red light cameras unconstitutional

red light cameras unconstitutional

Posted in the Morristown Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
citizen one

Morristown, TN

#1 Mar 12, 2010
Red light and speeding tickets have always been a criminal case in our courtrooms. Criminal cases give the defendant certain constitutional rights such as the right to question his or her accuser directly. This means that if a cop gives you a ticket you have the constitutional right to question him about the incident in court to defend yourself. Now since these photo enforced tickets have been given out by cameras all across the country local governmnets have changed the town codes to make these tickets into civil violations. So it is not a criminal case anymore it is a civil case in the court. You lose your constitutional right to question your accuser since there was no police officer present at the time of the incident. It makes it impossible to question your accuser directly in the courtroom to defend yourself. Another way that your constitutional rights are taken away is that in a criminal case the burden of proof falls on the prosecution and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is just not son in a civil case where the defendent carries the burden of proof and has to prove their innocence. This also takes away your fifth ammendment, the right to remain silent. Because you can't remain silent and prove your innocence. There are other constitutional issues with these camera tickets as well. I suggest anyone who wants to know to do some google research. Just google red light cameras unconstitutional.
citizen one

Morristown, TN

#2 Mar 12, 2010
Judges all across the country are making rulings that say these cameras are unconstitutional and they are being banned in many states as well. Also people are signing petitions to have the vote placed on their local ballots to remove thses cameras from their town or city. On every occasion the people have voted much in favor to remove these cameras. In a town like Morristown all it would take is 1 or 2 registered voters to get maybe 1000 signatures of other registered voters and the city officials would have no choice but to put it to a vote on the next ballot. There is no doubt that the majority of people would vote to remove the cameras.
wonder

Jonesborough, TN

#3 Mar 12, 2010
wonder what they would do if I were to glow by one of their speed cameras at say 150MPH which mt car can do very well.
Would they still consider that w civil matter or would they try to make it a criminal violation because of the excessive speed. I know if a cop sees you going that fast chances are it will be more than a $50 ticket and no points on your license?
I may try it just to have the picture they send me of my car going 150 through town.
I think that picture alone would be worth the $50 to me. LOL
I would frame it and show it at car shows when I had my car on display.
Actually

Morristown, TN

#4 Mar 12, 2010
Sorry but Tennessee's Attorney General ruled about 2 weeks ago and said that traffic cameras are NOT unconstitutional. It was in the Knox News Sentinel. You could probably still find the article on their website. That ruling won't be the end of this issue, but don't expect anything to change where the traffic cameras are concerned any time soon. There are cameras everywhere nowadays. Just look across the front of the building next time you are walking into WalMart. And there are cameras inside stores now too. Most shoplifters are prosecuted using the video from those cameras.
Jason

Morristown, TN

#5 Mar 12, 2010
Live with it you Jackass's or get off Topix!
Unkle sparky

Morristown, TN

#6 Mar 12, 2010
Actually wrote:
Sorry but Tennessee's Attorney General ruled about 2 weeks ago and said that traffic cameras are NOT unconstitutional. It was in the Knox News Sentinel. You could probably still find the article on their website. That ruling won't be the end of this issue, but don't expect anything to change where the traffic cameras are concerned any time soon. There are cameras everywhere nowadays. Just look across the front of the building next time you are walking into WalMart. And there are cameras inside stores now too. Most shoplifters are prosecuted using the video from those cameras.
Well actually the camera in a public place in and of itself isn't illegal. The attorney general's opinion is just that an opinion. It's my opinion that the revenue created is swaying judgement in this matter. I say this because other states have deemed them illegal. I resent the hipocrisy of those who oppose healthcare reform on the grounds of not wanting govt. control involved in healthcare but somehow it's ok for this type of intrusion by the govt. If the intersections are dangerous lets make some engineering changes, lets put an officer on that intersection (he would more than pay for his salary and equipment and could respond to real emergencies close by,lets see a camera do that)Not to mention a person running a red light in an intersection might well be under the influence and an actual officer could get them off the road, same thing with habitual offenders. All the cameras are goin to do is turn these offenses into a for profit situation for the city and are not going to get the bad drivers off the road.
lawman

Nashville, TN

#7 Mar 12, 2010
yeah, what jason said
Unkle sparky

Morristown, TN

#8 Mar 12, 2010
lawman wrote:
yeah, what jason said
whatever...
Mom

Corbin, KY

#9 Mar 12, 2010
Unkle sparky wrote:
<quoted text>Well actually the camera in a public place in and of itself isn't illegal. The attorney general's opinion is just that an opinion. It's my opinion that the revenue created is swaying judgement in this matter. I say this because other states have deemed them illegal. I resent the hipocrisy of those who oppose healthcare reform on the grounds of not wanting govt. control involved in healthcare but somehow it's ok for this type of intrusion by the govt. If the intersections are dangerous lets make some engineering changes, lets put an officer on that intersection (he would more than pay for his salary and equipment and could respond to real emergencies close by,lets see a camera do that)Not to mention a person running a red light in an intersection might well be under the influence and an actual officer could get them off the road, same thing with habitual offenders. All the cameras are goin to do is turn these offenses into a for profit situation for the city and are not going to get the bad drivers off the road.
When is a law deemed unconstitutional in the USA. Doesn't the Supreme Court say what's unconsitiuional and what's not?

