Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Opinion
Topic: Photo Radars: Not a solution
started by: Common Citizen

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 04 2012,10:41 am

I recently received a ticket from Cedar Rapids finest. Apparently I was doing 67 in 55 on a 6 lane Interstate while traveling in the slow lane. Another car, also seen in the photo to my left, was passing me.

I can't really argue that it wasn't me nor am I arguing the fact that I wasn't speeding. Honestly, I have no recollection of that area or where the speed zones change in relation to where that photo was taken.

I feel that photo radars are a violation of my constitutional rights to due process and having the ability to cross examine my accuser.

Speeding laws were created to keep the public safe. This is why we give law enforcement the authority to stop violators at the time of the violation. We even take it a step further and give these officers discretion to either issue a citation or not. I would guess that the vast majority of us, after being pulled over by a leo, will then continue to our destination in a much safer manner.

Photo Radars are not capable of this. There is no human interaction at the time of the violation to remind us to be safe. I received notification of the ticket several weeks later. The ticket didn't remind me about public safety or that I should slow down to keep me safe. All the letter said was that I was caught speeding and that I needed to send them $85.

It is obvious that the sole purpose of photo radar is to bring in revenue. Am I the only one that feels this is harassment and has nothing to do with public safety at all? I think it is just another creative way that the government has found to get into the pockets of its citizens.

Now these agency's are taking it a step further by using drones.

When are we going to wake up?

Posted by Pretzel Logic on Oct. 04 2012,11:03 am

Big Brother is Watching.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 04 2012,11:21 am

I agree with you on the radar and I find the drones use very scary. We gonna have Robo-cops walking down the streets soon?

QUOTE

When are we going to wake up?

Hopefully soon.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 04 2012,11:25 am

I really wish the silent majority of the forum would start giving their opinions on things.

Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Oct. 04 2012,12:23 pm

Well...you asked and you shall receive

Traffic cameras are nothing more than a profitable cash cow for the city no police presence is required it doesn't take breaks it's on duty 24/7 no health benefits it just does it's job and fines people and who is going to dispute a picture of your car. I feel it is wrong to have cameras like this we should not become a police state like Europe but that is where we are heading.

Now for the slippery slope :

One could argue that look at the good the traffic camera does and we need cameras on the streets to reduce crime like criminal jaywalking, parking for more than 2 hours. Then the argument is made we need them in the houses so we can monitor people it's for their own good, we need to catch green energy violators, people eating pizza and drinking beer instead of the government approved salad bar and tofu, criminal smoking in a smoke free area the list goes on and on.

Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.
– John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams April 26, 1777

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 04 2012,12:33 pm

It's always bothered me that someone could use your car and get you a ticket.

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 04 2012,1:08 pm

^ that's one of the reasons they used to shoot down traffic cams in MN.

Kinda concerns me that the things still stand there though not in use.

Posted by alcitizens on Oct. 04 2012,2:16 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 04 2012,10:41 am)

QUOTE

Another car, also seen in the photo to my left, was passing me.

How the hell do you know a car was passing you in a photo? Is it a moving photo? :sarcasm:

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 04 2012,3:34 pm

^ the other car must have been on his left, you do know your right from your left,right?

Posted by alcitizens on Oct. 04 2012,3:53 pm

You should know that you can pass on your right when on a six lane highway..

People let you drive a big rig? :crazy:

Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 04 2012,3:59 pm

QUOTE

I feel that photo radars are a violation of my constitutional rights to due process and having the ability to cross examine my accuser.

I have to agree with you. First of all, the cameras are owned by an independent company. The speeders are recorded and then the contractor sends the paperwork to the speed violator. It reminds me of

The legal system in our country was founded on "innocent until proven guilty." These companies, (who also profit from catching you violating the speed limit" operate on the premise with the city to convict you and make it your burden to prove yourself not-guilty. Obviously a violation of your constitutional right. Any private business that makes money from accusing you of breaking the law, has an interest in you breaking the law. Another words, for this company to profit, they have to say you broke the law.

When you are given a ticket by an officer, the ticket states that you are not guilty and your signature is only verification the you received the ticket. If you choose to set a hearing, it is the officer's duty to prove to the judge that you committed an offence. It's called Due Process. With a photocop, there is not Due Process. You go straight to guilty and it becomes your responsiblility to prove your are not. Keep in mind that the company that owns the camera is in business only to convict you.

