
If this is the case, what are the consequences of not paying the fine? I interpret your statement to mean that they can't prevent registration of your car. Can they tow you in SF for unpaid fines?
Hopefully other states don't follow this pattern; I don't think the government should be installing surveillance arrays, even if it's "for the children" or public safety.
Trading a little liberty for a little safety and all that.
The problem is ever since COVID the cops don't do their job and everyone drives terribly.
Maybe it exists but I wish there was more heavy hitting articles/research on this. I feel like an absolute grumpy old man but it feels drastically different compared to my younger years driving and I am only 40. These days I rarely see police on the side of the road ticketing and when I do it’s usually on a highway. Never do I see people getting pulled over in city streets.
My thesis has been an uptick on BS calls. Said differently the bad neighborhoods have gotten worse and funding for police is mismanaged.
I have noticed a severe uptick in bad semi-truck drivers on the interstate since COVID, I'll agree at least with that part.
The local cops here have always just run plates for stolen vehicles. Getting a ticket is almost unheard of. I don't know what their deal is, but you can speed right past them in the other lane, or if they're just parked on the corner.
I'm guessing you still can't pass them on a two-lane road without poking their ego.
I am constantly amazed at how many people blatantly run red lights now. It used to be that people would sometimes press their luck on a yellow a little bit, but now it'll be red for several seconds and people will still just drive right on through.
I'd love if the police enforced this insanely dangerous behavior instead of trying to catch people going 10 over on the highway.
Cameras aren't going to solve that.
The "problem" being solved with cameras is "cops aren't generating enough traffic ticket revenue"
Would it not? I actually don’t think I would mind speeding cameras and the like. Put a camera on every street and auto ticket every car.
These cameras are by definition still cameras triggered by radar or laser systems, they're inactive unless a speeding vehicle is present. Hardly the surveillance array you're imagining.
Well, they're putting up the flock cameras, too. We have four in a local small town.
But I'm guessing you are only correct sometimes. I bet some of them can be live-viewed, or track license plates.
Is only said by those days intending to provide neither?
Is said in place of using actual arguments or evidence?
Why can't they impact insurance? Are CA insurance companies prohibited from using non-criminal information when deciding who to cover or set rates?
Given that they insure cars more than drivers, it seems kinda reasonable that they be allowed to look at tickets for cars.
Yea, that would be great then I can completely ignore them as I am not poor.
It just turns speeding into something you can buy.
While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights.
Sadly money and power buying freedom of law isn’t restricted to road rules.
I would argue such enforcement does not need automation and such automation is often for revenue generation vs saftey focused.
Also, I am a bit biased here after working at flock.
Is there a non-automatic light enforcement other than placing a policemen at every light - which makes the light useless?
Revenu generation is a bonus point: in my country taxes that incentive smokers to quit are directed to healthcare and most of the speeding tickets revenue goes to road maintenance and safety.
I’d prefer a public handling but the trend is privatization with everything : from health to education to water treatment. Even military assets! IMHO red light tickets enforcement is as much important.
> While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights.
I disagree. This is acknowledging that these are revenue products rather than safety enhancement.
If you want safety enforcement, put a damn cop there. It WILL work. This isn't hard. People are creatures of habit and you don't need to adjust the behavior of very many of them to make the whole group change.
If you don't want to put a cop there, you don't want safety enforcement.
Well, it's red-light running. But I don't think even rich people will just breeze through every red and pay the fines; it'll add up quickly.
Yea, I think the chance of death will encourage them not to run every red light making mass surveillance unnecessary. The money is a noop for the rich in thus case.
These systems are still often too expensive to operate safely. Over and over again these systems have been seen as needing to break even rather than being treated as a public service. But if they actually work then incidence of red light violations should go down, and hopefully substantially. So whatever fines you expect to receive in the first months before drivers adapt are more revenue than you should see at one year or more.
So when you start worrying about it as a cost center, then there is a perverse incentive to do things like shorten yellow lights. Short yellows have been proven to create more vehicular fatalities than people running red lights intentionally. And so the person who makes that decision to shorten yellows to boost tickets is effectively committing murder to keep the system “working”. Which is disgusting. Ghoulish, even.
