Coalition Launches Red- Light Camera Campaign

Not a bad idea.

If it works maybe it could be adapted for the bikists going through red lights or snaking between cars.and making illegal turns.

Maybe license them so they have plates, or maybe a system to identify via rear ends or tight pants designs.

Worth a try!!

More revenue for the cities

Are you serious, John Cain? Did you actually say this? And you are a teacher? Is that an argument you would give the police officer if he/she saw you run the light and pulled you over? Your colleagues and students at Amistad should be ashamed of you.

I agree with Levy and Slade. Walking on the streets of New Haven is ridiculously scary -- every single day -- due to the constant red light running.

I hope the bill is passed and camera parking tickets are issued at every intersection within the first year.

I wonder why more suburban so-called environmental advocates didn't show up for this press conference. It looks from the article like everyone there was from New Haven or Hartford. Don't the suburban "liberals" realize that having more walkable cities in Connecticut (ones dominated by people, not by howling traffic) would do more for our environment than any other effort they are working on this year?

Wow, somebody needs to check the campaign finance reports for these guys. In Canton Ohio a camera company donated to several politicians. In Columbus Ohio a council member got an undisclosed amount as a "loan" from a lobbyist for a camera company.

This is big bucks folks. Don't let them tell you it is about safety. Red light cameras do one thing, they make money.

Why engineer a safer intersection when you can outsource law enforcement to a for-profit company that will install cameras for free, even if you have more accidents as a result? Traffic safety should not be for profit. It shouldn't be about satisfied stock holders.

With all due respect, Mr. Cain should perhaps be setting a better example for his students. If you don't want to pay a fine for running red lights, then don't go through them.

Aren't the cameras already up? I've seen some around town. Like the corner of Edgewood and Yale Avenues and where Goffee street begings downtown by the gas station. Am I just imagining things?

If the revenue from these fines went to the city coffers, then perhaps some tax easing could happen. But it all comes down to forcing better driving habits.

The resistance to this idea I feel springs from a grossly under-educated and under-prepared driving populace in CT. The state should require an in-school class for all teenagers, they should require an in-school behind the wheel course, only then should a potential driver be allowed to take a written exam which must be passed 100% to allow that potential driver to take the behind-the-wheel driver's test to be given their license. Right now, all of you in CT drive poorly and then give lame justification, "to reserve the right to run red lights 'cautiously' when he’s late."

Think you're cautious all you want, violating traffic laws leads to severe injury and death.

I'm aware of a situation in Illinois where towns which had installed red-light cameras are removing them because they were not profitable. The towns were paying more to the company that maintains the cameras than they were generating in revenue. In that case, it seems they were much more concerned with revenue than safety. I hope the intentions of the proponents of this in Connecticut are more honest. I still feel nervous about these as an invasion of privacy despite the reassurances of the mayor. If they are installed, I'd like to see them set up so that they only take a photo if a car completely runs a light as opposed to moving a few inches over the stopping line.

Amistad Academy. That's the school dedicated to giving at-risk urban youth a real chance in life, right? Swell role model they've hired there in teacher Cain. He sounds (and looks) so pleased with himself for being a scofflaw. Of all the specious arguments -- it's OK to break the law if you do it carefully! I'm late, so it's OK for ME to break the law! (What about leaving a bit earlier, fella? A grownup manages his time properly.) Nothing else matters, not public safety, not the community at large, only me, me, me. As I say, swell role model.

(By the way, this really makes me angry.)

Yet another boondoggle, especially considering the questionable legality of tickets issued using such a system.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) last November issued an official ruling that found red light camera “violation lines” illegal.
(Most commercial systems require the addition of painted lines as triggers for the optical scan systems utilized.)

<A href="http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm&quot;&gt;Complete FHWA report here.</a>

"One a nearby passerby, a teacher, said he wants to reserve the right to run red lights “cautiously” when he’s late"

Are you serious?!

Get it straight buster, you DON'T have the right and therefore you can't reserve it!

There is no such thing as running a red light cautiously. No near misses? In whos opinion? The scofflaw obliviously barrelling through the intersection, not looking back, or the people who have to get out of your way or be hit?

People like you are precisely the reason we need these measures, and here you are educating our young people, when you personally have no regard for the rule of law, particularly one as basic and important as this.

You should be ashamed.

Wake up to yourself!

I quote:
Not everyone in the area was sold: One a nearby passerby, a teacher, said he wants to reserve the right to run red lights “cautiously” when he’s late.
And a TEACHER of your children:
John Cain, a second-grade teacher at Amistad Academy said that as a “cautious red light runner” he doesn’t want to have to pay for rushing through lights.
WHAT?! This is not Naples. This is Connecticut. I think that these comments are indicative of the attitude here in my town - that the laws don't apply to "me" when I don't want to follow them. These 2 scofflaws are just one of the kinds of drivers this bill is aimed at. Unbelievable. These people would risk killing someone to make it to work/school, what, ONE minute earlier?! John Cain of New Haven who currently works at the Amistad Academy - your near miss is going to happen any week or month now if you keep running lights.
Regarding privacy issues: don't leave the house if you don't want to be on camera. Guess what - there are cameras watching you everywhere: in stores, on the street, in the RR station. You cannot expect privacy out in public. Anyone who does, including the ACLU, is dead wrong.
I hope, however, that RLC's don't replace traffic stops, but just augment them, and force people to behave in a manner that respects life, respects other drivers. Over the past year, we have seen drugs and guns and wanted criminals taken off the street for minor violations. That kind of traffic stop should not be halted.

Mr. Cain,

RED MEANS STOP. Where do you get off being a traffic scofflaw?

Firstly, you don't run a red to yellow light. Lights in the USA go Green, yellow to red. Yellow means slow down.

Secondly, REACH. Respect the traffic laws, the life saved could be one of the AF students or a member of their family.

No excuses. You've probably seen that around some of the Achievement First School hallways. If you are always running late, you need to get a better handle on time management skills. Stop making up lame explanations to try to justify this appalling behavior.

Finally, you are probably unaware of how many near misses there have been around you.

An ECCP parent.

I'm using my real name for this comment, because I don't want to hide behind a pseudonym.
I oppose cameras mounted on automated streetlights because I think most streetlights are an inherently irrational way to control traffic, and cameras simply make adherence to that irrationality compulsory at all hours of the day and night.
If it is late at night or early in the morning, at a time when there is very little vehicular or pedestrian traffic around, it is simply insane for a motorist to sit at a red light for 45 seconds, spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and wasting time, when a careful check of the interesection could be accomplished in a few seconds. And there are hundreds of traffic signals in the city that run 24 hours a day, going through their cycle, controlling vacant intersections at 2 in the morning. Why?
Likewise, I doubt that I am the only motorist in the city who has actually sped up when approaching an 'old' green light. Were I approaching a roundabout, there would be no need to speed up.
New Haven's increasing overreliance on traffic lights is environmentally unfriendly and dangerous. There are far better ways to control traffic and protect pedestrians and bicyclists. Why don't we try some fresh thinking rather than making a bad situation worse?

