
I Turned a Routine Traffic Ticket into a Constitutional Trial - anarazel
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/18093/
======
hedora
I got a red light ticket for a car I no longer own. I have a receipt of
electronic transfer of title dated 6 months before the incident, passport
stamps and travel documents proving I was out of the country, and the person
in the photo was of the wrong gender and ethnicity.

I fought it via mail. It took multiple round trips. At each step the potential
fine more than doubled. If I did not respond correctly or in time, I waved my
right to appeal. The appeal paperwork contradicted itself. (Page 1: You must
do X or we will reject your appeal. Page 2: You must not do X or we will
reject your appeal). I had to send a passport photo less than 30 days old of
myself in, but photos taken with electronic cameras are not allowed.

In the end, I sent a letter. The city of San Francisco is not obligated to
inform me of a successful appeal, so either I beat the ticket, or some day
(maybe years from now) they will issue a warrant for my arrest.

This isn't even guilty until proven innocent. 100% of the evidence presented
against me proved my innocence, and I will be in legal limbo forever.

[edit: In a special kafka-esque twist, the only reason I was able to fill out
the paperwork successfully is because the telephone operator at the SF
courthouse took pity on me. There is a number to call for clarification, but
no one picks up that phone. So, your best bet is to get your legal advice from
the operator.]

~~~
Anderkent
Help a confused european: do you guys not have a car registration system,
wherein when you sell a car the buyer has to go and register himself as the
new owner before he gets registration plates and can drive the car?

How could the city not know who the owner of the car is?

Over here photo tickets follow a simple rule: if it's your car, it's your
responsibility to know who's driving it. When you get a ticket, you either
name the driver, or you pay it yourself. But I haven't heard of anyone getting
a ticket for someone else's car.

~~~
joering2
> How could the city not know who the owner of the car is?

Because frankly the city doesn't care about change of ownership. Many cities
(probably most in California, and SF for sure) are totally disconnected from
helping citizens. They really neither interested, nor in business of helping
you out. They BELIEVE you did something wrong and that's enough. Most of the
time they are right and that's enough of a fuel for a SF budget committee not
to allocate budget to helping few citizens out of majority to "make it right"
for them.

An interesting story from an App that made it simple to fight wrong tickets.
Who would have thought that SF would give you wrong ticket or that they would
be in wrong generally? You not supposed to be well-informed either. At the
end, they got frustrated by all people who lawfully and willingly were
submitting claims via Fax and just simply... unplug their fax machine!

 _When Fixed began faxing its submissions to SFMTA last year, the agency
emailed the startup to stop using their fax machine. When Fixed pointed out
that it was legal to do so, the agency simply shut off their fax._

[https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/fixed-the-app-that-
fixes-y...](https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/fixed-the-app-that-fixes-your-
parking-tickets-gets-blocked-in-san-francisco-oakland-l-a/)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Because frankly the city doesn't care about change of ownership. Many cities
(probably most in California, and SF for sure) are totally disconnected from
helping citizens.

Eh, Boston isn't in California but from what I gather most of the populace has
contracted whatever California has so it may as well be.

------
OliverJones
The real WTF here? Municipal executives who sign contracts with distant third
party tech companies containing revenue quotas for those companies.

Perverse incentives! the original purpose of laws against driving too fast or
jumping red lights is promoting public safety. When the municipality has an
obligation to issue a certain number of violations, the original purpose is
subverted. Now, of course another public policy purpose of these laws is to
raise revenue.

When the revenue is made possible by a tech company, the municipality probably
has a contractual obligation undermining its public safety mission.

Municipal officials, if they were willing, could raise revenue by asking the
people to pay more taxes, even excise taxes on vehicles. But there's no
incentive for municipal executives to be honest any more: for over a
generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks
for more taxes.

So dinging violators of regulations is an easier way for towns to get money.
Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab
some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!

Hacker News friends, let's remember that we are, or easily could be, the
creators of those distant third party tech companies whose contracts
perpetuate the perverse incentives.

~~~
Cerium
We should put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance
policy for those hurt by the offense. We should set ticket prices based on the
needed premium to insure the victims. That would remove the incentive to
increase tickets, while preserving the purpose!

For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all
the accident free red light tickets.

~~~
u801e
It would be better to get rid of the revenue aspect entirely. Instead of
assessing a fine (plus court costs), just assess demerit points on the license
of the diver who is guilty of the traffic offense.

With enough offenses, the person's license can be suspended or revoked.

~~~
colejohnson66
That already happens here in California. Three(?) strikes in a two year period
and your license is suspended. At the same time, you still have to pay for the
ticket.

~~~
u801e
The point I was trying to make was to eliminate fines and court costs as a
form of punishment for traffic offenses. The only penalty would be demerit
points on one's drivers license.

That removes the revenue aspect from traffic enforcement, but still will lead
to eventual license suspensions for repeat offenders.

------
newscracker
I very much enjoyed this article. The larger takeaways for me are that most
citizens (or people) don't know the law, don't know the basis of law, and
don't know the foundations of creating and defining law. Yet we're forced into
submitting ourselves to what someone else wrote with deficiencies or
moderately malicious intent where fundamental rights and freedoms granted in
the constitution are violated.

Governments the world over are becoming bigger and more powerful, while common
people are subjugated and controlled through diktats. I don't know what's the
best way to improve the situation (other than some activists and campaigners
doing the work for the society), but a somewhat in-depth course in law seems
like a fundamental requirement for everyone.

~~~
curun1r
There's another takeaway here too. This person does know the law, well enough
to teach it, and successfully won his trial by proving that the officer
involved perjured himself. His "success" resulted in him losing a bond for
twice the cost of the ticket and no action being taken against the police
officer whose perjury initiated the charge against him.

His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money
than they collected from him. Yay for sticking it to the man! The best case
scenario we have is for both sides to lose. There's no way to win. If we want
to change this situation, we need to pay more attention to the procedural
semantics of our justice system, not just the law. You can be entirely
vindicated in the eyes of the law and still lose every bit as badly because of
the process you're forced to submit to just to contest the legal aspects of
the case.

~~~
wutbrodo
> His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money
> than they collected from him.

Unfortunately, this doesn't actually affect the involved asshole
cops/officials/attorneys who blithely violated the public trust: the costs
come out of citizens' taxes (or services), not out of the salaries of those
people. It's pretty much lose-lose for everyone except them.

~~~
JoBrad
Unless we change it.

~~~
wutbrodo
How would we change it? Malfeasance like perjury on the job is already
illegal, but if the legal system excuses it case by case, what other recourse
is there? The way you change stuff like this is at the ballot box, but the
vast majority of voters treat voting like their own personal pissing contest
instead of something with consequences (seriously, look at some of the
research around what determines the way people vote. It's an utter farce).

------
beardog

       When I tried to recover my doubled appeal bond, I was told that the clerk was not authorized to give me my money. ..... Still nothing has happened now several months later.
    