It is literally better in such situations to simply dismantle the system than keep it running.
They are speed cameras, not red light cameras.
That said, the bill addresses this category of abuse directly: if a speed camera fails to reduce 85th percentile speeds or violation volumes within 18 months it must be removed.
There are also substantial limits on how the revenues can be spent. If you are interested in this topic it's worth a read: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
Good call. I consider the precedent set here to apply equally to both cases, and the stop light cases tend to be much more egregious, as I've telegraphed in my top-level comment.
Or maybe not have automated surveillance robonannies playing gotcha games and pocketing money, often impacting those who can least afford it, over technicalities and arbitrary rules made up to benefit the people doing the collecting.
The idea that AI enforcement won't be just as corrupt and capricious as any other form of government run extortion is bonkers. You're talking systems with less oversight than openclaw being run by people whose entire goal is to make as much money as possible, no matter the source. Private, unaccountable companies with effectively no oversight with the legal right to send you invoices for things you might or might not have done, and the cost for disputing it might well exceed the cost of just paying it and getting it over with.
Why are Californians so hellbent on giving their money to the government, given the absolute shitshow that is their budget and track record? The only good things that have happened in California for decades comes out of private enterprise, but all the crazy nonsense is fostered and maintained, apparently quite vigorously, by elected governments.
I'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up going to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be like having to live there.
Seriously, it's bordering on levels of insanity right up there with thinking that Jefferey Epstein would make a great babysitter. Do people just not pay attention? Does the weather just make everyone complacent and docile?
Speed cams and automated gotchas allowing the government to raid your pocketbook are a bad thing. There's no framing or circumstances where that's good.
> The idea that AI enforcement won't be just as corrupt and capricious as any other form of government run extortion is bonkers. [...] Private, unaccountable companies with effectively no oversight
In the specific case this thread is about - that of red light cameras - presumably the camera produces a photograph showing a red light, a vehicle going through it, and the vehicle's license plate. Plus a video, showing the light was orange for the legally required amount of time, and showing the absence of any exceptional circumstances (e.g. ambulances).
As law enforcement goes, that really seems like the least capricious, highest oversight law enforcement I can imagine.
I'm furious that 10% of my federal income taxes end up going to California's bullshit, I can't imagine what it would be like having to live there.
Your taxes getting evenly distributed is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that removing California from the US would either increase your taxes or require reductions in federal spending.
Removing California's corruption, ineptitude, and fraud would eliminate any problems I have with my tax dollars being sent that way.
Well that's my point. "sent that way" is not entirely fair. Your state is spending California tax dollars, or so, not the other way around.
Yes, California has long been a "donor state", ie one that pays substantially more federal tax revenue than gets spent there. This shouldn't be too surprising as it's much richer than average and the tax system is approximately progressive.
"It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance."
Wow! So if you have enough money, it's cool to run as many red lights as you want?
I understand your criticism and it is fair, but this represents and improvement over the current state which is effectively no enforcement.
They're speed cameras, not red light cameras, and the revenues go towards street improvements to reduce speeding. So you could speed as much as you can afford, but eventually you'll have bought enough traffic calming infrastructure it'll be prohibitively difficult to keep getting tickets.
Constitutional protections aren't trumped by mere issues of governmental convenience.
What's the alternative? No rules at all? Immediate death penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop? Seizing and auctioning off the car? Deporting the offender to Texas? Something else? Revoke their license?
>Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance.
So what does this say about the legitimacy of having those fines affect your license and insurance when issues by a real flesh and blood cop?
Sounds to me like that by default they shouldn't be affecting squat because there's an implicit "the cops will mostly only pull people over if it's unconscionably bad" filter going on.
>"The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure."
In my own experience, when they took down the red light cameras in my area now people are not afraid to run red lights ~2 to ~3 seconds after it's red. See this kind of thing on a regular basis. Every now and then there's a serious accident.
The objective evidence indicates that accidents tend to go up after red light cameras go up, generally because the operators lower the yellow light time to increase fees.