Posted by hairhertz on Oct. 04 2012,6:17 pm

they piss me off: intrusive & unconstitutional, fradulent, cash-cow

Posted by irisheyes on Oct. 04 2012,7:16 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 04 2012,10:41 am)

QUOTE

I recently received a ticket from Cedar Rapids finest.

The freeway area between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City is often pretty thick with cops. Whether you see them or not, sometimes they'll have helicopters clocking people and then reporting down to the patrol cars. And there's a lot of the red light cameras in that whole area Waterloo to Iowa City.

QUOTE

It is obvious that the sole purpose of photo radar is to bring in revenue. Am I the only one that feels this is harassment and has nothing to do with public safety at all?

I'll partially agree with you, I don't believe it's harassment though. I may not agree with how they're doing it at all, but next time you're in that area I bet you'll be watching that speedometer a lot more closely, so you can't argue there isn't some benefit to public safety. I just disagree with the method they're using.

As for revenue, instead of funding their public safety through state taxes, they seem to rely more and more on fines. That's a road we've been heading towards, just ask our drug task force or city cops how much they get from forfeiture auctions. :;):

QUOTE

I feel that photo radars are a violation of my constitutional rights to due process and having the ability to cross examine my accuser.

There's actually been a lot of people who have gotten these cam tickets sent after being in funeral processions or other errors on the side of the cam company. < KMOV news : St. Louis > or < WSVN: Funeral Ticketed while with police escort. >That's why they should be using actual law enforcement, in my opinion.

I don't speed much anymore, 2-4 mph over the limit at most normally, but I've got a radar/laser detector I would use if I was going into Iowa much. Radar/laser countermeasures are a necessity for out of state travel. :thumbsup:

Posted by ICU812 on Oct. 05 2012,8:21 am

(Liberal @ Oct. 04 2012,12:33 pm)

QUOTE

It's always bothered me that someone could use your car and get you a ticket.

I sold a Grand Prix to a friend of mine that lives in AZ. He is a close friend and trustworthy so we I said he could drive it in my name until the tabs expired (like 4 months left on tabs).

Anyway about 2 months into it I get a certified letter with a summons in it. It has my car either speeding or running a red light, I don't recall, the picture of the guy driving was my friend.

I had to make a photocopy of my DL and send it back, charges dropped for me. It has been a while so I cant recall the hassle but I bet it was.

Posted by hairhertz on Oct. 05 2012,10:26 am

same thing, guy didn't register the car, accumulated a bunch of tickets, had a bench warrant issued for my arrest.....aaaaaaargh

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 05 2012,12:36 pm

I posted this a little bit ago but it didn't show up, so if it ends up as a double post I apologize.

What do you guys think about the drones part of CC's comment? What are your opinions on police departments using unarmed (for now) drones?

Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone.

“Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily.

< http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012...-drones >

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 06 2012,9:48 am

Irish...

QUOTE

The reason I believe it's harassment is because if they are really concerned about public safety they would have warning signs stating that this area is photo radar enforced. I bet I would slow down at that moment instead of waiting for the next time I am in that area.

I know...I know...you're probably thinking that I should be driving the speed limit anyway. That much I will give ya.

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 06 2012,9:58 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Oct. 05 2012,12:36 pm)

QUOTE

There are a two issues that I have with federal, state, and local departments purchasing drones.

One: costs
Two: privacy

We all know who will end up footing the bill for this. All it will take is a good Sherriff or a Police Chief with a fancy white board to convince their county and/or city boards that they need it.

I am going to start researching scramblers. There's an idea. Find a company that manufactures them and buy their stock...wait that won't work the government will just outlaw them. :frusty:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 08 2012,9:19 am

QUOTE

There are a two issues that I have with federal, state, and local departments purchasing drones.

One: costs
Two: privacy

“Drones are coming to America, to a police dept near you,” said Catherine Crump, an attorney with the ACLU. Crump, also the co-author of a report about domestic drones that was published this past December, said that she expects drones to be rapidly adopted over the coming years. “Before that happens, it’s important that there be privacy protections put in place so that when this new technology is used, it’s used in a way that advances law enforcement’s goals but also makes sure that Americans continue to enjoy the privacy they’ve always had.”

It’s a fine balance to maintain between the goals of law enforcement and the rights of citizens. The same powerful cameras that shoot HD and thermal video can become a double-edged sword when used on the domestic front.

