Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

cbs12.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 703 posts

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#111

Post by 0x3f »

boc wrote: post #71
t1234s wrote: post #32

Having driven in the UK and coming back to the US I miss all of the roundabouts. Any reason (aside from contractor profits) towns use 4-way traffic light systems vs a roundabout and some yield signs?

Traffic lights can be tuned to create "green waves" that allows for efficient flow of traffic along arteries through a city. You can adjust the timing throughout the day to help alleviate congestion. In rural areas, heavy machinery/commercial vehicles may need to make a very wide turn through the intersection. Traffic circles are fine for a lot of applications but they aren't strictly better than lights in all circum…

I don't see how that could possibly be true. The same flow has to be achieved either way, and lights will always have some margin of inefficiency in switching. Seems lights will always be strictly worse than roundabouts in this sense.

There are also solutions for large vehicles where the center is raised but not impassible.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#112

Post by smsm42 »

cromka wrote: post #10
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…

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 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).

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#113

Post by cromka »

0x3f wrote: post #70
cromka wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#114

Post by izacus »

hypeatei wrote: post #31
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…

> 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 "... 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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#115

Post by jonahhorowitz »

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…

In California at least (I'm not sure about Florida law), you can go to court and state "the state hasn't proved that I was the driver," and if the photos are too blurry to show who the driver was, the state loses. You don't have to tell them who the driver was, just show that they don't have enough evidence that it was you. I believe this approach is more consistent with the constitution.[1]

[1]:https://caticketking.com/help-center/photo-red-light-help/ph...

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#116

Post by mothballed »

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…

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#117

Post by SoftTalker »

singleshot_ wrote: post #85
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.

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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#118

Post by joshuamorton »

archontes wrote: post #23
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…

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.

> 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.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#119

Post by shakahshakah »

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…

New Jersey abandoned their red-light camera laws after ticket challenges involving yellow-light lengths. The length should be proportional to the posted speed limit (e.g. 5.5 seconds for 50 mph), but many lights were found to have incorrect timing (e.g. 2.5 seconds for 50 mph).

Also, I think at that time some questionable arrangements surfaced between the operators of the automated ticketing system(s) and the towns and/or counties involved.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#120

Post by burkaman »

b112 wrote: post #106
burkaman wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsibl…

Everywhere I've been, the owner of the car gets the ticket, and it's up to them to figure out if they were driving, or if not them, collect from whomever they loaned the car to. No camera I've ever seen tries to figure out who the driver is. The logic is, it's your car, you're responsible for loaning it/owning it, so you get the fine. Don't like that? Don't loan your car out. The trade off is no points are deducted f…

I've never gotten an automated ticket so I don't know what is normal. It doesn't seem insane to give it to the vehicle owner, but I can certainly understand feeling indignant about getting a ticket for something you didn't do, especially if it's a new process.
Post reply on HN