More money for the corporatist. There is a company call RedSpeed™ International Ltd. They have contracts throughout the world including UK, Spain, South Africa, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and India. This is about money more that safety. When it comes to the bid for this contract this company may show up.


http://www.redspeed-usa.com/


http://www.redspeed-usa.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&amp;Itemid=1

Bottom line These cameras are unconstitutional. The constitution gives you the right to question your accuser. You can't question a camera. These cameras are just a form of highway robbery. They are simply a rigged scam for these companies to steal money from hard working people. They have nothing to do with safety whatsoever. It's just about money.

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_e2BC_kXis&amp;feature=related




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0SX6-c7I8&amp;feature=related

That guy is a teacher? More like a potential killer? I'm calling the school to complain.

It's time we take these offenses as seriously as they are. 75000+ American pedestrians killed, and millions injured, by drivers In recent years and our government does nothing.

john cain is precisely why we need the cameras. i hope he teaches his students that it's ok to break the law as long as you do so carefully and don't get caught.

I think this is a band aid approach to a bigger problem, which is that the police don't focus on vehicular violations… Why? Money collected from fines go to Hartford before being redistributed down to the towns. Red light camera fees will go directly to the City right?

People drive like crazy in this city and why not, you won't be pulled over if you do. That just seems to be common knowledge. I'm not a fan of moving towards big brother ticketing especially when as the officer above noted, the city isn't doing a good enough job as it is with moving violations using the police force.

What happens if you need to rush someone to the hospital in the event of a medical emergency or if you're a volunteer first responder who needs to make their way to their town's local fire department.

This is going to cause a lot of frustration.

Would the intersections that use be clearly marked as such?

What happens when a police officer watches a reckless driver blow a red light? Will they not pull the car over assuming the camera would of caught them. Chances are people who recklessly blow reds probably have other things that should be getting pulled over for as well. How many guns, drugs, non insured, ect are pulled from routine traffic stops that would now be given a pass thanks to a computerized billing system?

I personally think it's crazy that we don't have to retake a drivers exam once when you're a teenager and that's it? By the way people drive in this town I would not be surprised if there are a good amount of drivers who would not pass a refresher exam on the basic rules of the road.

three-fifths - you are wrong. these cameras are constitutional. follow the link here for an in depth analysis: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/ct-livable-streets/redlightcameras/rlc-do-not-violate-the-constitution-v_ar_29oct2009.pdf

additionally, the cameras pose a much less risk to your fourth amendment rights than being pulled over by a police officer.

These cameras seem like a great idea to me, I see people running red lights pretty much every time a light changes colors in this town. Multiple cars, not just one.

doug hausladen

three-fifths - you are wrong. these cameras are constitutional. follow the link here for an in depth analysis: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/ct-livable-streets/redlightcameras/rlc-do-not-violate-the-constitution-v_ar_29oct2009.pdf

additionally, the cameras pose a much less risk to your fourth amendment rights than being pulled over by a police officer.

Check out the The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to. . . be confronted with the witnesses against him.


RED LIGHT CAMERAS. Check this case out.

The following is a brief that an attorney prepared in association with the National Motorists Association for the defense of a motorist who had received a red light camera ticket.

This brief asks the General District Court in the City of Fairfax, Virginia to strike the evidence against this person and rule that the underlying ordinance allowing photo enforced red light infractions be held unconstitutional.

This brief was filed in Virginia. It is possible that the defenses outlined in this brief could be utilized in fighting red light camera ticket fights in other states.


Many other cases and /or transcripts are available - see the Index to Transcripts, Briefs, and Court Decisions.


In 2009 a Seattle motorist expanded upon the Fairfax brief. His brief is available on the website of the National Motorists Association.


*******


TABLE OF CONTENTS


I. Introduction and Facts

II. Motion

III. Use of Obviously Altered! Manipulated Evidence

IV. Lack of Foundation for the Entry of the Photos into Evidence

V. Lack of Established Scientific Reliability and Acceptance of Mechanical Device Used to Create Evidence

VI. Unconstitutional Infringement on the Fifth Amendment Rights of the Accused

VII. Unconstitutional and improper Limitation of Defenses

VIII. Unconstitutional / Improper Conclusive Presumption and Unconstitutional / Improper Shifting of the Burden of Proof

IX. Civil vs. Criminal Classification

X. Improper Certification of Evidence

XI. Unconstitutional/ Presumption that is not Rationally Connected to the Element it Seeks to Prove

XII. Improper Delegation of Police Powers



COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CITY OF FAIRFAX


CITY OF FAIRFAX VS. TRAFFIC CASE #-----

JOHN SMITH,

Defendant


MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE & CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 98-21 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FAIRFAX

NOW COMES, John Smith, the Defendant herein to Motion this Honorable Court to rule on the constitutionality of Code of the City of Fairfax, Section 98-21 and/or to strike the evidence against Mr. Smith. In support of his Motion the Defendant states into this Honorable Court as follows:

FACTS:

On or about June 4, 2001 the Defendant received in the mail the documents attached hereto marked as Exhibit “A”. It alleges that a vehicle which is allegedly reportedly registered to him was photographed allegedly running a red light at the corner of Chainbridge Rd. and Eaton Place, on May 19, 2001 at approx. 11:23 a.m. The citation was not personally served upon the Defendant, but was mailed to him thirteen days after the alleged infraction. On June 13, 2001 the Defendant by and through his legal counsel contacted the Clerk's office, noting his objection to the affidavit requirement set forth in the Code. On or about June 19, 2001 an affidavit objecting to the affidavit requirement was signed and filed with the court clerk. On July 10, 2001 the Defendant was mailed a summons to appear for a hearing on August 21, 2001.



MOTION
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS EXAMINE ADVERSARIAL WITNESSES

As written, the Code of the City of Fairfax Section 98-21 is unconstitutional for a number or reasons including but not limited to the fact that it denies the Defendant due process constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Federal Constitution as incorporated through the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and it violates his State Constitutional rights under the Virginia Constitution Article 1, Section 8.

The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to. . . be confronted with the witnesses against him. . ." Additionally, the Virginia Supreme Court has held Article 1, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution “guarantees to the defendant in criminal cases the right to cross-examination of the adversary’s witnesses.” See Moore v. Commonwealth, 202 VA. 667, 119 S.E. 2d 324 (1961). These rights include the right to reasonable cross examination of these witnesses. However, in this particular prosecution, the Code does not call for nor can the City of Fairfax produce any human witness that could be subject to cross examination, which can testify to actual first hand information evidencing that the alleged offense even occurred, other than the Defendant himself. Instead, the City is relying on hearsay evidence, i.e. unclear pictures which do not even show anyone driving the vehicle in question taken out of court and used to prove the matter asserted. Pictures in which one cannot even identify the sex, race or identifying characteristics of the driver, or in this particular situation, pictures in which one cannot even identify the existence of a driver in the vehicle at all.