Also, If Joe over there robs a bank and it's on camera, is the tape admissible? If so, can the defendant argue with what the camera shows?

There would be no push to have cameras at Red light intersections of so many people didn't break the law and get away with it because we hadn't hired a police officer to stand there and hand out tickets.

Why even have red lights if we don't care if people stop at them? Just make it a four-way stop and everyone will naturally and politely take their turn.

I'm all for health insurance reform and for cameras at intersections. I would also appreciate cameras and radar on overpasses on the interstate.

You only need be afraid of the cameras if you make a habit of breaking the law.
Actually

Morristown, TN

#10 Mar 12, 2010
Unkle sparky wrote:
<quoted text>Well actually the camera in a public place in and of itself isn't illegal. The attorney general's opinion is just that an opinion. It's my opinion that the revenue created is swaying judgement in this matter. I say this because other states have deemed them illegal. I resent the hipocrisy of those who oppose healthcare reform on the grounds of not wanting govt. control involved in healthcare but somehow it's ok for this type of intrusion by the govt. If the intersections are dangerous lets make some engineering changes, lets put an officer on that intersection (he would more than pay for his salary and equipment and could respond to real emergencies close by,lets see a camera do that)Not to mention a person running a red light in an intersection might well be under the influence and an actual officer could get them off the road, same thing with habitual offenders. All the cameras are goin to do is turn these offenses into a for profit situation for the city and are not going to get the bad drivers off the road.
I think you are preaching to the choir. I think everyone knows that the cameras are about money and not safety. That being the case then, the only way to get rid of them is going to be if they stop making money. I drive through those intersections all the time and I don't get a ticket because I don't run the traffic lights and I come to a complete stop before turning on red. As long as towns are making a lot of money off of those cameras there are only going to be more traffic cameras.
Unkle sparky

Morristown, TN

#11 Mar 12, 2010
Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
When is a law deemed unconstitutional in the USA. Doesn't the Supreme Court say what's unconsitiuional and what's not?
Also, If Joe over there robs a bank and it's on camera, is the tape admissible? If so, can the defendant argue with what the camera shows?
There would be no push to have cameras at Red light intersections of so many people didn't break the law and get away with it because we hadn't hired a police officer to stand there and hand out tickets.
Why even have red lights if we don't care if people stop at them? Just make it a four-way stop and everyone will naturally and politely take their turn.
I'm all for health insurance reform and for cameras at intersections. I would also appreciate cameras and radar on overpasses on the interstate.
You only need be afraid of the cameras if you make a habit of breaking the law.
You completely missed the point. My opposition to the cameras have nothing to do with wanting to break the law. It's a fact that accidents increase at intersections equipped with ticket cameras. Some argue that they are only fender benders and better than the deadly T-bone crashes thes cameras are supposed to help prevent (but I can't find an independant study to back that claim) but what I do know is that most of our elderly drivers are the ones who have slower reaction times, most want to obey the law, will panic break, are more subject to serious injury from the rear end type crash. No I don't think they are constitutional, I don't like law enforcement being turned into a for profit proposition. Typically before it was profitable to have dangerous intersections, if an intersection was troublesome, engineering changes were made to fix problems to prevent accidents and cut down on violations. Changes in light timing, pre-warning lights, shields/blinders to improve visibility of the light, reducing speed zones approaching light controlled intersections, fact is if we still have so many violators the cameras aren't doing their job either and we are still in danger from the very reason they were put up to start with and now we're in greater danger of being rear ended ! If an officer is "standing there handing out tickets" eventually the habitual offender will accumulate enough points against their license to lose and their insurance will become unaffordable as well.
Unkle sparky

Morristown, TN

#12 Mar 12, 2010
Actually wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are preaching to the choir. I think everyone knows that the cameras are about money and not safety. That being the case then, the only way to get rid of them is going to be if they stop making money. I drive through those intersections all the time and I don't get a ticket because I don't run the traffic lights and I come to a complete stop before turning on red. As long as towns are making a lot of money off of those cameras there are only going to be more traffic cameras.
I agree...I've had one ticket in thirty years and that was as a teen.
URaSADsheeple