The objective evidence shows an increase in rear-end crashes but a reduction in injury and fatal crashes, offering a net overall benefit.
Council et al., 2005 -- https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/...
This states that there are many variables they were not able to control for, such as the yellow light timing, as I previously mentioned. Warning signs were another major factor. There doesn't appear to be enough investigation into the protected left issue.
This is pretty damning, in my opinion. AKA we did some cheap analysis on a small dataset, without confidence or effect size, and just agree with the people running the programs.
"The intent of the multivariate regression analysis was to confirm the direction of the effect, not to establish effects with statistical significance or to assess the size of the effect. To undertake analyses for these purer purposes would have required a substantially larger database, much more precision in the estimate of economic effect at each site, and more accurate specification and measurement of the independent variables. For the purposes of this current investigation, it suffices that both the univariate and multivariate analyses are reasonably in accord with the perceptions that are commonly held by those involved in red-light-camera programs."
Neither of you share any references for the objective facts you claim to be stating. At least link an article or a study.
can this not be regulated? yellow light timing must not have changed for the last 12 months before adding cameras
I've followed a few cases surrounding traffic cameras that have been ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that individuals have the right to face their accuser.
The question in those cases came down to if the operators of the cam can be considered "accusers."
They widely considered that of course the cam itself didn't count as an accuser, but the question was how "automated" the system was. If there was a human who flagged it, the system was fine, if it was fully automated, they were unconstitutional.
Many states don't share this opinion, but an interesting argument nonetheless.
Couldn't you say the same of drug testing spectrometers etc? The end operator of the equipment has to appear in court to testify to the proper operation of the machine. [0]
[0] Unless the defendant waives that right and stipulates to the prosecutor's statement about the machine.
They started putting them up in the midwest where I live. The interesting thing is if you get a ticket and just pay it? Nothing. If you get a ticket and you challenge it, the judge will immediately throw it out for the reason you pointed out or just dismiss it before it even gets to court by sending out a form letter saying they nullified the ticket, no reason to pay it.
So in essence, if you know this is what they're doing, you're good. But they're not telling people so the money grift continues unabated and in place.
So if it's established as unconstitutional, couldn't you file a criminal complaint of official oppression against the members of whatever government approved the cameras since they are levying unconstitutional fines?
As an individual and not the government, you can't file a criminal action.
You could file a civil action for violation of constitutional rights, but under Roberts, SCOTUS has basically been ripping out all of the mechanisms that would let you file such suits.
"As an individual and not the government, you can't file a criminal action."
You can file with the police, if they take it. You can also file as a private criminal complaint in many jurisdictions. However, it's up to the DA to approve it most of the time. There can be an appeal process where a judge would make a determination.
But yes, if the whole system is corrupt, then there's not much to do.
If they invalidate every contested fine nobody has any standing to make a legal complaint.
They're only invalidating it if you fight it. The people who paid it and later realized it was unconstitutional may have standing.
I don't have much meaningful info to contribute to this, but it is interesting to observe how the rollout of the red light cams happens in different places, and how it eventually turns out.
IIRC there was a point in time roughly around ~2017 when it happened in Redmond WA (i.e., in the town that the Microsoft HQ is in). I might be off by a year or two, but it doesn't really change the overall point.
TLDR: in under 2 years, that whole red light cam initiative got canceled and reverted, because the local stats showed that it just made things more dangerous on the roads (by significantly increasing the rate of rear-ending accidents at traffic lights).
"under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..."
This makes me question many existing civil things. Obviously child support, as in the case law. But also, things like red flag laws. It seems like any civil law that would apply criminal-type contemt penalties is unconstitutional.
Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?
possibly, although I suspect the quote from above:
> Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution...
Is going to matter here. A moving violation (ex: red light) is quite different from a non-moving violation (ex: parking) in how they're handled, and often how they're classified.
Ex - my in state, a moving violation is a criminal misdemeanor, while a non-moving violation is entirely civil.
