Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.

HELP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Start here.

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/operatio ... 120505.pdf

You probably won't be able to beat it. If you could prove they system didn't meet the legal requirements... maybe. But, it's a big enough money-maker they are usually run just right! With a virtually unliminted supply of income from them, it's easy to stay on the up and up. If someone else was driving, you sign an affidavit telling them who it was. They'll go after them. If they say they weren't driving... who knows... maybe they'll come back at you. Just don't get caught lying I guess.

Red-light cameras suck. I drove about 400 miles a few weekends ago to FL and saw 5 of them. Pure revenue-generation... it's the 'hip' way to balance your city's budget!

EXTORTION!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
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.

HELP
Well, you could always go slower and show the camera your GFL. That might work. "It could happen".

:rotfl: :rotfl: :woohoo:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
My brother just got one of these tickets. I told him to contest it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Very important detail.

They can't charge you with a crime with only one of those cameras. It falls under a subsection of the "failure to obey a traffic control device" law. It is a civil offense, not criminal, with a maximum fine of $75. You get no "points" and it does not go on your driving record. Because it is civil, they don't have to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" only have to show a "preponderance of the evidence." At least that is how (my lawyer told me) the state law is written and enforced. I don't know the particulars of any local laws, nor whether they would be preempted by the state statute.
:ianal:
 

·
Token Liberal Hippie
Joined
·
13,680 Posts
legacy38 said:
I believe them to be unconstitutional.
They are unconstitutional.

The Constitution guarantees your right to face your accuser, no?

And a video camera can't exactly take an oath. You can't face it in court. You can't ask it questions.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,863 Posts
If you fight it and lose it will become a moving violation.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
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.
(i) Testifies under oath in open court that he or she was not
the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged
violation;
(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;
or
(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.
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.

If you fight it and lose it will become a moving 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
There is a rumor out there that you do not have to give up a name...due to the fact that you do not have to testify.

My question is that there was a red light present over the two left lanes not the right lane, which was a turn right only to I-75. There was no yield sign or any verbal sign (that you can see in the video). I slowed and coasted turning right to I-75 South. No picture of me...as I am not the owner of the auto. A civil matter...who the hell did I commit a tort on...the po-po's...who the hell died and made them the ambastards to Tifton?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,075 Posts
gsusnake said:
legacy38 said:
I believe them to be unconstitutional.
They are unconstitutional.

The Constitution guarantees your right to face your accuser, no?

And a video camera can't exactly take an oath. You can't face it in court. You can't ask it questions.
Dude, I'm in the choir.

I know that locally a challenge means that the court has to bring in a techinition to verify the camera is in proper working order, but I still don't think that meets constitutional muster. I'd be more inclined to accept them if the picutre showed the driver, but it is my understanding that they do not.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,926 Posts
legacy38 said:
I'd be more inclined to accept them if the picutre showed the driver, but it is my understanding that they do not.
Your understanding is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
legacy38 said:
I'd be more inclined to accept them if the picutre showed the driver...
Why? They have been studied and shown to increase traffic collisions where they are installed.

Is gov't revenue worth sacrificing your safety?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,075 Posts
mzmtg said:
legacy38 said:
I'd be more inclined to accept them if the picutre showed the driver...
Why? They have been studied and shown to increase traffic collisions where they are installed.

Is gov't revenue worth sacrificing your safety?
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.

If the pictures showed the driver and it could be proven that the camera was working correctly, I would be inclined to accept them under the Constitution.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,863 Posts
foshizzle said:
If you fight it and lose it will become a moving violation.
Where is that in the law?

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
This has come up in the threads before and I had an interesting comment but due to other recent posts by moderators & good points they made I won't re-post it. But searching & googling can turn up all sorts of interesting things about the cameras and their.... inadequacies?... :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
Just FYI so nobody wastes money:

Those sprays that they market to make your tag "invisible" don't work. I saw a consumer report on TV about these where they tested them and the photos still came out clear enough to "convict" you.

Technology can be used for good...or for bad. These cameras are about as constitutional as the old fashioned road block that we have discussed on another thread. Just another example of Big Brother watching.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top