This is the problem with challenging really anything not of much financial
consequence in court. Lots of red tape and expenses, even if you are in the
right.

~~~
chris_wot
Makes me wonder how well I'd go in court against a particularly egregious
violation of my civil and human rights. About 7 months ago I had a mental
breakdown and rather publicly announced it to quite a lot of people, to the
point where I sparked an article in Vice Magazine. I was not in my right mind,
having suffered over 18 months of intense stress and two operations
(onevrelativeky minor, the other rather more major and painful). I
consequently drive aimlessly for at least 9 hours in distress, before I slowly
came to my senses and started to realise the enormity of what I had just done.

After several more hours I came home. The police had been there and filed a
missing person's report about me, I decided that I knew what was coming next
and didn't like my prospects for freedom even though I hadn't broken any laws.
So anyway, I arrived home at about 5:30am, where I was greeted by my wife who
immediately put me to bed and made sure I got some rest and care (my wife is
amazing!), and whilst I didn't get any sleep my young son - who mercifully had
no idea what just transpired - for some reason woke up and gave me a huge hug
which I have to say is one of the most wonderful things you can get after
being so upset.

Several hours later the police knocked on my front door, my wife answered and
they demanded to be let in - which my wife allowed. Three large and burley
policemen entered into my bedroom and I was forced to sit up, and there I
groggily argued that I was fine, any thoughts of suicide had passed and that
all I needed was sleep, as by this time I had been awake for close to 16
hours. My wife agreed. They somewhat sheepish shaky shuffled around trying to
work out what to do, eventually electing to call the NSW Ambulance Service,
who arrived and proceeded to aggressively grill me, speak over the top of me
and in general ignore the wishes and explanations of both myself and my wife.
The room was at this stage very crowded, as there were three police officers,
two ambulance service ladies, my wife standing in her pyjamas by the side of
the bed and myself, still lying in bed and hoping they would all go away so I
could fall asleep.

Through the my dulled cognitive abilities I heard them tell me they would be
forced to take me to Liverpool hospital involuntarily. This would entail the
police officers bodily hauling me out of bed and literally carry me to the
awaiting ambulance in front of all my neighbours. There I would, they warned,
be placed into an assessment area whilst a determination was made as to what
to do with me.

I didn't like the sound of that, not least because I had actually already read
the legislation around this area - the NSW Mental Health Act 2007 - and in
fact knew they were well within their rights to do so. I also knew that if I
didn't go in a vokuntary capacity that they could hold me for up to 12 hours
before deciding whether I should be stuck in a psychiatric facility surrounded
by people suffering from delusions, mania, violent tendencies, and generally
people who would not necessarily make my mental state any better. So I elected
to go with them voluntarily, but in their insistence I went with them in their
ambulance (For this I was sent a $600 bill).

When I arrived, they shoved forms in my face, which I signed without really
knowing what I was in fact signing. I'm knew it would be dangerous to question
this, because he hat would be considered not being "compliant" and likely
cause them to make me an involuntary patient. I was eventually brought over to
a bed in the ED ward, where a guard sat down next to me.

Through the mists of fatigue it slowly occurred to me that it was rather
unusual that a guard should be placed with someone who was a voluntary
patient, as a voluntary patient is actually free to leave at any time whereas
an involuntary patient is detained until assessed and determined not to be
held any further - or as is more likely, they are locked in the psychiatric
wing where you can be legally drugged if you say the wrong thing, complain
about your treatment and conditions or generally do anything the staff don't
like. So knowing this, I asked what was going on and was advised I had been
"sectioned". I didn't need to ask for clarification - to my horror it was
clear that I had been placed as an involuntary patient under Section 20 of the
Mental Health Act, which allows an ambulance officer to have you detained at
an authorised mental health facility to be processed by a psychiatrist who
determines your level of sanity and has the power to place you in psychiatric
care for up to three months.

I, of course, had been told I was to be entering the facility as a voluntary
patient - and it had never occurred to me that anyone would knowingly lie
about something like this in front of witnesses! So I demanded to see someone
about this.

This was a big mistake. Whilst I was arguing quietly and insisting that either
a mistake had been made or I had been deceived into coming, a decision was
made and I was summarily ordered to get up and follow them, whereupon I was
moved into an isolation room commonly used for patients undergoing drug
withdrawal or having psychotic breaks. I protested and asked why they were
incarcerating me: I got no response. And there I stayed for the next five and
a half hours. I was seen by one doctor who checked my vitals, but the next
time I was seen was by the psychiatrist who determines whether you should be
there in the first place.

I was fortunate that they alllwed me to keep my phone as I immediately called
one if my best and most loyal friends, who arrived in the hospital not 25
minutes or so after I was incarcerated. He demanded to be allowed to stay with
me in the room, and they allowed this. He stayed for the entire 5 hours.

As I was saying, I was seen by the psychiatrist on duty after 4.5 hours of
quietly rotting in this locked and brightly lit, open to everyone, observation
room, with only my friend for company and no chance of sleep. Somehow I kept
my sanity and quietly explained the situation to the psychiatrist, who after
consulting with my wife (who I add _I_ called, not the hospital) and my friend
realised that it would be best for me to be released into the care of my
family. Precisely the thing my family, friends and yes, myself had been saying
for approximately 6 hours.

I have now been battling the health system for 7 months. I have now been lied
to, both verbally and in writing, have been given wrong information on the
policies of the hospital, have pointed out these inaccuracies and the
implications (they broke the law!) and been ignored, and have been dismissed
by the HCCC who gave told me that they can do nothing because although they
agree that perhaps the law has been broken, it's not considered serious enough
to investigate further.

The interesting thing is: I persevered and eventually found the mistake that
made them suddenly sit up and take notice. You see, in one of the most two
letters from the General Manager of the hospital, someone drafted a response
to a number of my specific questions and had him sign off on it. This person
was clearly feeling very clever, and decided to put an end to my annoyingly
insistence that I had been traumatised and mistreated by the ED. In their
letter thry told me that if I wanted mybrecirds I was free to apply for them
if I paid $40 in cash, in person at the hospital.

So I did.

After the statutory 21 maximum 21 days for processing I still had not received
the documentation so I waited till day 30 and then asked for an internal
review as to the reasons for the delay. Thus is mandated in law, and
consequently two days later I received my paperwork.

There I discovered why neither my pyschologist, psychiatrist or doctor had
received anything about my stay in hospital. They had completely neglected to
fill in a discharge summary and so far as it hey knew, I was still in the ED
ward. They had also not filled in the necessary paperwork mandated by hospital
policy for all patients placed in seclusion. Furthermore, in the very same
letter that advised me to apply for my records, I was told that patients
sectioned under the Act are routinely placed in the seclusion room "as a low
stimulus environment" and for their privacy. Whilst I was speaking to the
information officers about my lack of paperwork I finally located the policy
on the use of restraint and seclusion and was surprised to read that in fact,
seclusion was specifically NOT to be used as a low stimulus environment for
patience as it violated section 68 of the Act and was categorically proven to
almost always cause the one being placed I isomation a great deal of trauma
and impacted on their dignity and self-respect.

Suddenly the people who had been treating me as an inconvenience, troublemaker
and yet another unstable mentally ill person with possible ideas of grandeur
became very attentive, courteous and nervous.

It is far too little, too late. Every single one of them is now running
scared, because now they have had no choice to send to the Director of
Clinical Governance and already she has been speaking to me for hours, and she
has confirmed that everyone of my complaints is legitimate and very serious.
There is currently a number of investigations being done at Director level and
there are almost certainly a bunch of very nervous and worried staff members
who must have never in their wildest dreams believed that someone brought in
as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act 2007 could possibly have
the determination and intestinal fortitude to smash through a system designed
to place road blocks in the way of complaints at every opportunity.