Idk how Florida handles it but several states citations issued by red light cameras and those issued by officers are handled entirely differently for the exact reason you mention. Camera citations are entirely civil, you don't get points against your license. If a cop issues the ticket it does become a misdemeanor moving violation.
there is no state where a moving violation is criminal misdemeanor. some moving violations may be CM but there are myriad of moving violations whose class/degree is not CM. CM is serious class/degree that if you are charged with it you better get yourself an attorney.
That quote is from the judge's decision: he considers that moving violations are quasi-criminal proceedings, and as such, that the protections for criminal prosecution apply, unlike in purely civil cases.
Where is the line drawn for criminal vs civil in nature?
It feels like any civil case brought against an individual by a government is quasi-criminal.
No. Parking is leaving your possession somewhere and should apply to the registered owner. It is not illegal to own a car that someone else used to run a red light.
No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an intersection while the light is red, and should apply to the registered owner.
If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder someone with it, should I be liable?
3 year before the murder: You are probably fine, IANAL
10 minutes before the murder: Expect to get an accusation of accessory to murder, conspiracy to murder and a few additional tomes of the penal code. We all know you are innocent, but you should better find a good lawyer just in case instead of wasting your last free minutes arguing on the internet.
When subpoenaed, you'd be obligated to tell the court who you gave the knife to.
But if you'd like to tell the fall, I'm sure some prosecutors wouldn't dig too hard to find the guilty party.
It seems in this case they’re not asking, they’re accusing and saying I need to prove otherwise. I think that is substantively different
Edit: subpoena is not a criminal charge afaik is what I’m saying
If someone used the car without permission, they are guilty of theft.
If they used the car with your permission, you should either be responsible for what they do with it, or be able to point to the person who was using it.
> If someone used the car without permission, they are guilty of theft.
Sure, but I still don't know who they are, so I can't give their name over for either investigating the theft or reassigning the speeding/red light/parking fine.
Except that requiring you to testify in order to absolve yourself of guilt violates your Fifth Amendment right not to testify in a trial against you. It is up to the government to prove you did something, not up to you to prove you didn’t.
You can not testify all you want, but you should still be on the hook for your vehicle getting tickets, just like you are on the hook for your vehicle accruing toll fees.
If your car was magically stolen and returned, and you have no idea that it happened, or who could have done this... Well, that's certainly an interesting legal argument that you could make to a judge. I doubt he'll believe you.
Do parking tickets result in “a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record”?
Almost, except parking tickets are still typically civil “owner-liability” citations tied to where the car is parked, while red-light violations are intended to target the driver’s conduct
A speeding ticket is not a criminal charge. Criminal procedure and the rights for criminal defendants don't apply.
The court says that criminal rules should apply because points are at stake, while civil penalties are usually restricted to fines, but I don't buy that argument. We have plenty of non-money civil remedies. Code enforcement departments can require changes to property. Family courts can make all kinds of requirements. It's not outside of constitutional bounds for a traffic rule to result in forfeiting a license without criminal proceedings.
As someone who lives next to an intersection where cars routinely run red lights, this truly sucks and I hope it gets overturned. I understand the judge's reasoning, but running red lights is dangerous and we need much stricter enforcement.
If people routinely run the red light, it seems like an easy case to post an officer to do traffic stops and issue tickets. AFAIK, tickets issued by a sworn officer are broadly constitutional.
There's a literal police station at the intersection and they don't pay any attention at all.
Are you bringing attention to this matter at your city council meetings? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I people are routinely running a red for a particular intersection, it seems likely that there is a design problem with the intersection or the signaling. Improving safety would be fixing the underlying problem.
It's actually pretty common for some people to just run red lights when the road is really clear, especially at night. Best that could maybe be done would be to reduce visibility of cross traffic, so that the drivers can't tell from afar that the road they'll cross is clear - but this is likely to cause other kinds of risks.
They do it when the road is busiest actually. Just following the bumper in front of them instead of looking up.
Seems the fact that it was a "red light camera" is completely irrelevant? The relevant part:
> The defendant argued the statute unconstitutionally requires the registered owner to prove they were not driving — instead of requiring the government to prove who was behind the wheel.
Bit like having to prove you weren't the one breaking in, rather than the police having to prove you were guilty.