USE OF OBVIOUSLY ALTERED / MANIPULATED EVIDENCE

The photos are further suspect in that the infraction notices contain obviously altered and blacked out portions of photographs, showing that the photographs were obviously manipulated after being created by a remotely operated, inanimate machine. The pictures also have images of a "scoreboard-like box" superimposed upon them. As such, the pictures presented do not accurately and fairly represent the intersection in question in that they contain an image of an object which does not actually appear over the intersection in reality.

The fact is the City has no human being that can properly testify to first hand knowledge of the incident in question or the accuracy of, and the foundation for the photo(s) intended as prima facie evidence, nor is this a situation in which there was a traffic officer who contemporaneously observed the offense in question. In that the alleged evidence was produced by mechanical camera, which is triggered remotely by non-human means, gathered after the fact, and developed and processed by a third party contractor that did not actually witness the incident in question. The third party in this instant case is a civilian contractor who operates the cameras for profit, i.e., a company that has a vested economic interest in the outcome of the production of evidence which leads to citations and convictions. Quite literally, the party producing the alleged incriminating evidence of the alleged violations enjoys a direct economic gain with each citation manufactured. This creates a suspect situation, rank with potential bias and the potential appearance of improprieties.

LACK OF FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTRY OF THE PHOTOS INTO EVIDENCE

The law in Virginia holds that "the party offering the photographs must demonstrate its relevance and lay a foundation for their introduction in evidence." Lucas v. HCMF Corporation, 238 Va. 446, 451; 384 S.E.2d 92 (1989). Normally, a foundation and authentication for a photograph is established by the photographer who took the photo or a witness with first hand information that can testify that the photo purports to accurately portray what was actually observed first hand on the date and time in question. In this case, because a photograph was produced by remote, mechanical means, there is no one with first hand information who is capable of testifying to the foundation and accuracy of the photo purporting to accurately portray what could have been observed on the time and date in question. We recognize that while there is some case law which indicates that "even though no human is capable of swearing that he personally perceived what a photograph purposes to portray. . .there may nevertheless be good warrant for receiving the photograph in evidence." Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 212 VA 745, 747; 187 S.E.2d 189, 191 (1972). However, in such cases, the test of admissibility is "whether the evidence is sufficient to provide an adequate foundation assuring the accuracy of the process producing it." Law of Evidence in Virginia, 4th Edition, by Charles E. Friend, p. 560. This is important, for not all mechanical means of producing evidence are deemed sufficiently scientifically reliable to warrant admission into evidence. The prime example being results from a polygraph-- which is a mechanical/scientific method of producing evidence of guilt, but is not deemed scientifically reliable enough to warrant acceptance into evidence. See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 231 VA 142, 155 (1986) see also Odum v. Commonwealth, 225 VA 123, 132, 301 S.E.2d 145, 150 (1983); Skinner v. Commonwealth, 212 VA 260, 262, 183 S.E.2d 725, 727 (1971).

LACK OF ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF MECHANICAL DEVICE USED TO CREATE EVIDENCE

Likewise, the remote red-light photographic equipment used in this case is a mechanical/scientific method of producing evidence which lacks the scientific reliability, scientific acceptance, and reliability records to warrant its unquestionable acceptance into evidence, in that these machines are without sufficient documentation evidencing its scientific reliability, or their routine calibration and testing. The U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, (1993) reasoned that when faced with a proffer of scientific evidence, the court must make a preliminary assessment of whether the evidence's underlying reasoning and methodology is scientifically valid and whether it can be properly applied to the facts at issue. Among the many considerations the Court indicated should bear in the inquiry, were whether the theory or technique in question can be tested, whether it has been the subject to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within the scientific community. The photo enforcement red light camera system is a machine which is without sufficient documentation evidencing its acceptance as a reliable and well recognized method of testing, and is a machine and process which is without sufficient documentation evidencing its accuracy and/or potential error rate. It is a machine which is without sufficient documentation evidencing a reliable chain of custody for the alleged pictures which serve as the prima facie evidence. There is no documentation evidencing the machine which is operated by sensors and electronic type technology (some of which is buried under ground) is routinely and scientifically calibrated, tested and maintained to insure accuracy, calibration or proper placement of the equipment, and/or the meters and sensors used. Nor is there any evidence to prove that the machine was properly calibrated and working in perfect order at the exact date and exact time in question. The calibration and accuracy of these machines are questionable in that it is an established fact that the cameras are frequently jostled, tinkered with, and routinely moved about the City. The Fairfax City's own web site indicates that "the three photo red light cameras are rotated among eight intersection locations." (See www.ci.fairfax.va.us/red light.) In light of the fact that no two intersections are the same, the machines would require specific re-adjustments with each and every move. Yet the City of Fairfax claims in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that they do not maintain any records of calibration. Thus, to allow the use of such evidence without proof of its calibration and accuracy would clash with the fundamental due process rights of the accused. The fundamental unfairness of utilizing remote photo evidence is not only Orwellian in nature, but is unconstitutional.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT ON THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

City of Fairfax Code Section 98-21 is further unconstitutional in that it denies the Defendant his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as incorporated through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under the Virginia Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, in that it compels the Defendant to give up his Constitutional right and privilege against self incrimination in order to take affirmative actions to rebut the presumption created by the code section.

It is fundamental constitutional hornbook law that in America a Defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as incorporated through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution further holds a defendant is entitled to due process, including but not limited to the fact he or she cannot be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) stated "[t]he Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." (Emphasis added.) Also see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 (1924) (the privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings...)

Likewise, similar protections can be found in the Virginia Constitution. Specifically, Virginia Constitution Article 1, Section 8 states a defendant cannot “. . . be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself. . . " Virginia Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 has been interpreted to mean "the privilege against self-incrimination protects a person from any disclosure sought by legal process against him as a witness.” See Owens v. Commonwealth, 186 VA 689,43 S.E.2d 985 (1947). Virginia Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 has been held to further preclude the prosecution from using an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination to discredit or convict the person who asserted it. See Dean v. Commonwealth, 209 VA 666, 166 S.E. 2d 228 (1969) and United States v. Ghiz, 491 F.2d 599, 600 (4th Cir., 1974). However, that is the exact situation the application of City of Fairfax Code Section 98-21 creates. (I.e., in that the only way under the ordinance to rebut the presumption of guilt is to forfeit the constitutional right to remain silent and to take affirmative action to prepare an affidavit denying involvement, appearing to testify in open court, or indicating the vehicle was stolen.) Thus, under the Fairfax Code, one is not innocent until proven guilty. One must take affirmative steps and forfeit the right to remain silent in order to present three, and only three, very specific and enumerated defenses. Case law holds that “it is the question, not the anticipated answer, that is relevant to a ruling on the privilege against self-incrimination.” See Gosling v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 158, 415 S.E. 2d 870 (1992).

