Georgia Packing banner

21 - 40 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
ptsmith24 said:
I wonder what they do about people with temporary dealer plates or the oh-so-popular "tag applied for" cardboard rig...
Throw them in the dumpster and go on to the next one. What else can they do? Issue an APB for "the tan Volvo that was at such-and-such intersection last Thursday at 3:24 PM"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Rammstein said:
Thanks for the link jgullock.
Your quite welcome. I also stumbled on a webpage a little while back that described step-by-step about discovery for these cameras, it was REALLY good. Can't find it as of yet. You basically innundate them with records requests for every little thing and when they can't find ONE and provide it to you - case dismissed. :ianal:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
I read that one of the big things that some cities do is to reduce the yellow light time. If you want to beat it, check and make sure it is running exactly like the law says it should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,075 Posts
Gunstar1 said:
I read that one of the big things that some cities do is to reduce the yellow light time. If you want to beat it, check and make sure it is running exactly like the law says it should.
Yellow light is supposed to be one second per 10MPH of speed limit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
Just because "we" don't like them, I'm not sure that these are not constututional.

Is that the new mantra? "We don't like it, so it must not be constutitional!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
GAGunOwner said:
Just because "we" don't like them, I'm not sure that these are not constututional.

Is that the new mantra? "We don't like it, so it must not be constutitional!"
Cops don't like them either. Well, they don't think they should have to pay the fines.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 51d8c.html

Red-light fines to go to police, firefighters

Dallas: They'll pay if caught on cameras; some exemptions apply

Dallas police and firefighters will soon have to pay up if they run afoul of the city's red-light cameras.

Starting Sunday, any Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law.

Firefighters who run red lights will have to pay if they're not on an emergency run.

Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.

"I know that a lot of the officers are not real happy about it," said Senior Cpl. James Bristo, second vice president of the Dallas Fraternal Order of Police. "Nobody out here is just running red lights left and right."

He said many police officers view the new policy as yet another thing they have to worry about.

Under the state transportation code, officers driving a vehicle equipped with lights and sirens can run a red light when responding to an emergency call, pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law, responding to a fire alarm, conducting a police escort, and directing or diverting traffic for public safety purposes.

"Our policy is pretty clear that they have to drive within the traffic laws" except under those circumstances, said Police Chief David Kunkle, who is meeting with police association officials Thursday to outline the new policy.

Since last year, 39 cameras have been placed at intersections, city officials said. Sixty cameras are scheduled to be up and running by May 22.

Since mid-January, the cameras have recorded at least 355 emergency vehicles running red lights. Not all of those vehicles belonged to the city of Dallas. Notice is sent to the departments so they can determine whether the driver of the emergency vehicle had a legal reason to run the light.

So far, the Dallas Police Department has received notice of 103 marked vehicles and six unmarked vehicles running red lights, said Lt. Sally Lannom, who helped draft the new policy.

Eleven investigations of marked vehicles have been completed, and the officers were determined to be exempt from the fine because they complied with state law, Lt. Lannom said. "They were responding to an emergency call," she said.

Out of the six unmarked vehicles, three officers were found to have run red lights without proper cause, Lt. Lannom said. They will have to pay the fines, she said.

Cpl. Bristo said officers are worried that the policy won't have enough leeway and won't take into account extenuating circumstances.

"I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."

Not running red lights when it appears safe to do so would affect a perennial area of concern for officers and Dallas residents: They want police to be at the scene of a crime, even a crime that is not life-threatening, as quickly as possible.

One example illustrates the type of situation that concerns police commanders.

Cameras recorded an officer on routine patrol not only running a red light, but also turning left from the center lane rather than from the turn lane. "He is being counseled in an effort to correct his driving," Lt. Lannom said. "We're looking at correcting the driving habits of officers."

For the fire department, it's much more cut-and-dried, said Lt. Joel Lavender, a Dallas Fire-Rescue spokesman.

"We don't really have a lot of business running lights, period," Lt. Lavender said. "If you mess up and you're not on an emergency run, you get a ticket. They're subject to the same penalty, in addition to being punished by the fire department."
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,161 Posts
foshizzle said:
"I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."

Not running red lights when it appears safe to do so would affect a perennial area of concern for officers and Dallas residents: They want police to be at the scene of a crime, even a crime that is not life-threatening, as quickly as possible.
Yeah, sometimes I am in a hurry, too. Can I be exempted? :lol:

Of course, I think police officers should get no exemption from the firearms laws. They should even have to get a license to carry openly while working.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,075 Posts
GAGunOwner said:
Just because "we" don't like them, I'm not sure that these are not constututional.

Is that the new mantra? "We don't like it, so it must not be constutitional!"
I do believe that I presented why I believe them to be unconstitutional in a previous post. My issue is that the pictures don't identify the driver thus creating reasonable doubt as well as due process issues. If the pictures did identify the driver those issues would go away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
If red-light cameras are "constitutional" does that mean that "speeding" cameras, or "anti-social behaviour" cameras or any other camera that lies in wait for you to break a law is constitutional as well?