Hendersonville, TN

#13 Apr 27, 2010
You brainwashed sheeple are just too much. These are traffic codes not LAWS. Man up say no and throw the damn SCAMERA tickets in the trash. Driving and the RIGHT TO TRAVEL are different. Codes are for "DRIVERS" who are using the roads for commerce like a taxi driver or a truck driver. YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED
A G A I N !
links

Morristown, TN

#14 Apr 27, 2010
URaSADsheeple wrote:
You brainwashed sheeple are just too much. These are traffic codes not LAWS. Man up say no and throw the damn SCAMERA tickets in the trash. Driving and the RIGHT TO TRAVEL are different. Codes are for "DRIVERS" who are using the roads for commerce like a taxi driver or a truck driver. YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED
A G A I N !
please site your sources
Bob

Newport, TN

#15 Apr 28, 2010
Unkle sparky wrote:
<quoted text>You completely missed the point. My opposition to the cameras have nothing to do with wanting to break the law. It's a fact that accidents increase at intersections equipped with ticket cameras. Some argue that they are only fender benders and better than the deadly T-bone crashes thes cameras are supposed to help prevent (but I can't find an independant study to back that claim) but what I do know is that most of our elderly drivers are the ones who have slower reaction times, most want to obey the law, will panic break, are more subject to serious injury from the rear end type crash. No I don't think they are constitutional, I don't like law enforcement being turned into a for profit proposition. Typically before it was profitable to have dangerous intersections, if an intersection was troublesome, engineering changes were made to fix problems to prevent accidents and cut down on violations. Changes in light timing, pre-warning lights, shields/blinders to improve visibility of the light, reducing speed zones approaching light controlled intersections, fact is if we still have so many violators the cameras aren't doing their job either and we are still in danger from the very reason they were put up to start with and now we're in greater danger of being rear ended ! If an officer is "standing there handing out tickets" eventually the habitual offender will accumulate enough points against their license to lose and their insurance will become unaffordable as well.
Heard on the radio this morning that some people in Knoxville are filing a class action suit AGAINST the red light cameras and they said it was the same company that has the cameras in Morristown. This may be an option for people in Morristown.
G Even

New Tazewell, TN

#16 Apr 28, 2010
links wrote:
<quoted text>
please site your sources
What, you're too lazy to use google?
links

Morristown, TN

#17 Apr 28, 2010
G Even wrote:
<quoted text>
What, you're too lazy to use google?
No, I'm thorough enough to filter my input. Besides, if someone makes a comment that far out of the tone of the conversation, the burden of proof relies on that person. The irony is, he accuses everyone of being "sheeple" while expecting everyone to follow his accusations blindly. Wouldn't that still make us sheeple, but with a different shephard? So I say again, please site your sources.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#18 Apr 28, 2010
It is more about the almighty dollar more than it is about safety.Perhaps if safety was paramount, then the intersection at Cherokee Park and 25E would have been one of the FIRST intersections to receive a red light camera.Though instead, they are placed at high traffic volume intersections with congested traffic such as in town.

They know the congested traffic situations will produce more tickets.Don't let any highway safety nut fool you, it is always the priority of funds over the safety issue.They want to holler and scream safety as a feel good overtone to make the generation of funds more acceptable.No one and I mean no one will ever convince me that safety is the over riding factor with these scameras.

I have preached and screamed my fingers off on this keyboard about it before.To me and a lot of other folks, it is MORE ABOUT THE FUNDS AS OPPOSED TO SAFETY.I may be blind, but I still can see in the dark.
Thyme

Morristown, TN

#19 Apr 29, 2010
links wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm thorough enough to filter my input. Besides, if someone makes a comment that far out of the tone of the conversation, the burden of proof relies on that person. The irony is, he accuses everyone of being "sheeple" while expecting everyone to follow his accusations blindly. Wouldn't that still make us sheeple, but with a different shephard? So I say again, please site your sources.
You're right.
Southern Yankee

Morristown, TN

#20 Apr 29, 2010
The thing that bothers me most is that the money leaving this area to pay for these cameras and their upkeep could be used to pay for more police or upgrade police salaries. It seems the powers that be always fix one problem while creating another.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Morristown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lesbian Couple Kicked out of 1st Baptist 8 min JustSayin 208
Scott purkey 18 min anonymous 1
Taylor ford prostitute 42 min Jason 32
Mysa how many teams? 44 min SMH 6
Sarah Taylor at JTEKT 1 hr You wish 2
Chris Lawson 1 hr Nathan Wallace Duke 1
Dairy queen reopening? 2 hr lol 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Morristown Mortgages