~~~
cloakandswagger
Could you make a different topic for this? It's extremely long and seems only
tangentially related to fighting red light tickets.

~~~
chris_wot
Which bit is off-topic? And I think if you believe that the story linked to is
only about traffic tickets, then I rather think you have missed the larger
point the author was making.

------
shakna
> “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury
> alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation
> of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”

> Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.”

 _Damn_! That is something I'd expect a certain amount of squirming before
answering. It is not something that you want to do. Even if you know you have
to.

~~~
edblarney
He's just a cop, doing it his job bored and/or befuddled by a fairly complex
line of reasoning.

He's probably just stating it as he sees it, possibly trying to avoid getting
into trouble.

Anything he is doing, he's being required to do by someone above him.

Cops are also humans: he may be very well against the concept himself, but
can't state it. Or he may be very well against it not for judicial reasons ...
but for pragmatic reasons. People 'on the front lines' of justice often have a
much more pragmatic view of it than others. The same applies to many fields.

~~~
int_19h
There's nothing particularly complex about this line of reasoning. If the guy
has no understanding of what "probable cause" means, he is plainly not
qualified to be a cop. If he does understand what it means, but he knowingly
ignored it, then that's a serious violation of constitutional rights. Then
there's perjury on top of that - again, something a police officer should very
much be familiar with.

~~~
edblarney
He absolutely knows what 'probable cause' is.

"If he does understand what it means, but he knowingly ignored it, then that's
a serious violation of constitutional rights."

What he's doing is what he is told.

Obviously - someone far higher than 'a cop' decided to implement the policy of
'camera tickets'.

The 'possible constitutional violation' is inherent in the policy, he's not
doing anything but implementing the policy.

He's just the schmuck who has to be in court, validating the policy, which is
way beyond his rank.

Also - it's debatable whether this is a 'clear violation of constitutional
rights'. 'Camera tickets' are in place all over America, Canada, Europe etc. -
if it were a huge violation of rights there would be a lot of court
challenges.

In effect the person 'on the stand' should have been whoever in the judicial
system is responsible for actually implementing the system. Then it would be
'their responsibility' if there was a violation.

The cop on the stand is basically the sorry dude forced to articulate the
obvious incoherence of the policy.

~~~
int_19h
The clear violation of constitutional rights here is not the camera ticket per
se. It's this particular statement made by this particular officer. He could
not in good conscience make a claim that he did without evidence. If his
superiors demanded that he make such a claim, either directly (by ordering
such) or indirectly (by demanding a certain amount of tickets), the proper
course of action would be to refuse to implement it, and expose the scheme to
the public. Since in this particular case the demands actually constitute
making a false statement, an order requiring that would be criminal in and of
itself, so this even falls under the duty to report a crime.

The rest of your argument is "I'm just following orders". This is considered
sufficient to reduce culpability in some circumstances, but is not enough to
avoid it entirely, on the basis that if nobody followed orders that are
clearly illegal, the harm from them wouldn't occur, so people who do follow
them do contribute to said harm:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders)

~~~
edblarney
" the proper course of action would be to refuse to implement it,"

No, I'm sorry, but this is not pragmatic or reasonable.

It's not remotely clear that this is a 'violation of the constitution' and
given that it's implemented in so many other areas and states, there's no way
a cop can reasonably make this claim.

That's a lawyers job, not a cops job.

Can you imagine every cop on the beat trying to split hairs in all these
situations?

There are tons of little things that law enforcement do that could be feasibly
challenged in court.

This issue could feasibly go to the Supreme Court - so how could a cop be
responsible for knowing up from down on this law?

It's not like the cops boss said 'shoot that guy who looks funny' wherein the
cop would have a reasonable requirement to 'not commit a crime or do something
unconstitutional'.

We're talking about traffic tickets.

In court, the cop answered the question as best he could and his honestly
basically outlined the oddity of the law.

Let the courts decide the constitutionality of it all.

~~~
int_19h
You're the one splitting hairs here.

There's a well-known standard of "probable cause". A cop is supposed to know
what that standard is, it's part of their job description, and it pertains
directly to what they do every day.

When a cop is asked to claim that there's probable cause when said standard
isn't met, it's clearly and plainly an illegal order, because they're asked to
lie. Doing so under penalty of perjury is doubly illegal. He doesn't need to
be a constitutional lawyer to determine that this is illegal and cannot be
obeyed.

This is exactly the same as doing a search without warrant, or arresting
someone without reading them their Miranda rights, or lying under oath
(something that the cop had also admitted to doing, by the way).

That this also happens to be unconstitutional is coincidental. It suffices for
the cop to know it's illegal, and act accordingly.

And if they do know their orders are illegal, but follow them anyway, they
should be held responsible accordingly.

------
tehwalrus
In the UK I believe the first letter goes to the "keeper" of the vehicle,
called a NIP (notice of intended prosecution). The keeper of the vehicle is
required by law to fill in the NIP (under pain of perjury) and return it
telling the police who was driving. The police will then criminally prosecute
the person on the form.

I never got a speeding ticket, but I looked this up here:
[http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-
we...](http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-were-not-
driver.html)

It may well be wrong, but it sounds like what I'd expect in the UK.

~~~
gambiting
I live in the UK, but never understood this. What if you really, genuinely
don't know who was driving the car at the time? Can you give a list of people
who could have been driving it, to the best of your knowledge? After all, it's
the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not yours?

~~~
masklinn
> After all, it's the police's job to establish who committed the offence,not
> yours?

The police's assumption is that as the car's owner you are responsible for its
use, and have committed any offense involving it.

~~~
gambiting
Well, then if you don't mind me saying so, it's a dumb assumption. If
say....you have 4 children, all insured on your car, and all of them refuse
using it at the time(or maybe they all say they have used it, and all have
driven on the road in question, or maybe the case is now year old and no one
remembers who was driving that day), then how could you possibly, in good
faith, be hold liable for this?

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _then how could you possibly, in good faith, be hold liable for this?_

Because you're the person responsible for the vehicle. That's literally what
"responsible" means. It's your _job_ as a car owner to ensure situations like
this, where you don't know who was driving, don't happen.

~~~
gambiting
But I am not required by law to keep the record of every single person driving
that car, am I? Like I said, I can, to my best effort, know that on the
evening of day X, 3 people drove my car, because they were all running
errands. I don't know the exact times when they were all using it, but I am
happy to supply the list of names.

~~~
masklinn
> But I am not required by law to keep the record of every single person
> driving that car, am I?