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPROPER LIMITATION OF DEFENSES

The unconstitutionality of remote photo enforcement is further highlighted by the fact the statute specifically limits defenses to three ways, and only three ways, in which a defendant may attack liability and rebut the presumption under the statute. These limitations foreclose and prevent the basic fundamental ability to assert other viable, rational, and well- reasoned defenses such as breach in chain of custody; altered evidence; improperly calibrated machines; broken sensors; necessity; yielding the right of way to an emergency vehicle; being part of a funeral procession; being directed through the intersection by the Police; presenting alibi evidence through a third party witness, etc. As written, Fairfax Code, Section 98-21 does not allow for the presentation of any other defenses, no matter how legitimate, to rebut the presumption. The fact that the ordinance creates a presumption and then in the next breath expressly limit the ability to rebut the presumption, throws the concept of innocent until proven guilty on its ear and establishes a fundamentally unfair scheme that creates the appearance of improprieties and an inequitable rubber stamp court system stacked against the Defendant. In fact, other Courts have held that restricting an accused to a single method of rebutting the prima facie case against him would deprive him of due process of law. See People v. Hoogy, 277 Mich. 578, 267 N.W. 605 (1936). The Court in People v. Hoogy held:

"If the accused submits himself as a witness the prima facie case made by the ordinance is overcome, but otherwise (regardless of whatever other testimony than that of the accused is submitted) the prima facie case against him is not overcome. The italicized portion of the ordinance restricts the accused to one class of competent testimony by which the presumption may be met in making his defense, and in so doing bars him from meeting the presumption with other testimony regardless of its competency and probative force. Such an ordinance provision deprives the accused of due process, compels him to be a witness in proceedings where he is being prosecuted and is therefore obviously invalid and violative of the Constitution.. ." Hoogy, at p. 606-607 (Emphasis added)

Under a strict reading of the Code, even if you proved the light was malfunctioning; that necessity required you to go through the light; that a Police Officer not seen in the picture waived you through the intersection; that you were in a funeral procession; that the evidence was altered; that the machine was not properly calibrated; or that a third party can provide you an alibi --- there is no ability to raise those defenses or any other legitimate defense, in that those defense are not valid defenses under the code, as written-regardless of their legitimacy and probative force. The ordinance thus appears to compel all but a small minority of defendants--those whose cars were stolen prior to the offense--to testify on their own behalf in order to rebut the presumption against them. So the issue now becomes whether these apparent limits on the defendant's ability to rebut the presumption against him render the ordinance unconstitutional for self-incrimination reasons. The Virginia Court of Appeals has addressed this specific issue. In Speller v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 437, 441, 345 S.E.2d 542 (1986) the court, citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), held that a lower court ruling, "that [the defendant] could not substitute another person to testify as to matters on which he himself could testify," was erroneous. The court said that the ruling in question impermissibly burdened the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by penalizing the defendant for exercising his right to refuse to take the stand. Specifically, the Court in Speller stated:

"The court's ruling that Speller could not substitute another person to testify as to matters on which he himself could testify is erroneous. The effect of the trial court's ruling was to preclude relevant, admissible evidence on behalf of Speller because he did not choose to take the witness stand and offer the evidence personally. By handicapping Speller's defense in this manner, the court achieved the impermissible result of imposing a penalty on him for exercising his constitutional privilege." Speller, at page 442.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL / IMPROPER CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL / IMPROPER SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF

An additional infirmity of the Ordinance can be found in the fact that Fairfax City Code, Section 98-21, unconstitutionally removes and relieves the obligation of the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt and further improperly and unfairly limits a Defendant’s defenses, unless he forfeit his constitutional right and privilege against self incrimination. Thus, as written in order to rebut the presumption of guilty, one must forfeit both his Federal and State Constitutional Rights to stand mute and takes affirmative steps to provide written or oral statements in the burden of proving his innocence. This same infirmity also creates an impermissible and unconstitutional burden shifting situation. The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with the burden shifting presumption issue on numerous occasions. In Sandstrom v. State of Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979), the Court held presumptions which impermissibly shift the burden of persuasion to the Defendant, via either a conclusive presumption or a burden shifting presumption are unconstitutional. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court in Sandstrom held "a conclusive presumption in this case would conflict with the overriding presumption of innocence which the law endows the accused and which extends to every element of the crime." Sandstrom, Supra at p. 522., see also Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952), Mullaney v. Wilber, 421 U.S. 684 (1975), United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978). The U.S. Supreme Court in Sandstrom, 442 U. 5. 510, 534 (1979) went on to state that "a presumption which, although not conclusive, had the effect of shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant, would suffer from similar infirmities." On this same line of logic, the City of Fairfax Ordinance Section 98-21 which creates a "rebuttable presumption" based upon simple and legal ownership and which sets forth only a few specific requirements that one must take affirmative action via testifying in open court or by filing an affidavit to rebut that presumption, creates the very same unconstitutional burden shifting situation the U.S. Supreme Court addressed and ruled unconstitutional in the above cited case.

The City’s desire to raise revenue or arguably to provide for the traffic safety of its citizens (however admirable) should not and does not trump or negate the City’s obligation to insure for and to provide for the well established, and extremely important, fundamental Constitutional and Due Process Rights of the citizens of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The City will likely argue the Cameras are for the purpose of crime control, or law enforcement--not to create a Stalinist Police State. However, I would remind the Court that Stalin did not promise a Stalinist Police state either. Stalin promised crime prevention, law enforcement and a worker's paradise. Progress in the field of law enforcement still must be tempered with constitutional safeguards.

CIVIL VS. CRIMINAL CLASSIFICATION

The City of Fairfax is likely to argue that because they classify these tickets as "civil in nature" or "administrative" the constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants don't apply. However, the argument is without factual and legal merit. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that simply classifying a fine as a civil fine is not the standard for determining if a fine is civil or penal in nature. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 447 (1989) citing Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631 (1988) held "the labels affixed whether to the proceeding or to the relief imposed. . .are not controlling and will not be allowed to defeat the applicable protections of federal constitutional law." (Emphasis added) The Court stated "in determining whether a particular civil sanction constitutes criminal punishment, it is the purposes actually served by the sanction in question, not the underlying nature of the proceedings giving rise to the sanction, that must be evaluated." United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 447 (1989). The U.S. Supreme Court went on to state "we have recognized in other contexts that punishment serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence. See e.g. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168 (1963) (these are the "traditional aims of punishment"). Furthermore, "retribution and deterrence are not legitimate non-punitive governmental objectives." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539, n. 20 (1979). From these premises, it follows that a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term." United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448 (1989). In this case, there is no rational relation to the necessary goal of compensating the City of Fairfax for its loss associated with alleged red light runners, thus leading but to one conclusion that the fines purpose is to punish and deter red light running, a function that is clearly and unequivocally criminal and punitive in nature. This "civil vs. criminal" analysis and standard has been followed by the Virginia Court of Appeals in Tench v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 200, 204, 462 S.E.2d. 922 (1995).

