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

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#241

Post by tootie » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:30 PM UTC

fusslo wrote: post #198

After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure. Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered…

As someone who lives next to an intersection where cars routinely run red lights, this truly sucks and I hope it gets overturned. I understand the judge's reasoning, but running red lights is dangerous and we need much stricter enforcement.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#242

Post by kazinator » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:31 PM UTC

> "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.

Of course they don't want to be identified after blankly admitting they were ticketed; i.e. they were the one driving, in fact.

Entitled prick: running red lights, and crying "unfair".

> 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."

Complete nonsense; why is the article even quoting this mouth breather?

These cameras work in terms of determining that the given vehicle was involved in the alleged violation. There is nothing random about it. It's not randomly pinning a drummed up allegation on vehicles not involved in a violation. The choice of pinning the ticket on the registered owner is also not random.

Typically these systems take at least two shots, moments apart, one showing the vehicle not yet in the intersection (whose traffic light is clearly red) and then the same vehicle in the intersection a split second later, providing evidence that the vehicle entered the intersection on a red.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#243

Post by triceratops » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:31 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #142

spankalee wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's why they are being automated There are many citizens, like me, begging for red light cameras so something can be done about the rash of crashes and killings from willfully reckless drivers.

Why would a willfully reckless driver care about a camera? In my experience preventative measures only work on people who are conscientious, they do not work on people who do not give a shit

Then the camera lets us identify and take reckless drivers off the road.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#244

Post by triceratops » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:32 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #88

mchusma wrote: post #38

Red light running is bad...but I think the solution to this problem at this point is just "self driving cars". With some exceptions, I would just focus all jurisdictions on this future and avoid policy inline with a world full of self driving cars. Currently in the US, most places feel like you need a car, and many US laws are designed with this in mind. In 5 years, this will no longer be true, so laws should reflect…

Most people like to drive and don't share your views, and it will be that way in five years too.

I like to drive. I support taking asshole drivers' licenses. They ruin my driving experience.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#245

Post by tsimionescu » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:32 PM UTC

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…

> They have every right to question you.

Sure, but they have no right to issue you a ticket without proving you broke the law. Same as in the gun case: they have every right to question you, but they can't convict you for murder based solely on evidence that it was your gun that killed the victim.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#246

Post by garaetjjte » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:33 PM UTC

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…

In Poland, ticket enforcement from speed cameras is about 50% (because if you don't accept it voluntarily, they need to file court case and burden of proof is on the government here, as with any other criminal case).

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#247

Post by horsawlarway » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:35 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #216

fusslo wrote: post #198

After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure. Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered…

Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?

possibly, although I suspect the quote from above:

> Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution...

Is going to matter here. A moving violation (ex: red light) is quite different from a non-moving violation (ex: parking) in how they're handled, and often how they're classified.

Ex - my in state, a moving violation is a criminal misdemeanor, while a non-moving violation is entirely civil.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#248

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:35 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #216

fusslo wrote: post #198

After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure. Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered…

Doesn't the same logic apply to parking tickets?

Do parking tickets result in “a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record”?

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#249

Post by burningChrome » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:35 PM UTC

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #239

fusslo wrote: post #198

After reading the 21 page order, I do tend to agree with the judge The judge frames the red light camera scheme as a revenue generating scheme, not a public safety measure. Additionally, "A distinctive feature of the statutory scheme is its assignment of guilt to the registered owner rather than the driver of the vehicle". and "If there are multiple registered owners, the citation is issued to the 'first' registered…

I've followed a few cases surrounding traffic cameras that have been ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that individuals have the right to face their accuser. The question in those cases came down to if the operators of the cam can be considered "accusers." They widely considered that of course the cam itself didn't count as an accuser, but the question was how "automated" the system was. If there was a human who…

They started putting them up in the midwest where I live. The interesting thing is if you get a ticket and just pay it? Nothing. If you get a ticket and you challenge it, the judge will immediately throw it out for the reason you pointed out or just dismiss it before it even gets to court by sending out a form letter saying they nullified the ticket, no reason to pay it.

So in essence, if you know this is what they're doing, you're good. But they're not telling people so the money grift continues unabated and in place.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#250

Post by tcmart14 » Mon, Mar 09, 2026, 8:36 PM UTC

youarentrightjr wrote: post #179

SoftTalker wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right to drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a license and other regulations. One of the conditions is that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for it. Do you know you can be licensed to drive a vehicle without owning one, and similarly, own one without being licensed to drive it? Why would the owner of the property be responsible for someone…

I would say they could be, but its needs to under strict circumstances. Easiest is with guns, I loan you my gun knowing your going to go and use it to commit a crime, but that is covered under being an accessory. With cars, the only situation I can think of is if you loaned your car to someone you knew was drunk and was going to drive. Or you loaned me the car knowing I was going to use it as a get away vehicle in a bank robbery. But I assume the second case would also be covered under being an accessory to the crime.

But for the purposes of traffic tickets, yea, its ridiculous. It also has a lot of faults. I got a traffic ticket from a red light camera for a car I owned when I was stationed in California. The ticket came to me in Oregon 5 years AFTER I traded that vehicle in (I traded it in right before moving to Oregon) and the traffic cam ticket was from Texas, a state I've never driven a vehicle in. My only presence in Texas has been being in the airport in Dallas. The ticket was also for a year prior to when I received it. So I hadn't owned it in 4 years when it ran a red light in Texas.