No, but if you do not it's on your head, _you_ are personally responsible for
the use of your motor vehicle.

~~~
sethrin
it's reasonable to expect that a person know where their car is, but that does
not amount to a legal requirement to do so, as you have admitted. In point of
fact, you are not responsible for what other people do with your things. If
you borrow a gun from me and shoot someone, I cannot be held liable for that
shooting. Ownership may imply responsibility, but not liability.

~~~
FireBeyond
Yeah, you left out a part of that.

"If you borrow a gun from me, and I don't know that you did, and you don't or
won't tell me that you did... oh well. _shrug_ " becomes your expectation of
what should happen next.

"Oh sorry, you weren't driving your vehicle, and you have no idea who was,
when it was involved in that accident. But you know it wasn't stolen. Guess
there's nothing more we can do here, have a nice day."

~~~
sethrin
You're arguing that because a gun or car is dangerous, ownership implies
liability. There are few things which can be possessed which cannot be
dangerous in the wrong hands, and a car is not actually intended for the
purpose of murder, so one should probably not judge it by that standard.
However, I did explicitly consider the case of an inherently dangerous object,
so I cannot have left out that part as you suggest. I am really not sure what
part of this concept you could possibly have an objection to. You know we're
talking about a car, right, not a hydrogen bomb? Surely you can do better than
that?

------
nfriedly
> The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. \- Abraham
> Lincoln

While I can't say that I'm a fan of traffic cams, and I do appreciate that the
author was vindicated in this circumstance, I like the idea of laws that are
enforced for _every single violation_. Traffic law, and indeed most of our
laws, seem to be enforced so inconsistently as to be laughable.

I'm sure there are instances where, financially speaking, you're better off to
break the law and then just pay the fines if you get caught. Similar to when
corporations break a law for years and eventually pay a fine that's less than
the profit they made from breaking the law.

I think if the enforcement were more consistent, we'd end up with much better
laws in the long run.

~~~
mirkules
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that our laws are subjectively interpreted
is a blessing. There are so many laws that the Congressional Research Service
can't even count them all. In other words, we are all breaking laws every
day.[0]

Absolute law enforcement is a bad idea, for the fact that it provides no path
towards civil disobedience[1]

Take for example the Texas "sodomy" law, that prevented homosexual couples
from ingaging in sexual acts. If the law were practiced in absolute terms, we
would have never had Lawrence v. Texas, and gay people would have remained
criminals.

If I take a more generous stance towards your argument, and assume that you
meant to say only traffic laws should be absolutely enforced, again I think
it's a bad idea. It provides no way to argue circumstances in your case (such
as "tree was blocking the red light").

In summary, I think absolute enforcement is effectively Orwellian.

[0] [https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-
hide/](https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/)

[1][http://archives.nwtrcc.org/omtfp/civilrole.html](http://archives.nwtrcc.org/omtfp/civilrole.html)

~~~
ncallaway
> I couldn't disagree more. The fact that our laws are subjectively
> interpreted is a blessing. There are so many laws that the Congressional
> Research Service can't even count them all. In other words, we are all
> breaking laws every day.

But the selective enforcement of laws is a disaster. As you say, we are all
breaking laws every day. Which means, if any individual prosecutor decides he
doesn't like _you_ , they probably have the ability to charge _you_ with
something.

You've just handed the state the power to jail anyone they decide they don't
like. _That_ is truly dangerous.

~~~
vinceguidry
> You've just handed the state the power to jail anyone they decide they don't
> like. That is truly dangerous.

That's the way it already works in countries that don't respect rule of law,
i.e. every non-Anglophone nation.

~~~
beachstartup
lol. you should test your theory in e.g. japan or hmmm saudi arabia.

one might even say that there are countries that follow the law ...
religiously.

non anglophone countries also include most of europe. please put a little more
thought into your racism. you get a point for originality but it's not nearly
as entertaining when it's so weak logically.

~~~
0xfeba
> or hmmm saudi arabia.

The place where the rich have alcohol (illegal) fueled sex orgies (illegal)
without any consequences?

~~~
beachstartup
rich people get away with illegal stuff in all countries, i don't think that's
up for debate. i was talking about normal people that laws actually apply to.

but i mean, yeah, i guess you're technically correct, rich people break the
law all the time in saudi arabia without any consequence. film at 11.

~~~
vinceguidry
I didn't say they didn't respect the law. I said they don't respect the _rule
of law_. Rule of law is the idea that justice is not arbitrary, it does not
stem from the whims of divine kings or power itself.

Authority must be legitimate, emanating from a constitution that was voted on
by the people and exercised by representatives of the people. Not an unelected
monarch or tyrant or oligarchy.

The English invented the concept and were the first to practice it. It's so
infused in Anglo culture that violations of the principle are considered so
beyond the pale that we call for, and often get, prison sentences for
violators.

The book to read here is:

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BATKSIO/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BATKSIO/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

Other nations _have_ laws, but only Anglo nations are really _ruled_ by them.
Western Europe is an interesting case. The French constitution grants the
President near-dictatorial emergency powers, which is how democracy and rule
of law is commonly subverted in less-affluent nations. That the French are on
their Fifth Republic should tell you how fragile the political institutions
really are there.

The same is true of the rest of W Europe. They're heads and tails over the
rest of the world including Russia and China. But you can't call yourselves a
stable democracy if 70 years ago, you let fascists destroy your legislative
systems so as to put your country to war, as Germany, Spain, and Italy did.
How can you have rule of law if you let dictators decide what the law is?

The European Union is a grand experiment in finding Europe a babysitter so
that doesn't happen again.

------
czep
I was with the author until reading this unfortunate quote:

> Traffic camera laws are popular in part because they appeal to a law-and-
> order impulse. If we are going to stop those nefarious evildoers who
> jeopardize the health of the republic by sliding through yellow lights when
> no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per
> hour in twenty-five zones, then we need a way around such pesky impediments
> as a lack of eyewitnesses.

This is an unfair rhetorical attack that trivializes the motivations for
necessary enforcement of traffic laws. Whether or not you are a fan of traffic
cameras, traffic violations are in fact serious and should not be brushed off.
The problem is, one day you make it easy for people to think it's ok to do 30
in a 25, then the next day they're doing 35, then 45 the next.

I honestly do think people should be ticketed for 30 in a 25. It's not a
trivial laughing matter. It always dismays me to see people downplaying
speeding. 30 vs 25 will increase your stopping distance more than enough to
kill a child. Yet, we nonchalantly think it's cool as a society to blow
through red lights and everyone speeds. The author clearly separates "the
slightly more respectable offense of owning a speeding vehicle" from "armed
robbery, drug dealing, and other misdeeds". Would the author feel that
speeding is any more respectable than armed robbery if a speeding driver
killed their kids?