“They can see a lot more than the naked eye,” said Crump about the drones that can zoom in and hover in the air for up to three hours. “In some cases they can even see through walls, places where people have really well established reasons for privacy.”

“A standard law enforcement helicopter starts at $2 million and can cost as much as much as $6 million depending on the types of electronics you have on the helicopter,” said Deputy Chief McDaniel, “but this UAV cost $300,000.”

The actual bill was cheaper because of a grant received through a Department of Homeland Security that fully subsidized Montgomery County’s ShadowHawk. They have spent only $50,000 so far to purchase the SUV that will carry the drone.
< http://www.pbs.org/wnet...99 >

Here's the ACLU Recommendations on it
< http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2htm...ges=yes >

I remember discussing street surveillance cameras with someone several years back. He was completely against them because he felt it was an invasion of privacy. I was for them. I told him, "If I'm not doing anything wrong I don't care if someone is watching me on video. But if one of my children is kidnapped, someone's business is vandalized or someone is murdered, I would feel better knowing that most likely the event was caught on video and hopefully will help catch the person."

I have begun to rethink my stand on invasion of privacy. With the government getting too big, too paranoid, too powerful and too damn snoopy. With government crack downs on protests and broadening what things they consider "suspect" indications of terrorists, the NDAA and that Executive Order- I'm going to admit: I'm getting scared.
Isn't anyone else?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 13 2012,2:09 pm

I didn't realize how difficult it is to find information on the drones in mainstream media until now. Maybe some in the forum hadn't even heard of them before.
Any opinions on this here:

QUOTE

LOS ANGELES (KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO) — As the Federal Aviation Administration helps usher in an age of drones for U.S. law enforcement agencies, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) domestically by the U.S. military — and the sharing of collected data with police agencies — is raising its own concerns about possible violations of privacy and Constitutional law, according to drone critics.

A non-classified U.S. Air Force intelligence report obtained by KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO dated April 23, 2012, is helping fuel concern that video and other data inadvertently captured by Air Force drones already flying through some U.S. airspace, might end up in the hands of federal or local law enforcement, doing an end-run around normal procedures requiring police to obtain court issued warrants.

< http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012...-police >

Does that mesh with the Posse Comitatus Act? Just curious. Honest, I don't have cooties. PLEASE TALK TO ME!

Posted by hymiebravo on Oct. 14 2012,2:07 pm

Could have been worse. How much is that same ticket in Freeborn County?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 14 2012,2:45 pm

You know what else isn't a solution, DHS and the TSA.

Rosa- I have been trying to find a write up by an attorney, about the legality of a homeowner shooting down a drone.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 14 2012,5:14 pm

QUOTE

You know what else isn't a solution, DHS and the TSA.

Completely agree. The government is getting bigger and more out of control every day.
GD, did you see that video someone took of the TSA making everyone in the terminal "freeze"? ----And everyone did, even though the TSA doesn't even have the right to do that, and have absolutely NO reason to do that.

QUOTE

Rosa- I have been trying to find a write up by an attorney, about the legality of a homeowner shooting down a drone.

Oh, I do not think it would turn out well for any homeowner who chooses to do such a thing. Do you?
Visions of Ruby Ridge come to mind.
Thanks GD, let me know what you find. Although I think it will be sort of like how Obama's lawyers answered all of Judge Forrest's questions on indefinite detention.... "We won't know until it happens"

Things just keep getting worse, more tyrannical, and most people don't seem to notice. Most don't seem to care even when it's pointed out to them. Does anyone think it is magically going to get better? I don't. And I truly worry what it will be like for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I worry for everyone's children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren. It doesn't matter how hard a few people try to fix things. Unless the majority wake up and snap out of it, nothing is going to get better. I'd take my family out of the country if I could, but pretty much all countries are having the same problem. Out of control governments and state-controlled media helping the governments get that way.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Oct. 15 2012,7:18 am

Rosa- From what I remember, it involved a gun club and an annual dove hunt, and the local peta (or some other whacked out moronic anti-hunting douche bag club) decided it would be a good idea to use a privately purchased drone and fly it over the hunting area, well the hunters didn't take to kindly of this drone flying about, and it was shot down.

The person controlling said drone, called the police and reported destruction of property and the police quickly shut down the hunt to get to the bottom of it. Well it went to court and the court found in favor of the hunting club, declaring that the drone had violated the 50 foot air space rule of private property and the drone controller was infringing upon the clubs 4th Amendment.

