Well, you could always go slower and show the camera your GFL. That might work. "It could happen".Mastino177 said:Alright...I have a question about these things. Are they legal? How can you beat one?
What if the owner wasn't driving? What if the pictures are inconclusive? Tell me where to look guys.
They are unconstitutional.legacy38 said:I believe them to be unconstitutional.
There is only one defense that I'm aware of that will work. If you were not driving and there is no picture of you driving, you can sign a sworn and notarized affidavit at the court house, that states you were not driving at the time the pictures were taken.
And I think it's perfectly legal to loan your car to someone you don't know... or only have a 'name' for. Bad judgement for sure.. .but illegal? I dunno. "I think his name was Joe... he just wanted to go get diapers for his kids". I bet it would work... BUT you are signing a notarized affidavit... so if you get busted, expect to fry. Georgia law does not allow pictures to be taken of the driver. Only pictures from the rear of the vehicle.(i) Testifies under oath in open court that he or she was not
the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged
(ii) Presents to the court prior to the return date
established on the citation a certified copy of a police
report showing that the vehicle had been reported to the
police as stolen prior to the time of the alleged violation;
(iii) Submits to the court prior to the return date
established on the citation a sworn notarized statement
identifying the name of the operator of the vehicle at the
time of the alleged violation.
Where is that in the law?
(4) A violation for which a civil penalty is imposed pursuant
this subsection shall not be considered a moving traffic
violation, for the purpose of points assessment under
40-5-57. Such violation shall be deemed noncriminal,
imposition of a civil penalty pursuant to this subsection
not be deemed a conviction and shall not be made a part
operating record of the person upon whom such liability
imposed, nor shall it be used for any insurance purposes
provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage.
Dude, I'm in the choir.gsusnake said:
My issue with them is reasonable doubt/burden of proof on the state, and I don't care that they are termed as civil. In my opinion, the state hasn't met its burden of proof simply by producing a picture of a vehicle running a lot. If an officer sees a vehicle run a light but can't stop the vehicle before it turns into a convenience store and the occupants enter the store without the officer being able to identify the driver, the officer can't simply cite the owner of the vehicle, even if present. I don't see where there is any difference between the scenario that I laid out and the pictures of a vehicle without showing the driver.mzmtg said:
Where is that in the law?foshizzle said:
It may be different here, but that's what happened to my father when he got one in Memphis. Because he tried to fight it, they has him IDed as the person driving the car. The main reason thet they aren't moving violations is that they don't have the DL number of the driver.