I agree that traffic cameras are a poor way to enforce these laws, but I want
to point out that they really do need enforcing and shouldn't be trivialized.

~~~
ameister14
In the US in 2013, there were 236 pedestrian deaths of children younger than
14. Thats under 5% of pedestrian fatalities, and the vast majority of
pedestrian fatalities are in the dark, with half involving alcohol.

There's about a 17% risk of death if you're hit by a car going 30 mph, vs 12%
at 25 mph. This doesn't seem like as big an issue as you're making it out to
be.

Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold up - people don't go 45 in a 25 on a
regular basis. Almost every driver goes 5-10 miles above the speed limit on
the highway and 0-5 miles above everywhere else. The limits are designed with
this in mind.

These things can get really personal, but I don't believe the law should.

Nobody thinks it's cool to run through a red light. People go through yellows
because that is legal to do.

~~~
czep
This is a reasonable reply and I appreciate the very relevant data points.

I think you're correct that speed limits are designed knowing that most people
will exceed them slightly. I'm curious if there are any studies that have
addressed this? Eg. traffic surveys where they either raised or lowered a
posted speed limit -- how much impact does that have on behavior?

~~~
ameister14
Sure. [https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-
irrel.html](https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html)

Key points:

Lowering speed limits by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 26 km/h) at the
study sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. Posting lower speed limits
does not decrease motorist's speeds.

Raising speed limits by 5, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 25 km/h) at the rural and
urban sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. In other words, an increase
in the posted speed limit did not create a corresponding increase in vehicle
speeds.

~~~
im3w1l
I read their methodology[1] to determine when they measured the speeds, but it
wasn't very clear when they did. However, I think a reasonable interpretation
of their wording is that they measured just before and just after the change.

In my opinion there is a problem with this approach, in that many motorists
will likely pay little attention to signs when going their usual routes, as
they already know them all. If a speed limit is changed it may therefore take
some time for people to notice that that has happened. To measure the full
impact of the change, it seems the measurement would have to be taken a few
months after the change.

[1] [https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-
irrel/method.html](https://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/method.html)

~~~
ameister14
[http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Reso...](http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Resources3/33%20-%20Effects%20of%20Raising%20and%20Lowering%20Speed%20Limits%20on%20Selected%20Roadway%20Sections.pdf)

Sorry about that - this the full study, not just the report.

------
insomniacity
> I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one.
> “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury
> alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation
> of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”

As a layman, can anyone explain why they are taught not to ask this?

~~~
spoiledtechie
He signed a piece of paper, stipulating someone committed a crime without
evidence. In order for officers to arrest you, they need probable cause.
Without evidence, he has no probable cause. He lied under penalty of perjury,
saying he had evidence of a crime committed by Adam.

~~~
insomniacity
Right, that's what the officer did wrong.

But MacLeod implies he asked a question during cross that they teach law
students not to ask. Presumably because it's kind of a slam-dunk (and he got a
slam-dunk response). But I'm curious as to why it's a bad idea to ask.

~~~
Steeeve
Usually there are a series of elements that together create a fact. If you ask
someone if they perjured themselves, they essentially have three choices to
avoid a penalty:

1\. Lie

2\. Rationalize (it wasn't perjury becuase x, y, z) (and which you are not
prepared to counter-argue).

3\. Take the fifth and refuse to answer.

Your better off getting there questioning various elements, and then
presenting an argument that the signed document was invalid.

1\. Did you witness the speeding?

2\. Were you able to identify the driver of the car?

3\. Please read this document (Plaintiff's exhibit A that states "I witnessed
the speeding" and "I identified the driver of the car as x"

4\. Is that your signature at the bottom of the document?

5\. Are there any other signatures on this document?

Then you argue that since important elements in the document were in fact
proven to be false, the document cannot be used as evidence that the defendant
violated the law. Since there is no other evidence, the violation conviction
must be vacated.

~~~
kazagistar
Could the story have been a simplification or abstraction? As in, he did
something like what you said, but condensed it down for conciseness?

------
inetsee
I confess: I got a red light ticket. I did in fact run a red light; I was late
for a lunch date. In my defense, I wasn't speeding, and I crossed the limit
line a fraction of a second after the light had changed to red (and before the
light for crossing traffic had changed to green).

The citation I got included photos from the traffic camera, before and after
the light changed, clearly showing my vehicle and its license plate. The
photographs had been viewed by a sworn employee of the police department, who
signed off on the citation. I paid the ticket.

The only criticism I have of the procedures used by the police department
where I lived was that there was no photograph showing that I was the one
driving the vehicle.

From the article it sounds as if the municipality doesn't care about the law.
It sounds as if the photographs from the traffic camera are being reviewed by
an employee of a private company; the photographs are not being provided to
the driver (and may not even be provided to the police), there are no
photographs showing the driver of the vehicle, and the police and court are
ignoring any exculpatory evidence, and there is no procedure to refund the
appeal bond!

This city (and many more) are relying on the difficulty of fighting these
kinds of citations to gain unjustified revenue by ignoring peoples rights.

~~~
11thEarlOfMar
I have a similar story with a different ending. I allegedly made a right turn
on red without stopping. That's running a red light. My car was on video,
which I could watch online. The front bumper of the car allegedly crossed the
white line 400 milliseconds after the light turned red.

I paid an attorney $300. He took all the standard legal means to delay the
trial so that if he lost, the ticket wouldn't affect my insurance until the
next year, thereby delaying a price increase. He wound up getting me an
acquittal because the driver (allegedly me) was wearing sunglasses. The judge
accepted his argument that, due to the sunglasses obscuring my eyes, the city
could not conclusively determine that I was the driver.

------
rsp1984
Call me extreme but I find the whole idea that a government can do what it
wants with collected fine money extremely disturbing. Unfortunately not many
people question it these days but I think a lot more should.

The first problem with "free" fine money is that is makes the enforcement of
some laws more important to the government than the enforcement of others.

The second problem is that it allows the government to protect such collection
from much of the scrutiny and transparency requirements that e.g. taxes have
to go through. For tax policy there are political parties and candidates to
choose from and you can exercise your power as a voter. However I've not ever
seen fine policy or rates being part of a political program. It's close to
impossible as a citizen to have any influence on that.

The solution to this problem would be to establish a law under which a
government must give all fine money straight to charitable causes (the
composition of which citizens can democratically vote on).

------
0x445442
Our family has receive four of these tickets in the eight years we've been at
our current residence. Fortunately, where we live you must be physically
served for the ticket to be binding in anyway. So we just throw them in the
trash and don't answer the door without seeing who it is.

At a prior residence in a different state I actually fought a red light ticket
in court. I was able to prolong the actual hearing for six months using the
government's own continuance rules. When the hearing finally arrived no law
enforcement official showed up so the ticket was dismissed.

Let's face reality here. These things are just an unconstitutional tax, no
more and no less.

~~~
paublyrne
Were the tickets unwarranted? Or are your objections because you don't want to
pay fines?

~~~
0x445442
I guess the answer to your question depends on how you reckon warranted.

I reckon the tickets were not warranted and therefore object to paying the
fines.

------
Natsu
Commentary on this at Volokh -

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-traffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-
ensues/)

------
omegaworks
Good on the author. We need people with the time and money to fight bad
precedent to do so. The people who designed the red light camera system in
Chicago understand this and pushed the camera install sites to poorer
neighborhoods with higher concentrations of people of color.