From that case this attorney looked into past law, both federal and state and had written an article on the legality of a person shooting down a drone controlled by police, etc.

The article was written early in the year, and of course the website I thought it was at(lawersgunsmoneyblog), I can no longer find it, or I am just getting old and cannot remember where I read it.

Also, the T(ickle) and S(exual)A(ssault) morons, do not have the authority to order people to stop and freeze. You can ignore that order and go about your day at the airport, there are countless people who ignore it. Also, after you have been through the security check point, and you are waiting in the secure area, and some tsa moron lackey wants to search your stuff again, you can tell them NO, they DO NOT have the authority as they are not law enforcement (state or federal) they lack the credentials (commission) that a police officer or a federal police officer must acquire.
The same also applies to detainment, the tsa cannot detain you, if tsa insists on detaining you, ask for a police officer or call a lawyer.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 15 2012,1:35 pm

I think I will print copies of TSA rules and stand outside of a couple airports and hand them out to people and inform them of their rights. I should also have someone around filming it because I'm almost positive it would lead to me having problems with TSA. I would consider that as an act of civil disobedience rather than official trouble-making. (Even if I get my ass kicked by the goons)

I've been thinking more about homeowners shooting down drones. At first I was worried that it wouldn't bode well for the homeowner, now I'm thinking the homeowner would probably not even know they were being watched. Sounds like the drones have pretty powerful cameras and can most likely see from pretty far away. Dunno, just something that popped into mind about it.

Then there's the reports of military using drones in America. What are your thoughts on that?

QUOTE

“We’ve seen in some records that were released by the Air Force just recently, that under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations,” says Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the San Francisco based Electronic Frontier Association, who is looking into various government surveillance techniques.

< http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012...-police >

Without a doubt you know more about the Posse Comitatus Act than I do. Just wondering how military drones fit in with that.

Posted by hairhertz on Oct. 15 2012,11:47 pm

Rosalind,
Use of drones by law enforcement was a major topic this morning at our Old Guys Fix Everything coffee meeting.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Oct. 16 2012,6:25 am

(hairhertz @ Oct. 15 2012,11:47 pm)

QUOTE

Rosalind,
Use of drones by law enforcement was a major topic this morning at our Old Guys Fix Everything coffee meeting.

LOL, I like your club name. So what are you Old Guys saying about the drones? How do people feel of their use?

Posted by Common Citizen on Oct. 23 2012,11:13 pm

Went through airport screening tonight at DTW. I haven't felt that good in days...years if you count someone other than the mrs... :blush:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 06 2014,11:44 am

It's only a matter of time before people get killed by a drone crash. latest drone crash happened next to an elementary school in PA. Drone crashes are rarely mentioned in mainstream national news . Mostly just little local stations and alternative "kook" sites, just like everything else we should being informed about. If you don't already know about it, just put into search- drone crash on US soil.
I suppose there's nothing that can be done about the drones huh? There's just gonna be more and more all the time. And I suppose the natural progression of things means that it won't be long before some of them are used for more than surveillance?

Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 06 2014,2:11 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Oct. 15 2012,7:18 am)

QUOTE

From what I remember, it involved a gun club and an annual dove hunt, and the local peta (or some other whacked out moronic anti-hunting douche bag club) decided it would be a good idea to use a privately purchased drone and fly it over the hunting area, well the hunters didn't take to kindly of this drone flying about, and it was shot down.

First off, what a cheery little YouTube video that would have made, here comes the happy little surveillance drone, bzzzzzzzzzzzzz into the distance, and then suddenly Blam baBlamBlam! Crack! Blam! and down goes the now not-so-happy little drone. How satisfying.

That said, I think it's complete B as in B, S as in S that we've allowed it to get this far. It's becoming an Orwellian nightmare in this country, and everyone's like, "Meh. What's on Netflix?" Hopefully a documentary on the Trail of Tears, or perhaps the Holocaust, because we need to be reminded what happens when governments do outrageous things, and no one lifts a finger to stop them.

Posted by Botto 82 on Apr. 06 2014,2:22 pm

< Drone Crashes Near Pennsylvania Elementary School >

QUOTE

The 375-pound craft endured what officials called a “hard landing” before being run over by a civilian vehicle. No one was hurt in the incident, but the drone – reportedly worth $150,000 – was a “total loss” and rendered useless after slamming into the ground.