IMPROPER CERTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

City of Fairfax Code, Section 98-21 is further infirm in that it allows for a certificate or a facsimile thereof, sworn to or affirmed by a technician employed by the city, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotapes or other recorded images produced by the system, to come into evidence as prima facie evidence of facts contained therein without providing adequate due process protections. Under Fairfax City Code, Section 98-21, the certificate is allowed into evidence as prima facie evidence despite the fact that the technician has absolutely no first hand personal knowledge of the exact event to which he (or she) is certifying as fact, in that the evidence (the alleged photographs) were gather remotely, by a machine, and processed by one or more third parties after the fact. The technician is relying on obvious hearsay information given to him by a third party(s), in that the technician has no first hand knowledge of who the registered owner of a particular vehicle is or even what specific type, make, or model of vehicle was involved. In this case the technician is not certifying his personal observations, nor is he certifying records he maintains. It is important to note that under this Code Section the technician or police officer is not certifying to the validity of test results physically observed by him, or recorded contemporaneously with his observations, or even performed in his presence such as a Certificate of Drug Analysis performed by the State Laboratory, but is looking at altered evidence, which lacks a secure chain of custody, and lacks a sufficiently proven indicia of scientific reliability, in order to certify facts to which he or she did not personal witness, and to records he or she does not personally maintain. In short, this ordinance allows a third party to certify facts which have no chain of custody, no scientific indicia of reliability, and of which the third party has absolutely no personal knowledge. This clearly smacks of a fundamental due process violation and puts the judicial system on a scary slippery slope toward the abolishment of legal standards of proof and foundation.

While there are other State Code sections which allow the admission of certificates into evidence as prima facie evidence, such as Virginia Code Section 19.2-187, these Code sections differ in that the certificates are certified by the individual which actually performed the analysis or laboratory examination. Under Virginia Code Section 19.2-187 the certifying agent has a first hand, personal knowledge of the actual facts in that the agent personally performed the testing and examination. The underlying purpose of Virginia Code Section 19.2-187 certification is to avoid the need for an expert to personally appear and testify as to the facts he personally witnessed in every case, whereas the certificate under City of Fairfax Code, Section 98-21 appears to be intended to circumvent the normal evidentiary rules of the Court to allow obvious hearsay and double hearsay evidence to be made prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein by having it certified by a “technician employed by the city” without the need for that technician to have any specific training, or without the need for the certifying technician to have any first hand knowledge of the event to which he or she is certifying, and without the certification being conducted contemporaneously with the procuring of the actual evidence. Under City of Fairfax Code, Section 98-21, an unknown technician without any specific legal training or qualifications is able to circumvent fundamental due process and established evidentiary court rules and certify hearsay facts into prima facie evidence with only a limited ability to rebut their alleged evidence, regarding facts to which the technician has no personal knowledge, with the certification at times occurring days, weeks, and months after the alleged event. Once again, the City’s desire to raise revenue should not and does not trump or negate the City’s obligation to insure for and to provide for the well established evidentiary court rules and standards and extremely important, fundamental Constitutional and Due Process Rights which protect and are the right of the citizens of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor should the government be able to contract those obligations away. The presumption in this case is not to prevent busy laboratory technicians from spending all of their time in court testifying to their personal observations, but is intended to allow the City to circumvent constitutional protections to aid in the convenient production of "acceptable" hearsay evidence needed to garner quick and defenseless convictions in a for profit money making scheme, run by the City in conjunction with civilian for-profit contractors.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL/ PRESUMPTION THAT IS NOT RATIONALLY CONNECTED TO THE ELEMENT IT SEEKS TO PROVE

City of Fairfax Code Section 98-21 is further unconstitutional in that it contains a permissive presumption that is not rationally connected to the element it seeks to prove. Permissive presumptions are constitutional if there is a "rational connection" between the ultimate fact presumed and the basic fact proven. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 841 (1973) (citing Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467 (1943)). While the United States Supreme Court in Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 (1943) held that subject to the constitutional requirements of due process, Congress has the power to prescribe what evidence is to be received in the Courts of the United States, the Court in Tot also held that the test of the validity of a statutory presumption is not the comparative convenience of producing the evidence of the ultimate fact, but the existence of a rational connection between the facts proved and the facts presumed. In short, a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there is no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, or if the inference of the one from proof of the other is arbitrary because of the lack of connection between the two in common experience. In practical terms, this means that a permissive presumption must "more likely than not" flow from the presumed basic fact. Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 36 (1973). However, when a presumption is mandatory, such as it is in this case, the prosecution, "may not rest its case entirely on a presumption unless the fact proved is sufficient to support the inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." County Ct. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 167 (1979)(Emphasis added.) In other words, in a mandatory presumption case the basic fact proven must bear sufficient relationship to the elemental fact presumed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In Pennsylvania v Slaybaugh, 364 A 2d 687 (PA, 1976), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, "the inferred fact of operation of a motor vehicle at a specific time does not flow logically beyond a reasonable doubt from the mere established fact of ownership." Slaybaugh at p. 690 (Emphasis added). Thus, the court invalidated the statute at issue. Id. And in a New York case, the Court of Appeals held that lower court erred, in reasoning that proof that one owned a car created a rebuttable presumption that one was its operator. New York v. Hildebrandt, 308 N.Y. 397, 126 N.E.2d 377, 378 (NY 1955) (Emphasis added). Hildebrandt was a case in which a "photo traffic camera" was used to determine that the defendant's car had been speeding, but the state could not or did not provide evidence of the cars driver at the time of the infraction. The lower courts held that the mere fact that the defendant owned the car was sufficient proof that he had been driving at the time of the infraction to support conviction for speeding. The appellate court held that such an inference violated the presumption of innocence and the right to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In Hildebrandt, the New York Court of Appeals said:

"We think it is going much too far to infer the driver's identity from the fact of ownership. We all know that many a passenger car is customarily driven at various times by various persons, we know that many a person owns more than one passenger automobile, we know that some owners are not licensed operators, and we are informed that there are outstanding in the State at least one million more automobile operators' licenses than passenger automobile registrations. From all of this it follows, we think, that it is hardly a normal or ready inference or deduction that an automobile which speeds along a highway is being driven by its owner, and no other person." Hildebrandt, at p.379 (Emphasis added)

The same logic is certainly applicable in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in the City of Fairfax. According to a United States Department of Transportation report, in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1999 there were an estimated 4,433,415 class 0 (automobile operator) motor vehicle driver licenses in force. See: Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 1999 (1999). This is further supported by the results from a recent Freedom of Information request made to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, that show that as of June, 2001 there were over 5,068,974 valid Virginia Drivers Licenses issued to persons living in Virginia. This number includes private licenses, commercial licenses, learner's permits and motorcycle licenses. This number does not account for the millions of additional individuals that drive on valid out of state licenses, on suspended licenses or without licenses all together. This is important, for the U.S. Supreme Court in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 522 (1979) held "a presumption which would permit. . . an assumption which all the evidence considered together does not logically establish would give to a proven fact an artificial and fictional effect."