[http://uchicagogate.com/2015/09/24/under-the-guise-of-
safety...](http://uchicagogate.com/2015/09/24/under-the-guise-of-safety-a-
deeper-look-into-chicagos-speed-cameras/)

------
gravypod
It seems like the author has a lot of time on his hand and is actually putting
it to something that is good for the people.

Granted this was probably just him getting mad and wanting to throw his weight
around but it ends up being something that improves the quality of life for
anyone who deals with these unjust systems. I wish more law-academics, or
academics in general, pushed these types of reforms in their field. I wish
physisists and chemists could aid the community and that lawyers who actually
care can improve the legal system for everyone (remove red tape and blatantly
unconstitutional lawthat no one normal can fight).

------
new299
I love this. I love it partly because I could never imagine this happening in
the UK. The UK doesn't have a constitution. And I could imagine this getting
shut down pretty quickly.

I hope this kind of attitude persists in the US. It's one of the things that
continues to give me hope for western style democracy.

~~~
huxley
I know people believe this but the UK does have a constitution, it's the sum
of laws, treaties, conventions and the Common Law as interpreted by the
judiciary over hundreds of years.

It is no less real than the American Constitution. What it doesn't have is a
single written document (with amendments).

~~~
eximius
That makes it a bit harder to go read, don't you think?

It also lacks a fundamental feature the US Constitution has in being
umambiguously final. No other law can supersede it. Interpreting an entire
corpus of law as a 'constitution' is grossly inaequate.

~~~
sjy
The U.S. Constitution is far from unambiguous, and U.S. constitutional law can
only be understood as a corpus of precedents which explain the meaning of
terms which are open to interpretation, like 'due process' or 'freedom of
speech.'

~~~
eximius
I didn't say that the Constitution was unambiguous, but that it is
unambiguously the final law.

------
makeramen
Excuse my ignorance here, but is this something that can become a class action
against the city then? Why not find all the people given traffic tickets
without due process and probable cause? That would actually get some attention
no?

~~~
spoiledtechie
It currently happening in multiple states including the district of Columbia.

------
SolarNet
Municipal and County Attorneys are really really scummy. It's basically just a
job to be corrupt in. They have long forgotten their constitutional duty. The
lawyers who remember that are either busy earning a lot of money the hard way
(being corrupt is the easy way) or protecting those who need it. Taking money
from traffic cams is just another way this is expressed.

Local elections matter people.

(I have family members who are attorneys and public officials in small towns,
I speak about this from experience listening to them rant).

------
laurex
I recently went to court for a red-light ticket, which I received when I went
through an intersection where the red light was blocked by a vehicle in
another lane (this is clear from the video and photographs taken by the red-
light camera). At my hearing, the judge acknowledged that I was driving slowly
and that there was no way I could have seen the red light, but that he was
obliged to find all red-light camera cases guilty.

In general, I think we'll see that technology aids the state in "letter of the
law" situations, and as the state gets more access to information about us
(including the possibility of our thoughts), the ways to punish in biased or
primarily revenue-generating ways will only increase.

------
njharman
The contortions Montgomery County have gone through and way they implemented
it is poor. In other Jurisdictions, CA for instance, they've passed new
law/ruling that running red lights is same level of misdemeanor as parking
tickets. They take photo of driver and if driver is not you, you are free to
prove that in court. [this is 10+year old info so may have changed]. But, from
OA, the absurdity in Montgomery Co, is all around how they don't identify the
driver (with photo), yet the violation is against the driver.

Source: I use to work in this industry, even participated on the Montgomery
County Red Light Camera Pilot.

------
mherdeg
Ha ha:

""” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or
in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,”
she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to
be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that
none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could
expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we
would proceed under the criminal rules.""

I was hoping this to somehow turn into an admiralty court discussion.

------
jrs235
Things are getting so dystopian. Your property is yours and you are
responsible for it when the police want someone to pay a ticket for an offense
in which your property was used without your consent or knowledge yet when the
police want to take your property without evidence of wrong doing they sue
your property, not you, so they can confiscate it and you can't defend
yourself and your property without permission from the court/judge.

------
dnautics
> "several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil
> violation of a criminal prohibition."

I've always wondered. If these things are civil trials isn't it
unconstitutional for the traffic court to have a sign saying "you don't have a
right to a jury" (as it does in SF)? The constitution guarantees a right to a
jury trial in all civil cases with a penalty greater than $20.

~~~
spc476
But that was $20 back when the Constitution was written. Adjusted for
inflation [1] and you could be looking at anywhere from $390 (CPI) to $941,000
(relative share of GDP). I have no idea how that is applied today.

[1]
[https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_sou...](https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_source=1795&amount=20&year_result=2016)

~~~
dnautics
I don't see where it says "corrected for inflation" in the Constitution. If
the government wants to, by policy, devalue the dollar and make it easier to
claim jury rights in civil cases, that is its own fault.

------
benburleson
This story makes me wish I had studied law.

~~~
afarrell
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5)
Is a basic intro, drawn by a criminal defence attorney practicing in NYC.

~~~
jfoutz
Absolutely wonderful guide. I've bought copies of the book and given them as
gifts.

------
stevemk14ebr
Actually really interesting. It speaks of how people interpret the law to make
it do what they want, and eventually precedent gets set and that made-up law
becomes true.

------
debarshri
It is true that many traffic cameras, depending upon the vendor, technology
the camera uses and supporting infrastructure, may or may not produce the
actual cause of violation. This is the reason why many cities have multiple
level of validation from authorized officiers.

------
sytelus
So wait a minute... as per these arguments, all laws for speeding are null and
void because government can't prosecute you unless some citizen brings
complaint with allegations of personal injury. Is that correct?

~~~
jakewins
No that's incorrect. They can either do that, treating your speeding as a
civil case, or - much more commonly - they treat it as a criminal case.

The complaint here is that they are picking and choosing between the two
approaches, providing the safety mechanisms of neither.

Edit: Also, it appears the authors claim that the city couldn't
constitutionally treat it as a civil case are being disputed elsewhere:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-traffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-
ensues/?utm_term=.bc75cb9db24b)

------
dredmorbius
This account may be true. But the source has an exceptional interest in
promoting a specific point of view coming from extreme political
conservativism which should be considered.

 _The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New
Jersey.[1][2][3]_

...

 _The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion and same-sex marriage[7] and
deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and
globalization.[2] In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern
societies.[8] In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon
document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over
a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.[2] It held a conference
about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography[9] at Princeton
University in December 2008.[10]_

 _Financially independent from Princeton University, its donors have included
the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the John Templeton
Foundation, and the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation.[2]_

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute)

------
baloneyman
I think the most interesting concept here is that a future with driverless
cars is a future with almost no way to incriminate an American. Cars are the
main way the government gets in your business. I live in a big enough city
that I don't have to drive and the move has removed so much of the day-to-day
anxiety of life that I was astounded

What will they do when they can no longer control us via "you could be drunk"
or "you're driving the wrong way"?

~~~
hyperpape
Stop and frisk. Maybe it won't be applied to you, but it will be applied to an
awful lot of people.

------
praptak
Is it actually possible to have a constitution-compliant automatic system for
registering traffic violations in US?