I'm notsomuch worried about it's constitutionality is compared to where it may lead. Eventually we're going to have to stop this :censored:. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. It's not like the intent of the constitution is determined by 9 people. Or is it? :-k

All I know is that it's ridiculous that almost every county now has these. You can go 20 miles and hit 5 of them. Eventually it's going to hit a point where it might as well just be considered a "driving tax".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,075 Posts
foshizzle said:
If red-light cameras are "constitutional" does that mean that "speeding" cameras, or "anti-social behaviour" cameras or any other camera that lies in wait for you to break a law is constitutional as well?

I'm notsomuch worried about it's constitutionality is compared to where it may lead. Eventually we're going to have to stop this :censored:. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. It's not like the intent of the constitution is determined by 9 people. Or is it? :-k

All I know is that it's ridiculous that almost every county now has these. You can go 20 miles and hit 5 of them. Eventually it's going to hit a point where it might as well just be considered a "driving tax".
I feel the same about speed cameras if they don't identify the driver.

As for cameras in public areas, I don't see where any successful challenge can be made to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
foshizzle said:
If red-light cameras are "constitutional" does that mean that "speeding" cameras, or "anti-social behaviour" cameras or any other camera that lies in wait for you to break a law is constitutional as well?

I'm notsomuch worried about it's constitutionality is compared to where it may lead. Eventually we're going to have to stop this :censored:. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. It's not like the intent of the constitution is determined by 9 people. Or is it? :-k

All I know is that it's ridiculous that almost every county now has these. You can go 20 miles and hit 5 of them. Eventually it's going to hit a point where it might as well just be considered a "driving tax".
+1000
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,714 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
An officer has to show up and testify about the picture. You can cross examine him. If the pictures are equivocal, you should not be convicted. You can testify that you weren't driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
jrm said:
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
An officer has to show up and testify about the picture. You can cross examine him. If the pictures are equivocal, you should not be convicted. You can testify that you weren't driving.
But cannot you ask him to prove it was you driving?

Like lets say my brother's car is registered to my dad. My dad was not driving it at the time, but is the one that would have to go to court. Can't he say that he was not the one driving it and they have to prove otherwise?
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
Sorry, didn't address that.

Of course. You can testify that it was not you driving. They probably will, on cross examination, ask you who was driving. Don't lie. But, if you testify that you weren't driving, unless your testimony is totally incredible, it's going to be hard for you to be convicted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Rammstein said:
Like lets say my brother's car is registered to my dad. My dad was not driving it at the time, but is the one that would have to go to court. Can't he say that he was not the one driving it and they have to prove otherwise?
Yes. They ask you to submit a signed and notarized affidavit stating who was driving the car and how they can contact them. It's on the bottom of your violation. If you can't provide a name, I don't suppose it's illegal to loan your car to someone who you don't know. Whoever you listed will get the ticket and will also be able to provide a signed affidavit... and so on...

I imagine you could get away with it, but if you get caught lying on a signed, notarized affidavit, I imagine that could be something worse than a red-light ticket...? I didn't do it because of my damn conscience.

And as far as asking for documentation. I did that... asked for the calibration records for the week I got my ticket, another random week and the current week. I did an FOIA request and in Cobb you can go down and look at them if you want. It's just computer printouts saying passed... OK... passed OK... with about 10 times a day. Frustrating.

Maybe you could go to court and ask the cop if, he were physically there, would he give you a ticket for running a red-light 1/10th of a second after it turns red? What if you had a bus in front of you or something....
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,161 Posts
foshizzle said:
Yes. They ask you to submit a signed and notarized affidavit stating who was driving the car and how they can contact them. It's on the bottom of your violation. If you can't provide a name, I don't suppose it's illegal to loan your car to someone who you don't know. Whoever you listed will get the ticket and will also be able to provide a signed affidavit... and so on...
The law requires you to identify the driver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,075 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
foshizzle said:
Yes. They ask you to submit a signed and notarized affidavit stating who was driving the car and how they can contact them. It's on the bottom of your violation. If you can't provide a name, I don't suppose it's illegal to loan your car to someone who you don't know. Whoever you listed will get the ticket and will also be able to provide a signed affidavit... and so on...
The law requires you to identify the driver.
What if you don't know who was driving for certain?
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
The law requires you to identify the driver.
Not exactly. There are 3 options (Foshizzle quoted them above). Only the third option (the affidavit) includes an affirmative obligation to identify the driver. The first option (testifying that you weren't the driver) does not explicitly require identifying the driver. Although you can expect to be asked to name the driver on cross, your inability to do so would go to your credibility, but would not automatically disqualify your defense.
 
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
Top