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

491–500 of 703 posts

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#491

Post by dghlsakjg »

interestpiqued wrote: post #254
spunker540 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an intersection while the light is red, and should apply to the registered owner.

If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder someone with it, should I be liable?

You absolutely can be, especially if you knew, or should have known, that the knife was likely to be used illegally.

While a bit more extreme than your example, there have been multiple cases where the parents of a school shooter have been held responsible because they provided access to a weapon when there were warning signs.

On the less extreme end of the spectrum, this is the same reason why you have to pretend that you are buying a "water pipe for tobacco" and not a bong if you don't want to get kicked out of the headshop (in places where that is still illegal).

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#492

Post by ak217 »

_heimdall wrote: post #484
hamdingers wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. Hopefully other states can…

Interesting that your use of "solves for this" is with regards to the end result of being able to write more red light tickets. In my view, the courts solved this by deeming at least certain uses of red light cameras illegal.

No, their use of “solves for this” is with regards to disincentivizing an incredibly dangerous habit that randomly kills the most vulnerable bystanders in the vicinity at the rate of many thousands per year

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#493

Post by dotancohen »

hamdingers wrote: post #253
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…

California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. Hopefully other states can…

So to work around civil protections in law, California now does not consider speeding to be an offense that should impact one's driving privilege or insurance? Just so they could collect that sweet fine money?

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#495

Post by joshuamorton »

pixl97 wrote: post #172
joshuamorton wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is enough to say absolutely nothing, and request the government to prove its case. Only in criminal contexts. In civil contexts your silence can absolutely be an adverse inference. Usually these red-light cameras are civil penalties, not criminal (fines with no points). The judge here seems to be saying that these are "quasi-criminal" because, uhh, I guess there are penalties.

In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty and in many ways can be used against you in violation of your constitutional rights. Hence is the most likely reason the judge is calling it quasi-criminal.

> In some ways the government bringing civil charges against you is rather bullshitty

I think there are circumstances where this is true, but I don't think it's true in the general sense. And I really don't think red light cameras, which are incredible for public safety and a really fair enforcement tool, are a good example of a civil rights violation.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#496

Post by linkregister »

pino999 wrote: post #471
linkregister wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is understandable that someone who only lived in the United States or a low-enforcement place would have this world view. I'm more sanguine about the trajectory of our society. Australia, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, etc, have well-enforced traffic laws. Speeding is the exception rather than the rule, unlike the United States, where one can expect the flow of traffic to be 10-20 miles per hour over the posted li…

In the Netherlands fines are insane. If you pick up your garbage bin two hours too late from the street corner, you pay 210 euros. On the other side, if you sell drugs to kids and have a weapon, nobody touches you. Yes, you can sometimes walk around legally with a beer bottle here.

That must depend on the town. I saw people hanging their trash bags on the trash poles several days early, no consequences.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#497

Post by matheusmoreira »

Larrikin wrote: post #489
matheusmoreira wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use your eyes, your situational awareness and your best judgement. The traffic light is not god's word. In my neighborhood there used to be a traffic light that would be red for a long time despite not usefully regulating any traffic whatsoever. It stopped traffic despite the fact no other traffic could possibly conflict with it. People realized this and routinely ran that light with zero consequences. At some point…

Stop training yourself to run red lights before you kill some body. The correct action is to constantly bug your local representative to fix the problem, not break a law written in blood.

The correct action is to understand why certain barriers were erected in your way before attempting to demolish them. If you don't understand, just respect the barrier. If you understand, you know if, when and under which conditions it can be safely bypassed. Use your judgement.

Jaywalking laws were also written in blood. People break them every single day regardless because they have eyes and can look both ways to determine if it is safe to cross the street before actually doing it.

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#498

Post by unselect5917 »

estearum wrote: post #487
CWuestefeld wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that makes wildly different incentives to enforce, depending on the target. We all know this stuff is all about revenue enhancement, and in that capacity, the targets will become the whales.

Automated enforcement where fines are anchored to the KBB value of the car is The Way Enlightenment and utopia across that simple bridge

Devil's advocate: billionaire driving a beater (I'm not a billionaire, but I drive a beater)

Re: Florida judge rules red light camera tickets are unconstitutional

#499

Post by ihavekids »

hamdingers wrote: post #253
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…

California's new speed camera pilot (AB 645) explicitly solves for this. Tickets issued by these cameras are civil penalties issued to the owner of the vehicle, like parking tickets, rather than a criminal moving violation. This means the tickets are just as constitutional as parking tickets. It also means penalties are limited to fines and can't impact your driving privilege or insurance. Hopefully other states can…

I don't this is is as cut and dry as you're making it seem. See SEC v. Jarkesy. The Supreme Court decided that, when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant has the right to a trial by jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment.
Post reply on HN