~~~
chinathrow
Shoot the front license plate and get a picture of the person. Oh wait, not
all states have front facing plates.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_the_United_States#Mounting)

As a comparision, most of the EU member states have both front and rear facing
plates.

~~~
Pxtl
Multiple cameras, possibly recording video, could record enough info to fully
reconstruc the info on the infraction and get the picture of the driver and
the plate even if they're on opposing sides of the car.

------
pdx6
SF is working on installing speed cams, but it has to pass Sacto first. I
spoke to the staff at the SFMTA and they are working with the ACLU and EFF,
among other rights advocacy groups, to establish a fair traffic cam law for
SF.

------
sjy
Although McLeod is a law professor, some of his legal claims have already been
disputed by Orin Kerr on the Volokh Conspiracy.[1] He has published
constitutional law nonsense before, and once accused a federal judge of
'tyranny' for upholding the Fourteenth Amendment argument that succeeded in
Obergefell v. Hodges.[2] It is surprising to see so many commenters
uncritically endorsing his conclusions. His main complaint seems to be:

> [S]everal states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil
> violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can
> charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause
> determination, and without any civil due process.

But McLeod never explains what this actually means, and goes on to describe an
ordinary criminal trial where he was acquitted after the prosecution failed to
prove its case to the required standard. While the focus on the trial suggests
that he is complaining about criminal procedure, the real purpose of the
article seems to be to deny the legitimacy of traffic cameras as a law
enforcement mechanism. The vaguely-described contractual arrangements sound
concerning, but he doesn't give any supporting evidence and those contracts
weren't the subject of his case.

Traffic cameras are common in the rest of the developed world and can be used
consistently with the rule of law. This may involve the legislature infringing
the rights of accused people by shifting the burden, or reducing the standard,
of proof. That's something we should be careful about doing, but when the
maximum penalty is a modest fine, sometimes it makes sense to qualify the
accused's rights in order to save money on wasteful inquiries into trivial
misdemeanours. This kind of balancing of rights and interests is routine in
constitutional law. The Due Process Clause does prevent U.S. state governments
from reversing the burden of proof in some criminal cases[3] – but this is not
axiomatic, and McLeod didn't even show that the issue arose in his case.

[1] 'Law professor gets a traffic-camera ticket. Hilarity ensues.'
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-traffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-
ensues)

[2] 'Yes, Tyranny is a Fitting Word'
[http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14709/](http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14709/)

[3] 'Wrong on Red: The Constitutional Case Against Red-Light Cameras'
[http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...](http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=law_journal_law_policy)

~~~
int_19h
I think that his point is that, if he didn't know enough to take it to the
trial, the original "conviction" (not really, since there was no trial - but
in effect, enough to force the payment of fine) of him would stand, despite
all those blatant issues of lack of evidence that are _inherent_ in traffic
cameras - in particular, the lack of the ability to prove that the driver is
the specific person charged.

In other words, the city wanted to fine him under the "civil" rules, where
they claimed simple preponderance of evidence (car being on video, and its
plate number establishing him as owner, and therefore the most likely driver)
- even though the infringement itself was that of a criminal law, and no harm
was demonstrated to pursue it as civil. But the moment he did challenge them,
then - _and only then_ \- the new higher bar applied.

Logic would dictate that either the bar should be applied from the get go -
i.e. that no-one should be fined unless there's clear evidence that _they_
were the drivers (which would likely result in all traffic cam evidence being
summarily thrown out as inherently incapable of meeting that bar); or else, if
we want the low preponderance of evidence bar for fines, then actual harm
should have to be demonstrated for the fine to apply.

------
newscracker
I missed mentioning this in an earlier comment of mine. This, and probably
more of such, should be made into TV shows and movies. That'd get a wider
reach and help inform more people.

------
tptacek
I think this misses the forest for the trees.

McLeod identifies several very real problems with traffic ticket enforcement
in Montgomery. The red light cameras are operated by a third party company on
a secret contract. A police officer casually perjures themselves at the
hearing. The court's processes are onerous and unfair. These problems should
all be fixed.

But the author wants to make the case that traffic camera tickets are
unconstitutional, and fails.

By his own admission, there's an established constitutional framework for
issuing citations against vehicles and not people ( _in rem_ jurisdiction).
So, yes, the existing statutes for enforcement of traffic fines are
incompatible with cameras. But it seems clearly possible to write statutes
that are compatible: nothing about _in rem_ says you it doesn't apply to a
moving vehicle.

Cities and states can move to a system where camera tickets are like very
expensive parking tickets. That satisfies the superficial objective of cities
(revenue generation) --- probably more cheaply than the current system.
Meanwhile: they can collect data on drivers and run actual investigations on
repeat offenders, taking them to court directly and based on evidence if the
camera system produces indications that they're abusive drivers.

Traffic enforcement agents can simply ask you whether you were driving your
car at the time of the ticket. Most drivers will simply confirm. Some would
obviously deny driving the car, or refuse to answer at all. But the car has to
be insured, and insurance contracts are opinionated about who drives cars.
There's recourse there as well.

(It's worth noting that McLeod presumably _does_ know who was driving his car,
and presumably could have been compelled to testify as a witness in an actual
criminal case --- what made his experience with Montgomery's traffic court so
terrible was clownshoes procedural ineptness, not some fundamental problem
with cameras).

It goes without saying that cameras themselves will also improve. Does anyone
believe that 20 years from now it will be all that difficult to automatically
attribute a driver to a car tagged for a moving violation?

If it sounds like I'm pro-traffic-camera here, it's because in some sense I
am. I agree that the systems we have today are abusive and should be shut
down. But the overall concept is a very good one. Armed police officers should
not be the first line of traffic compliance enforcement. For "routine"
violations, of the sort where a traffic officer would simply pull you over,
write a ticket, and let you go, there's no reason to stop cars at all. Dozens
of people are killed every year in violent confrontations with the police that
begin solely because of some stupid traffic infraction.

I think cameras (and sensors in general) are the future of traffic enforcement
and that that's a positive thing.

~~~
eximius
While I disagree with your latter points, I understand that it is a valid
opinion. However, I'm curious why you think it is meaningful or lawful for
there to be a legal process against a vehicle? The car can't pay a fine, what
does it mean for there to be legal action against property?

~~~
sjy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction)

~~~
eximius
Interesting, thank you.

------
elastic_church
I'm still reading, what state is this? Montgomery City is ambiguous and it
doesn't give context near the beginning. I'm not sure if this is supposed to
be clever long-form of story telling where details are sprinkled letting you
infer as some form of entertainment, or if this is just missing pertinent
details.

~~~
shakna
MONTGOMERY, AL, following some of the links.

------
kapauldo
This guy should his talents to help stop cops from shoopting black people
instead of helping feed his own ego. He's intellectually correct but what a
waste of resources.