Again, what a heartwarming video that would have been, the surveillance drone first smashing into the ground, then getting pulverized by some random SUV. Another happy ending. :rofl:

Seriously, though: We need drone jammers, and we need them now.

Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 06 2014,10:24 pm

(Common Citizen @ Oct. 04 2012,10:41 am)

QUOTE

I feel that photo radars are a violation of my constitutional rights to due process and having the ability to cross examine my accuser.

Speeding laws were created to keep the public safe. This is why we give law enforcement the authority to stop violators at the time of the violation. We even take it a step further and give these officers discretion to either issue a citation or not. I would guess that the vast majority of us, after being pulled over by a leo, will then continue to our destination in a much safer manner.

Photo Radars are not capable of this. There is no human interaction at the time of the violation to remind us to be safe. I received notification of the ticket several weeks later. The ticket didn't remind me about public safety or that I should slow down to keep me safe. All the letter said was that I was caught speeding and that I needed to send them $85.

It is obvious that the sole purpose of photo radar is to bring in revenue.

QUOTE

< Zoom! Sioux City and South Dakota battle over speed cameras >

By Paul Brennan / April 4, 2014

DES MOINES, Iowa — Sioux City’s Interstate 29 mobile speed cameras, which pumped $4.5 million into the city’s general operating budget last year, have just become less profitable.

Neighboring South Dakota will no longer provide Iowa or any other state with information that could be used “to impose or collect a civil fine that results from an alleged violation captured by a red light camera or speed camera.”

Although the law passed last week doesn’t mention them, Sioux City’s two interstate speed cameras inspired this change. People fined because of the cameras weren’t being treated fairly by Sioux City, according to South Dakota state Sen. Dan Lederman.

Lederman said residents of both South Dakota and Sioux City are fans of the new law.

“People are just fed up with these cameras,” Lederman said. “They place them between downtown Sioux City and the South Dakota border. More than 30,000 cars go back and forth through there every day.”

To collect fines, law enforcement officers identify the car by the vehicle’s license plate number. Under the new law, South Dakota will no longer grant access to that information.

“The way the city ordinance is written, it robs the defendant of the right to a fair trial,” Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes, told Iowa Watchdog. “Because it’s not about whoever was driving the car. The fine is imposed on whoever owns the vehicle instead.”

Lederman said the law is quite unpopular with the Sioux City mayor and police chief.

Sioux City Police Chief Dave Young has called the new law “a slap in the face of interstate cooperation between law enforcement agencies.”

“No comment,” was Mayor Bob Scott’s response when contacted by Iowa Watchdog about the new law.

Asked what effect this will have on Sioux City’s enforcement of its traffic laws, Lt. Mark Kilpatrick, media relations officer for the Sioux City Police Department, told Iowa Watchdog, “The department is currently reviewing its options in order to decide how we are going to proceed now.”

“They’re just worried losing revenue,” Lederman said.

Posted by Liberal on Apr. 07 2014,6:31 am

Writing tickets for speeding and running red lights is just crazy. :sarcasm:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Apr. 07 2014,8:52 am

(Liberal @ Apr. 07 2014,6:31 am)

QUOTE

Writing tickets for speeding and running red lights is just crazy. :sarcasm:

It is only crazy when it is done via a machine and isn't backed up by a physical officer on scene to verify.

I know of quite a few people that have been ticket by those here in this area, they just throw the fine in the garbage after about 6 months they stop sending them.

There isn't a way for them to determine which licensed driver was behind the wheel since there wasn't a physical stop, and most police departments have contracted with an out of state company that processes these traffic photos.

Posted by grassman on Apr. 08 2014,1:22 pm

Well let's hear it for Alaska. They just passed a law that makes it illegal to spot bear and moose with drones. Only people get to be spied on.

Posted by Liberal on Apr. 08 2014,2:31 pm

Its illegal to spot them in plane in Alaska so why wouldn't drones be considered the same thing?

I need to get a cheap drone just to mess with the goofy conspiracy theorists.

Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 08 2014,2:39 pm

(Liberal @ Apr. 08 2014,2:31 pm)

QUOTE

I need to get a cheap drone just to mess with

By which definition?

drone [drohn]

noun
1. the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey. See illus. under bee.

2. a. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.

b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.

3. a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.

4. a drudge.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.