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.
-------------- Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
Posted 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.
-------------- You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3244
Joined: Aug. 2003
Posted 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
-------------- And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
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.