------
iamjdg
While he is a legal expert and I am not, I think he is missing the point. If
everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at
risk. Traffic cameras are a deterrent that save municipalities lots of money
not having to employ officers to act as deterrents. But a deterrent has to
have a real consequence (people pay fines and other people hear about this) to
work. He is using a small technicality to make a point about a huge issue of
liberty which wastes tax payer money and will put the public at greater risk,
cannot he do this through another means?

~~~
tobtoh
> If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be
> at risk.

And yet, the vast majority of road rules exist without any remote automated
enforcement mechanism, and there isn't chaos, and for the most part, the
public is safe.

Using absolute worst-case extreme examples which has no bearing on reality is
not a good way to make policy or law.

~~~
iamjdg
I'm just commenting based on my experience. I lived in Germany for 2 years and
knowing traffic cameras were there made me a safer driver, taking less
chances. Now being back at home in Canada, I noticed how my behaviour has
changed knowing there was less probability I would be caught.

Have you ever driven in Italy? I have, and in my opinion that experience was
bordering chaos. A small difference in how traffic laws are enforced makes a
huge difference in how drivers behave.

Using as an example a simple tool which saves money and is effective in
detering drivers from taking more risk to make a point about big issues of
freedom and liberty is wasteful and not very effective.

------
justinator
As noted on metafilter

[http://www.metafilter.com/164565/Law-Professor-Challenges-
Tr...](http://www.metafilter.com/164565/Law-Professor-Challenges-Traffic-
Camera-Ticket-Hijinks-Ensue#6874770)

FYI, the author is a morally repugnant conservative. He believes that a
lesbian couple should not both be legally recognized as the parents of a
child;[0] that Texas courts should defy the Supreme Court and further restrict
access to women's healthcare;[1] and that colleges should be free to
discriminate against LGBT students and employees; [2] among many other
positions.

He signed a statement calling on the local, state, and federal government to
refuse to follow Obergefell [3] (the case legalizing same sex marriage
nationally).

The website this was published on is an outlet of the Witherspoon
Institute.[4]

The author is fanatically opposed to what he calls 'the regulatory state'. He
is a far-right extremist and religious fundamentalist.

[0]
[http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/10/18106/](http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/10/18106/)

[1]
[http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17328/](http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17328/)

[2]
[http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/16907/](http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/05/16907/)

[3] [https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-
principles/st...](https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-
principles/statement-calling-for-constitutional-resistance-to-obergefell-v-
hodges%E2%80%AF/)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute)

~~~
cloakandswagger
What's your point? I'm trying to understand what you're hoping to accomplish.
That the original article is invalid because the guy pushing the issue is a
conservative?

~~~
justinator
Perspective of who the author is. Every author and every website has an
agenda. Personally, I cannot support an author who has these types of views,
as it is against the inalienable rights of my friends and myself.

~~~
cloakandswagger
In other words, you're willing to disregard an injustice as long as the person
it's victimizing is someone you disagree with.

That alone is wrong, but that you state it with such conviction and self-
awareness is disturbing.

~~~
ben0x539
There's lots of injustices. I'm by necessity disregarding almost all of them.
I'm not a court.

When choosing how to allocate my capacity for moral outrage, it's perfectly
valid to give preference to people who are not actively pursuing the cause of
taking away my rights.

In other words, it's ridiculous if the court is actually getting away with not
returning the bond, but as a matter of not shooting myself in the foot, the
author of the article shouldn't expect me to go to the barricades with him to
push through his interpretation of the constitutional invalidity of traffic
tickets only so he can turn around and fuck me over next, if he doesn't run me
over first, when I could be on way more important barricades to help people
suffering way worse.

------
developer2
You know what, I am going to go against the grain of supposedly intelligent
people on HN. Your _personal_ vehicle committed a traffic violation. Your
license plate was captured. The vehicle is registered in your name, and thus
you are liable. Unless you have reported the vehicle stolen, you are
responsible for the vehicle.

This kind of shit is a waste of taxpayer money. I don't agree with automated
ticketing. However, if it is clear that the vehicle was speeding, and it is
clear that it is your vehicle, and there is no stolen vehicle reported... give
me a fucking break.

Maybe it wasn't actually you. But you _know_ who you gave your car to that
day. You _know_ who was speeding in your car. Either get them to cough up the
cash to you, or deal with the fucking fact that you trusted someone else with
your car - clearly, someone who doesn't deserve to be trusted.

I hate cops. I hate stupid laws. But more than that, I hate people who look
for loopholes to absolve themselves of personal responsibility. Don't fucking
loan out your car if you're this type of asshole.

~~~
alanfranzoni
I think you're missing the point. IANAL, but some law students explained this
to me once (I hope to be accurate).

If you drive your vehicle, then park, and leave your vehicle without the hand
brake, the vehicle moves and kills somebody, then it's your fault, and it's a
crime, because your action - or inaction - killed somebody. From a criminal
standpoint, the last driver - and only the driver - will be liable.

OTOH in this case it was somebody else committing the infringement, be it
civil or criminal. For each, there's a procedure. Here, it should have been
the driver - not the owner of the car! - the one who got a fine. It's a
personal responsibility of the driver, not an "objective one" for the vehicle.

There's simply no mean, in most laws of any state of the world, for which such
a responsibility could be transferred from who does the act to the one who
owns something which is employed to commit such act.

Imagine you've got a knife, you lend it to somebody for some legit use, and
that person commits an homicide using it. Are you a killer?

Speeding is an infringement committed by whoever speeds; the vehicle's owner
has nothing to do with it. The whole "automated traffic control" systems were
started with the wrong foot, without a proper legal basis.

~~~
OliverJones
> leave your vehicle without the hand brake, the vehicle moves and kills
> somebody, then it's your fault,

true. It's also true if the brake fails, whether or not you maintained it
correctly.

> and it's a crime

false. It's a tort -- a misdeed against the victims, for which they or their
heirs can sue you to recover damages. The legal theory is "strict liability."
It applies also to farmers whose bulls escape into the village and wreak
havoc, and to factories whose molasses tanks collapse and flood streets. The
victim need not prove negligence to collect actual damages.

To collect punitive damages the victim does need to prove negligence.

~~~
bb611
Torts exist in the civil system, not the criminal system. The driver in this
scenario would likely be criminally liable for negligent homicide,
manslaughter, or one of their many legal equivalents in state law.

------
jakobegger
Reading something like this makes me sad.

We have a teacher at a law school that wastes everyones time by appealing a
traffic ticket because the legal basis isn't sound enough.

Did the city issue a ticket to someone whose car was parked at the time? That
would be something you should appeal!

Did the city issue a ticket to the owner of a vehicle instead of the driver,
because they have no way to identify the driver? It sounds like this was the
case. In that case, the proper thing to do is to inform the city of the
identity of the actual driver.

But to launch an appeal because you don't want to pay your partner's or your
kid's speeding ticket... that doesn't sound fair.

~~~
gizmo686
They charged him personally (not his car) with a crime he did not commit. And,
he spent twice the cost of the ticket to get his appeal heard, and has not
gotten that money returned.