We know from experience, and the Court can take judicial notice of the fact, that clearly, some of these licensed drivers do not have automobiles registered in their own names, i.e., not everyone owns a car. For example, many of us did not have our own car when we were sixteen, despite the fact we had a license to drive, additionally many of us frequently drive our spouses or family's vehicles. Thus, when these license holders do drive, they are not necessarily driving automobiles that they own. Couple this with the fact that there is no law which prohibits someone from having permission to drive a car that is not registered to them and/or that there is no requirement or law which requires a registered owner to identify individuals that may drive his or her vehicle, it illustrates that there is an extremely high probability that the registered owner may not in fact be the driver of the vehicle being cited. Based upon Virginia statistics alone, the potential is that based solely on the numbers it is a 1 in 5,068,974 chance that the photographed driver was in fact the actual registered owner. The numbers get even more remote if you factor in the fact that any person licensed in the U.S. could possibly be driving a car registered to someone else. I would further note that any requirement that would require an individual to identify who was driving the vehicle would create a number of additional constitutional issues, in that such a requirement would infringe upon the constitutionally protected freedom of association, and at times force an individual to possibly bear witness against a spouse in direct contradiction of the Spousal Privilege. No matter how one analyzes the various possible permutations of the statistics, in the words of the Hildebrandt court, it is hardly a "ready inference" that the driver of an automobile is its owner. Hildebrandt, Supra at p. 379. This leads to but one logical conclusion: that an ordinance which does not require proof of who was actually committing the offense, creates the distinct possibility of literally millions of erroneous photo red light citations being issue for the traffic infractions of others. That is far from proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in light of the fact that individuals are normally not responsible for the criminal acts of third parties. See Holles v. Sunrise Terrace, Inc., 257 Va. 131, 509 S.E.2d 494 (1999).

The Virginia Constitution provides, "[t]hat no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law," Va. Const. Art. I, Section 11. In applying this right to the issue of evidentiary presumptions, the Virginia Court of Appeals has held that, "[a] natural and rational evidentiary relationship must always exist between the fact proven and the ultimate fact presumed." Morton v. Commonwealth, 408 S.E.2d 583, 585 (VA Ct. App. 1991)(quoting Sharp v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 269, 271, 192 S.E.2d 217, 219 (1972)). And under Virginia law, "even if the inference is permissive, if the only evidence of guilt is that which gives rise to the inference, a rational relationship must exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, between the inference and the proved fact." Morton, 408 S.E.2d at 585 (citing Allen, 442 U.S. at 166-7; West v. Wright, 931 F.2d 262, 265 (4th Cir. 1991); and Sharp, 192 S.E.2d at 219).

IMPROPER DELEGATION OF POLICE POWERS

City of Fairfax Code Section 98-21 is further infirm as being against public policy as an improper delegation of police power to a for-profit commercial enterprise. Imagine the public outcry if the City of Fairfax announced that from now on, Fairfax City Police Officers would receive a direct commission for each and every ticket they issued. The authority and credibility of the Police would be severely and irreparably damaged, in that such a scheme would be rank with the potential for abuse, that the officers would be subject to impeachment for bias for having an economic interest in the outcome of the charges, and based upon the fact that they have a direct economic incentive to issue as many tickets as possible, regardless of their legal and factual merit, in the hopes of increasing their income. Public policy alone should not allow that sort of scheme to exist. Yet the remote photo citation systems run by civilian contractors for profit are directly analogous to police working on a commission, in that the City of Fairfax has delegated the police power to enforce red light traffic violations to a for-profit commercial enterprise, the goal of which is to create a large profit from the issuance of red light tickets. This results in an entity that has a direct and unequivocal economic interest in seeing that as many tickets are issued as possible, because each ticket issued increases its bottom line.

The fear associated with the delegation of governmental police powers to private entities is that the governmental power may be used and abused to further private rather than public interests, and in such a manner as to circumvent constitutional protections or to insulate the government entity from accountability or civil rights liability. In short the contractors can be hired to do the Government's dirty work for them, in a manner that themselves would not be allowed to, without a readily available avenue for procedural safeguards or adequate redress by the citizens. One of the safety nets created by the governments retaining the exercise of police powers is that through the democratic process, aggrieved citizens can vote abusing governmental officials out of office. Whereas, citizens have no ability to directly vote commercial contractors away.

Discovery and disclosures from red light camera jurisdiction in the area illustrate these are multi-million dollar operations. (In an article titled "D. C. aims to Catch Speeders on Camera," the Washington Post reported on July 2, 2001 that the District of Columbia generated over 9 million dollars in fines from red light photo enforced citations last year.) With modern computers, digital pictures, graphics, scanners and photo quality printers, one can easily adjust images to eliminate the "red eyes created by a flash bulb or to change a green light to red, especially where a multi-million dollar economic interest exists to do so. The alarming issue is once again, as written City of Fairfax Code Section 98-21 does not allow defendants to raise or challenge the evidence on the issue of the potential bias, thus, once again creating a clear constitutional violation. The Virginia Supreme Court has held "the right of an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses to show bias or motivation, when not abused, is absolute." Barker v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 370, 376, 337 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1985) (quoting Hewitt v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 621, 623,311 S.E.2d 112, 114 (1984)). (Emphasis added)

Fairfax City and most Virginia jurisdictions with red light cameras have cleverly approached the subject of fees. They purposely set the potential fine at $50.00, an amount significantly less than California's $271.00 photo enforced tickets. This amount is sufficient to penalize drivers, but is typically not high enough to justify an individual taking a day off from work to contest the ticket or to justify retaining expensive legal counsel to challenge the ticket, when the costs of representation would likely grossly exceed the ticket itself. Thus, most tickets go uncontested, and the potential of improprieties goes on-- capable of repetition yet evading legal review.

WHEREFORE, any and/or all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant prays this Honorable Court finds City of Fairfax Code Section 98-21 unconstitutional, striking the Code section and/or striking the evidence against the Defendant, and dismissing the charges against the Defendant with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

This why we have courts.

What is the difference between a four-way intersection with 2 stop signs and a four-way intersection with a stop light?
At the intersection of Orange and Lawrence, for example, someone traveling on Lawrence has to stop, look both ways and then proceed. At the intersection of Humphrey and Orange, a driver traveling on Humphrey may get a red light and stop, why not look both ways and if no one is coming, is it so bad to proceed? The actual risk is exactly the same at the two intersections, the only thing that is different, is the sense of risk that is alleviated at the intersection with a green light. This is I assume John Cain means be 'caution', which I do sometimes when I drive, not because I'm particularly worried about time or carbon emissions, but because it is perfectly fine to treat traffic lights like stop signs as long as you check to make sure another car is not approaching. However, this activity should be avoided on multi-lane roads because there is often too much activity to rely simply on a side to side check, but I think it's appropriate on narrower streets where activity is more easily observable, like the two examples I gave..

Threefifths,

You have just given possibly the most insane reading of the 6th Amendment I've ever heard. I totally agree that our 6th Amendment protections are gradually being eroded by conservative jurists, but the fact of the matter is that your logic leads to a pretty ridiculous place. You can't confront a camera in court? So do you suggest that we then ban all photographic evidence? If a convenience store surveillance camera takes a video of a murder, should we exclude that as evidence because the accused can't cross-examine the camera?

