Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional • Hacker News Board

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#91

Post by 0x3f » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:11 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #47

archontes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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,…

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#92

Post by HDThoreaun » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:11 PM UTC

spankalee wrote: post #54

1shooner wrote: post #4

>"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be identified. The person that does the determination when you ran the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket." This is the opposite of my understanding of red light cameras. I always considered the supposed impartial application of…

This is funny quote. Is the driver even disputing that they were the driver? They seem like they're just mad they got caught. Maybe they just stop running red lights?

If someone is using your car they cant legally give you a ticket. If the picture taken doesnt clearly show you theoretically it needs to be dropped but of course thats not how it works in reality

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#93

Post by cromka » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

archontes wrote: post #75

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#94

Post by SoftTalker » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

elteto wrote: post #68

cromka wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#95

Post by brewdad » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #36

1shooner wrote: post #4

>"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be identified. The person that does the determination when you ran the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket." This is the opposite of my understanding of red light cameras. I always considered the supposed impartial application of…

Systems don’t necessarily react based on the legal situation. A red light camera that’s improperly installed, poorly maintained, etc could essentially act randomly from a drivers perspective.

Which is why they are supposed to have a sworn officer review the camera footage. I have certainly had a camera flash me while waiting to turn right on red, still outside the intersection. They never sent me a ticket however since I had clearly not done anything illegal.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#96

Post by dangood » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #2

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…

This is such a strange argument, as any reasonable person should know or be able to find out who was driving their car at a specific point in time. But also easy to solve such absurd positions - Change the law to say the owner is responsible for any and all infractions and loses the right to ride and own a car for such infractions unless they identify another driver. But I don't see who wins in this scenario, it is much more logical and fair to go in with the aim to penalise the driver, and for this purpose ask the owner to confirm the driver.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#97

Post by burkaman » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

1shooner wrote: post #4

>"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be identified. The person that does the determination when you ran the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket." This is the opposite of my understanding of red light cameras. I always considered the supposed impartial application of…

This person is not articulating it well but I think they are complaining that the person identified as the driver is random. Presumably the camera can impartially identify a car running a light, but not necessarily who is driving.

"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they - it's just not fair. The person that - [let me start over] - the determination when you ran the light [of who is responsible], it's just a random whoever they want to pick ... [they] pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket."

Obviously it's not actually random, it just defaults to the vehicle's owner, but with a generous reading I think you can interpret the quote this way based on the context of the article.

I think it's kind of irresponsible and lazy for the publication to use a verbatim verbal quote like this, when it isn't from someone notable who really needs to be quoted. If you don't understand what they're saying then don't put it in the article, and if you do understand then put in a sentence explaining what they're saying.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#98

Post by maest » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

db48x wrote: post #11

Steve Lehto has an analysis of the opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinCGmdj-jQ One interesting point is that the Judge also spent some ink criticizing the law because paying the ticket removes the ticket from your driving record. This means that habitual bad drivers can get away with the same infractions over and over again as long as they pay the fines quickly. This bypasses the State’s points system that w…

Loosely related:

There is a driver in NYC who gets almost 300 speeding tickets per year. They've paid their fines, so they're allowed to keep driving. Apparently, since the fines come from speed camera, they can't revoke their license.

https://www.jalopnik.com/1836395/worst-driver-in-ny-563-tick...

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#99

Post by tjohns » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

mikrl wrote: post #60

1shooner wrote: post #4

>"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be identified. The person that does the determination when you ran the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket." This is the opposite of my understanding of red light cameras. I always considered the supposed impartial application of…

In North America, from what I understand, the issue is that the authorities need to verify your identity in order to ticket you and traffic cameras don’t do that whereas a police officer does. I agree the automated systems are impartial, but they cannot ID you without it becoming super invasive. In Europe and places with more omnipresent cameras, the laws are such that they can ticket you without needing to ID. The c…

It depends on whether the ticket is considered a criminal or civil matter in the US.

For a criminal case, yes, they need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which would require that you are positively identified as the driver.

For a civil case, they only need to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" - which is a much lower standard.

This is why tickets from red-light cameras in many states are zero-point citations. You're still charged a fine, but there's no finding of guilt attached to the offense, which keeps it away from being considered a criminal matter. (This is the same way parking tickets work.)

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#100

Post by forinti » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

mikrl wrote: post #60

1shooner wrote: post #4

>"I've been ticketed here twice, and it's ridiculous because they it's just not fair," one driver said who didn't want to be identified. The person that does the determination when you ran the light, it's just a random. Whoever they want to pick, pick you to say, okay, you're gonna pay the ticket." This is the opposite of my understanding of red light cameras. I always considered the supposed impartial application of…

In North America, from what I understand, the issue is that the authorities need to verify your identity in order to ticket you and traffic cameras don’t do that whereas a police officer does. I agree the automated systems are impartial, but they cannot ID you without it becoming super invasive. In Europe and places with more omnipresent cameras, the laws are such that they can ticket you without needing to ID. The c…

In Brazil, you can identify who was driving the car and they will get charged with the fine and get the points on their licence. You can do it all using an app on your phone. It's really simple.

I don't know what happens if the other person denies it though.