In light of this, seems like a no-brainer no one could disagree with.
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.
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.
Actually, the fifth amendment only protects your right not to incriminate yourself. So you may be called upon to testify against your will against some one else (With some limited protections for spouses and such). However, if you were in fact the one driving, you can plead the fifth, and they cannot use that fact against you to prove it was in fact you driving- they have to prove that independently.
(EDIT: I should note that you also have a right to remain silent when questioned by the police- and since they won't know who to charge, there will likely not be a court case to call you to testify at)
> they cannot use that fact against you to prove it was in fact you driving- they have to prove that independently.
5th amendment protections are much weaker for civil cases though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AFAIK Fith Amendment only protects against self-incrimination, you absolutely can be subpoenaed to testify against someone else and failing to produce truthful testimony is a crime.
You are correct, which is why that compulsion will be accompanied by immunity.
OK, but then you're testifying under oath and lying, because it was you who did it, after all?
If you have an immunity deal and are asked to testify about a crime you committed under it, you admit to doing it and they can't prosecute you.
Note that in civil cases, such as a traffic ticket, the fifth ammendment doesn't apply to the same extent, and the standard of evidence is typically not "beyond reasonable doubt", it is "a preponderance of the evidence".
Now, per the judge's ruling in this case, red light tickets are actually quasi-criminal, not purely civil, so the standards of criminal law might need to be applied.
> 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.
Sounds nice on paper, but unless you have an absolutely airtight alibi that's a great way to end up in jail. Oh, you were alone at home all night? Well, your neighbor is pretty sure they heard you come home unusually late, and a witness saw someone who kinda-sorta looked like you run away from the crime site, and the victim was sorta-kinda involved in your social circles, and there's video of victim bumping into you a few weeks ago in a bar and you reacting in what could be interpreted as an aggressive way - and it is your gun...
Or you could tell them who you loaned the gun to. Your choice.
Sure, but that's a problem for my lawyer, not me.
And sounds like a great way to plead guilty to a lesser crime, but IANAL.
How does the Fifth Amendment work in a civil context?
Is it appropriate to compare murder and running a red light given what you know about the civil implications of 5A?
It doesn't apply. The argument was that the red light violation was "quasi-criminal" and the judge agreed with that argument.
> It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case.
Only in criminal contexts. In civil contexts your silence can absolutely be an adverse inference. Usually these red-light cameras are civil penalties, not criminal (fines with no points). The judge here seems to be saying that these are "quasi-criminal" because, uhh, I guess there are penalties.
In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty and in many ways can be used against you in violation of your constitutional rights. Hence is the most likely reason the judge is calling it quasi-criminal.
Right, in effect the Judge ruled that while the state _calls_ it a civil matter, they treat it basically the same as any other criminal matter and therefore it is in fact a criminal matter. As we all know, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
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.)
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.
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".
I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right to drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a license and other regulations. One of the conditions is that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for it.
The judge in this case disagreed, because the red light infraction was not a simple civil fine but quasi-criminal, e.g. points on drivers license, possibly resulting in suspension, etc.
You can own a car and not drive it. It can be stolen from you, anything.
The structure of this whole thing is to avoid having to do an actual investigation. They could subpoena the car owner's phone records for instance. Instead they choose to hide behind bureaucracy and offer you an off ramp in the form of a lower payment to make it all go away.
If the owner is who is responsible for it, then make the ticket to the car and not an individual. State was attempting to play it both ways to tip the outcome in the states favor.
> I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right to drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a license and other regulations. One of the conditions is that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for it.
Do you know you can be licensed to drive a vehicle without owning one, and similarly, own one without being licensed to drive it?
Why would the owner of the property be responsible for someone else's actions with that property?
I would say they could be, but its needs to under strict circumstances. Easiest is with guns, I loan you my gun knowing your going to go and use it to commit a crime, but that is covered under being an accessory. With cars, the only situation I can think of is if you loaned your car to someone you knew was drunk and was going to drive. Or you loaned me the car knowing I was going to use it as a get away vehicle in a bank robbery. But I assume the second case would also be covered under being an accessory to the crime.