Your reliance on that brief doesn't get you very far. Not everything that is filed in court is credible. Consider the famous case of US v. Satan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Gerald_Mayo_v._Satan_and_His_Staff). I'm sure that the initial brief was written in wonderful legalese and even incorporated some citations to caselaw, but the case was ridiculous on its face.

The 6th Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions, not traffic infractions. And even if we say that it does apply to traffic infractions, you can't cross examine a camera, but you can cross examine the people who run the system, etc.

If you want to talk about privacy concerns, that's one thing. But the confrontation clause argument is DOA.

The Professor

Threefifths,

You have just given possibly the most insane reading of the 6th Amendment I’ve ever heard. I totally agree that our 6th Amendment protections are gradually being eroded by conservative jurists, but the fact of the matter is that your logic leads to a pretty ridiculous place. You can’t confront a camera in court? So do you suggest that we then ban all photographic evidence? If a convenience store surveillance camera takes a video of a murder, should we exclude that as evidence because the accused can’t cross-examine the camera?

Convenience store's most of the time have witness to back up the video and you can question that witness.They have been cases when you have video only and the case has been
drop due to the fact that you only had the video.

Your reliance on that brief doesn’t get you very far Not everything that is filed in court is credible. Consider the famous case of US v. Satan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Gerald_Mayo_v._Satan_and_His_Staff). I’m sure that the initial brief was written in wonderful legalese and even incorporated some citations to caselaw, but the case was ridiculous on its face.

There are a lot of case that you and I may say are ridiculous,But that is not for you or I to determine . That is why we have the court system to bring our case to and let the judge or jury determine if it is ridiculous or not.


The 6th Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions, not traffic infractions. And even if we say that it does apply to traffic infractions, you can’t cross examine a camera, but you can cross examine the people who run the system, etc.

The people who run the system were not at the light.Cross examine them for what.They are going to go with the video. Also I would not trust them.

If you want to talk about privacy concerns, that’s one thing. But the confrontation clause argument is DOA.


You need to read this brief again. You may disageree with the 6th Amendment being in this brief.But most of the brief has some good points in it. That's why I would go to court and let the court system determine if it is ridiculous or not.

I hope they also take a look at synchronizing some of the lights in town. When you travel on Elm or Whalley or through most parts of downtown, it's impossible to go one or two blocks without having to stop at every intersection.

This is only my opinion, but I think people run red lights because they're frustrated at having to drive 15 seconds, stop for 30, drive 15 seconds, stop for 30, drive 15 seconds, stop for 30, etc. etc. etc.

Ever drive on State Street? It's maddening.

I know the cyclists want to ban cars from the city or impose a 7 MPH speed limit, but red lights cameras will make traffic worse. The solution to traffic in the city isn't to put a traffic signal and a camera at every single intersection.

Threefifths,

You're right that this is why we have courts; we'll see what they say. Interestingly, it doesn't seem like anything in the brief indicates that the red light cameras inherently violate the 6th Amendment--rather, it is the way in which the Virginia statute circumscribes potential defenses and the perverse incentives that the system in question sets up.

There are several things that we can do to get around these issues. For example, if we outsource operation of the cameras to a private operator, we can write the contract in a way that guarantees a flat rate, rather than in a way that provides them incentives to artificially boost the numbers of offenders caught. We can allow a full range of options for challenging the validity of a ticket. We can set clear standards for proving that photos have been illegally doctored. We can create strong penalties for doctoring photos. We can require the cameras to be monitored at all times by observers who can be subpoenaed to testify if need be.

Again, I submit to you the convenience store security camera example. Suppose that a storekeeper is shot to death during a robbery and the only other person there is the perpetrator, and the surveillance camera captures the shooting clearly and makes a positive ID of the shooter possible. Based on your conception of the 6th Amendment, it seems that you would have the footage ruled inadmissible because "you can't cross-examine a camera." Of course, not a single judge in this country would ever agree with you--you can't cross examine the camera, but the defendant could try to present an alibi, argue that it's just somebody who looks like him, etc. Given the proper set of laws governing red light cameras, there's no reason that this should be any different.

You have brought up some important issues that we should consider carefully as we craft our red light camera program. But not a single one of those issues points to the conclusion that red light cameras are somehow inherently unconstitutional.

Using technology to enforce something as basic as traffic laws looks like a lazy approach to me. Ticketing at various times and locations makes it hard for hard core violators to predict when it's safe to run a red light and when it isn't.

Cameras will pick up more than just a car running a light, hence the privacy concerns.

I am disappointed that Sen. Harp and others have joined the passive technology band wagon instead of insisting that the police do their job.

The Professor

There are several things that we can do to get around these issues. For example, if we outsource operation of the cameras to a private operator, we can write the contract in a way that guarantees a flat rate, rather than in a way that provides them incentives to artificially boost the numbers of offenders caught. We can allow a full range of options for challenging the validity of a ticket. We can set clear standards for proving that photos have been illegally doctored. We can create strong penalties for doctoring photos. We can require the cameras to be monitored at all times by observers who can be subpoenaed to testify if need be.

I like this better.

5 Proven Ways To Stop Red-Light Running
November 5th, 2007 Posted in Red-Light Cameras
While most cities choose to take the easy way out and install red-light ticket cameras to profit from this problem (without solving it), there are several proven ways for communities to stop red-light running at their intersections.

1) Increase the yellow-light time
This is an easy way to reduce red-light violations. It has been effective from Virginia to California in preventing accidents and saving lives.

A study by researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute illustrates the positive safety impact of even a modestly longer yellow light.
The Virginia Department of Transportation noted a significant decrease in violations at an intersection in Fairfax County when the yellow light was lengthened by 1.5 seconds.
Critics of longer yellow lights claim there is no long-term benefit because the public will grow accustomed to the longer lights, but research shows this is not the case.
2) Add an all-red clearance interval
A yellow light allows drivers who cannot safely stop to pass through the intersection before the light turns red. Occasionally, even safe and attentive drivers may misjudge the time it takes to make it completely through an intersection.

Adding an all-red clearance interval (a brief period where the lights in all directions are red) after the yellow-light phase reduces unnecessary accidents. AAA of Michigan and the city of Detroit partnered to make intersections safer and they found an all-red clearance interval to be effective.

3) Make traffic lights more visible
There are a number of reasons motorists might have difficulty seeing traffic lights at intersections. Making traffic lights more visible decreases red-light violations and intersection accidents. Here are three simple things that can be done to help all motorists see traffic lights better:

Make the lights bigger. With AAA of Michigan’s help, Detroit installed several new lights that were 50 percent larger. This small change helped to decrease both accidents and injuries at problem intersections.
Add metal backers to lights. This is especially important for lights that face either east or west and can be easily affected by glare from the sun during certain parts of the day.
Remove any other obstructions. If an intersection has above average red-light violations or accidents, transportation officials should make sure that no signs, trees, transit stops, or buildings obstruct motorists’ view of the traffic lights.
4) Improve intersections for motorists
Anything about an intersection that confuses or frustrates motorists increases red-light violations. Communities can do all of the following to make intersections safer:

Repaint lane markings at intersections, especially turn lane markings. This alone had a major impact in the Detroit trial project mentioned above.
Improve signage. Signs should clearly indicate that a signal is ahead and which lane(s), if any, are for turns only.
Add traffic lights at certain intersections, especially those that rely on only one light suspended in the air to direct all traffic.
Build new turn lanes, especially on roads where development has added a significant amount of new traffic volume.
Provide advance warning lights at high-speed intersections to notify motorists of pending light changes.
5) Retime Traffic Signals
Engineers can adjust the timing of traffic lights to reduce the number of red lights a driver encounters. This process of signal optimization reduces congestion, travel time, gas consumption, and driver frustration. It also helps to reduce red-light violations.