But for the purposes of traffic tickets, yea, its ridiculous. It also has a lot of faults. I got a traffic ticket from a red light camera for a car I owned when I was stationed in California. The ticket came to me in Oregon 5 years AFTER I traded that vehicle in (I traded it in right before moving to Oregon) and the traffic cam ticket was from Texas, a state I've never driven a vehicle in. My only presence in Texas has been being in the airport in Dallas. The ticket was also for a year prior to when I received it. So I hadn't owned it in 4 years when it ran a red light in Texas.
Because they bought the most dangerous tool we have in common use, and society decided to make the law.
The owner isn't responsible for the drivers actions, but they are required to name the driver. (Or declare the car stolen etc.)
(At least in much of Europe.)
> 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?
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.
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
That's why I said generally - once testimony is compelled, it can no longer be used against you. And the definite exception for compelling your name is if the government already believes that you committed a crime and is trying to figure out who you are, and you cannot articulate specifically why your name could be incriminating.
5th amendment protections can include questions of identity, if the question of identity is relevant for incrimination. Like, if the government has a warrant for "Joe Smith", you're not required to testify whether that's you. It's usually a waste of time since could just prove it with the non-testimonial evidence that lead to your arrest, but the protection does exist.
The 5th amendment with regard to self-incrimination only applies to criminal cases. When I represented myself in court for a speeding ticket the judge threatened me under pain of contempt that I had to testify against myself.
Most camera tickets are either civil moving, or civil non-moving. Civil moving are against a person and civil non-moving are against the vehicle. Neither of which case does 5th amendment protect you from incriminating yourself, and neither of which does it require prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the ruling. The judge says red light camera cases are quasi-criminal in the way they are handled even if nominally civil and thus can be subject to constitutional requirements including the protection of the 5th amendment.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Four people in my family drive my car. I'm supposed to track that? sure.
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.
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.
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.
> and sober
Why would you presume GP was drunk?
Also, it's completely common and safe to drive slightly over the speed limit in some circumstances, and in many parts of the US it's exceedingly rare for people to drive below the speed limit as you suggest. In many places the tickets are essentially written more for not seeing the cop and slowing down than for actually doing 78 in a 65.
Your car, your problem. Either get someone to fess up, or take responsibility yourself and stop loaning it out.
There really is no difference between "who drove through a red light" and "who scratched the bumper while parking" here - how do you currently solve the latter one?
> how do you currently solve the latter one?
Same as parking enforcement. Goes against the car, not an individual. So the financial responsibility will be assigned, but no punishment.
I know you'd like it to work that way, but it doesn't in most jurisdictions in the US.
Except no, that is not how it works. People get moving violation tickets, not cars.
This is exactly how it works in plenty of countries, actually! The US is the outlier here. In practice people have zero trouble figuring out which family member was driving - just like they have no trouble getting a kid to fess up to scratching the bumper while backing up into their own garage.
The burden is on you to explain why the US should do things the way other countries do. What's better for everyone about that? Why should we change our notion of justice to make you feel better about it?
> The burden is on you to explain why the US should do things the way other countries do. What's better for everyone about that?
In short: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/19...
> 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).
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.".
Yes, and that is likely what will happen based on this ruling too, for parking tickets as well.
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).
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)
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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
Even if I know who, why would I ever give that information to the court?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The photo will show the driver. Presumably, you recognize your partner and/or your children.
> 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.
> 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
In oral arguments the supreme court uses hypothetical questions with extreme examples to explore the limits and constitutionality of law.
Why shouldn't we?
OK, so now write a law that makes a distinction here. What do you end up with? EU law.
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.
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.
“fully” is optimistic - being a member of the EU means giving up some sovereignty.
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.
> 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?
The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.
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.
> 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-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.
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.
I haven't conveniently left out anything. I wrote my previous comments intentionally, and specified which statistic I was talking about. If you misread it, that's on you.
I used this statistic because yours is like saying the US is richer than Switzerland, if you don't divide by the number of people. Pretty irrelevant.
There is no point comparing a country that drives everywhere with a country that doesn't using a metric that doesn't account for this difference.