An informational report from the Institute for Transportation Engineers concluded that the process has a benefit to cost ratio of 40:1. Another study in Oakland County, Michigan showed that retiming the traffic signals had a benefit-cost ratio of 175:1 and 55:1 respectively for each of the two phases of the project.


The 6th Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions, not traffic infractions. And even if we say that it does apply to traffic infractions, you can’t cross examine a camera, but you can cross examine the people who run the system, etc.

How can you trust the people who run the system when the do thing like this.

6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
March 26th, 2008 Posted in Red-Light Cameras, Yellow Light Duration
Short yellow light times at intersections have been shown to increase the number of traffic violations and accidents. Conversely, increasing the yellow light duration can dramatically reduce red-light violations at an intersection.

Some local governments have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.

Here are some of the cities that have been caught with short yellow light times over the past few years:

Important note: These news stories were collected from the archives of TheNewspaper.com, an excellent resource for anyone interested in traffic laws and other motorist issues. If you subscribe to TheNewspaper.com’s feed, you’ll never miss the latest news. It makes an excellent complement to this blog.

1) Chattanooga, Tennessee
The city of Chattanooga was forced refund $8800 in red light cameras tickets issued to motorists trapped by an illegally short yellow time. The refund only occurred after a motorist challenged his citation by insisting that the yellow light time of 3.0 seconds was too short. LaserCraft, the private vendor that runs the camera program in return for a cut of the profits, provided the judge with a computer database that asserted the yellow was 3.8 seconds at that location.

The judge then personally checked the intersection in question was timed at three seconds while other nearby locations had about four seconds of yellow warning. City traffic engineer John Van Winkle told Bean that “a mix up with the turn arrow” was responsible and that the bare minimum for the light should be 3.9 seconds.

Read the Full Story

2) Dallas, Texas
An investigation by KDFW-TV, a local TV station, found that of the ten cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in the city, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

The city’s second highest revenue producing camera, for example, was located at the intersection of Greenville Avenue and Mockingbird Lane. It issued 9407 tickets worth $705,525 between January 1 and August 31, 2007. At the intersections on Greenville Avenue leading up to the camera intersection, however, yellows are at least 3.5 or 4.0 seconds in duration, but the ticket-producing intersection’s yellow stands at just 3.15 seconds. That is 0.35 seconds shorter than TxDOT’s recommended bare minimum. Dallas likewise installed the cameras at locations with existing short yellow times. A total of twenty-one camera intersections in Dallas had yellow times below TxDOT’s bare minimum recommended amount.

The ticket camera program in Dallas made the news recently for shutting down some of its cameras because they were no longer profitable.

Read the Full Story

3) Springfield, Missouri
The city of Springfield, Missouri prepared for the installation of a red light camera system in 2007 by slashing the yellow warning time by one second at 105 state-owned intersection signals across the city.

The city defended its effort to the Springfield News-Leader by claiming it was “standardizing” and had increased the yellow time at 136 city-operated lights to meet national standards. During the city council meeting last October where the red light camera ordinance was approved, however, Assistant Director of Public Works Earl Newman gave a different explanation for the reduction. Newman said he was, “concerned that many individuals run the light if the light remained yellow too long.”

Read the Full Story

4) Lubbock, Texas
KBCD, a local television station, exposed the city’s short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed.

Prior to the news investigation, Lubbock City Engineer Jere Hart assured city council members that he would not increase yellow times. According to the city council’s traffic commission minutes of September 19, 2006, Jere said, “if [the red light camera program is] implemented, the public would prefer to have an increased amber cycle,” but he stated that, “the program will not adjust the amber/yellow time.”

Shortly after the investigation became public, red-light cameras were installed in Lubbock. However, after they proved to be both unprofitable (due in part to a new state law giving 50% of the ticket camera profit to the state) and unsafe (accidents increased where the cameras were installed), they were taken down.

Read the Full Story

5)Nashville, Tennessee
Even without red light cameras, police in Nashville, Tennessee have been earning hundreds of thousands in revenue by trapping motorists in conventional ticket traps at city intersections with the shortest yellow warning time.

In 2006, Nashville resident Joe Savage obtained the data on every red light running ticket issued on Broadway street since 2000. He said that yellow lights are longer at intersections along Broadway until the areas where police are issuing tickets. At those locations, Savage clocked the yellow signal time at less than 3 seconds, in violation of both state law and federal regulations. A local newspaper, The Nashville Scene, then confirmed his findings.

Read the Full Story

6) Union City, California
In 2005, Union City, California was caught trapping motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by state law. As a result, the city was forced to refund more than $1 million in red light camera fines.

The city’s violation came to light after Dave Goodson, an engineer, received a ticket and realized that he did not have sufficient time to stop before the light had turned red. As a result of his inquiries, Union City’s traffic engineers admitted that they had set the yellow signal time at Union City Boulevard and Lowry Road at 3 seconds, despite the state law mandating the time be 4.3 seconds or greater.

Authorities said that the yellow was too short long before the cameras were installed, but that no effective system was in place to verify the timing of the traffic signals despite their direct impact on safety.

Read the Full Story

Closing Notes:
These are only the cities that have been caught; it’s likely that this happens much more than the general public has been led to believe. Many cities avoid the bad publicity involved with shortening yellow lights by installing the cameras at intersections with inadequate yellow light times from the beginning.

If you or a family member receive an unjustified red-light violation ticket, it may be worth your time to check the yellow light duration at the intersection where the ticket was given out.
Feel free to read the wole story

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

Check this out.

http://www.speedtrap.org/city/1631/New Haven

http://www.motorists.org/

Bottom line this is about profit not safety.

There is no reason that Threefifths' suggestions cannot be implemented alongside a responsible red light camera program.

We have once again seen examples of systems gone horribly awry, but have seen nothing to indicate that New Haven is doomed to the same fate. We're starting from scratch here, and there's nothing to say that we can't avert these issues. What if we were to have a civilian review board, with some way to guarantee a diversity of viewpoints? Not saying this is necessary, but the point is that there's plenty that we can do to avoid the problems other cities have had.

John Cain was misquoted. And for the record, any child would be lucky to have him as a teacher. I'm not a betting person, but if I were... I would say everyone that has complained about his "quote" has also gone through a yellow light in their driving careers.