Author Topic: photo enforcement ticket!!! (Read 2655 times)

BrianB · « **Reply #60 on:** September 13, 2009, 09:03:48 AM »

Quote from: Casull on September 12, 2009, 01:16:25 PM

Quote
The citations here were issued only by photos taken of the back of the car, not of the driver. A co-worker was driving his father's car and his father was issued a citation. I clearly think there is a problem with that. I'm sure the judge will let everyone off the hook who walks in and says "Hey, I wasn't the driver."

First of all, don't believe every story you hear from a co-worker (or anyone else for that matter). And, yes a judge will throw that out (or be subject to an appeal) if the state cannot prove its case (which would be impossible without a witness or a picture of the driver). Finally, you DO have the right to demand a jury trial if you don't believe that a judge can be impartial. Come on people, we are talking about a camera (which doesn't lie like so many claim the police do). I'll bet that if a camera snapped a picture of the guy raping your daughter you wouldn't have a problem in the state using that against him. If you get caught, you get caught. I don't care if it's a leo or a camera, the important thing is that you were breaking the law. If there's a problem with the setup and it's not legit, that is a different matter (same as if the leo was lying).

Sorry, I do believe him because I remember when he found out about it. Cost him about $70 for not coming to a complete stop before making a right-hand turn at a traffic signal. But, thanks for the lecture, conjecture and legal advice. I'm so sure someone is going to go to the lengths of a jury trial over a $70 traffic fine.

BBF · « **Reply #61 on:** September 13, 2009, 11:44:39 AM »

I lived in a place for years that had those cameras hidden in unmarked Vans with a cop inside. The camera took pictures of the back license plate( there are States and Provinces that don't have one in front. The ticket is sent to the owner. If it wasn't you that drove then it was up to you to get the culprit to pay up .
A trip to the courthouse to fight this ended up most of the time adding points to your license because now they knew who to charge them to.

Casull · « **Reply #62 on:** September 13, 2009, 07:07:09 PM »

Quote

I'm so sure someone is going to go to the lengths of a jury trial over a $70 traffic fine.

Wow, guys on here are always talking about taking up arms against the government to preserve their rights, but you don't want to demand a jury trial to do the same.

Quote

A trip to the courthouse to fight this ended up most of the time adding points to your license because now they knew who to charge them to.

Ummm, they knew who to charge them to when they just had your plate. This makes no sense at all.

Quote

The District of Columbia came out and was going to confiscate the wife's van in leau of my truck for the unpaid fine.

Exactly how were they going to confiscate someone else's property for your purported violation? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

On a similar theme, I once received three parking tickets that were issued to a vehicle I sold before the tickets were issued. Received several threatening notices, made phone calls, told I would have to show up in court and prove I didn't own the vehicle (how do you prove you don't own a vehicle?). Anyway, I ended up telling the traffice division over the phone "do what you got to do, I'm not paying". That was about 12 years ago. That's my first hand knowledge.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #63 on:** September 14, 2009, 01:26:06 AM »

Quote from: Casull on September 13, 2009, 07:07:09 PM

Quote
I'm so sure someone is going to go to the lengths of a jury trial over a $70 traffic fine.

Wow, guys on here are always talking about taking up arms against the government to preserve their rights, but you don't want to demand a jury trial to do the same.

Quote
A trip to the courthouse to fight this ended up most of the time adding points to your license because now they knew who to charge them to.

Ummm, they knew who to charge them to when they just had your plate. This makes no sense at all.

Quote
The District of Columbia came out and was going to confiscate the wife's van in leau of my truck for the unpaid fine.

Exactly how were they going to confiscate someone else's property for your purported violation? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

On a similar theme, I once received three parking tickets that were issued to a vehicle I sold before the tickets were issued. Received several threatening notices, made phone calls, told I would have to show up in court and prove I didn't own the vehicle (how do you prove you don't own a vehicle?). Anyway, I ended up telling the traffice division over the phone "do what you got to do, I'm not paying". That was about 12 years ago. That's my first hand knowledge.

Obviously the liberals have time to take off work to make it to the 2 court appearences it takes to get out of a 70 to 100 dollar fine. You cannot do this in one trip to the court house, the first appearence you make a plea, the second is when you get your trial. You can have a judge try you or get a jury of 6 I believe it is here in MN for a misdemenor. If you ask for a jury you m ay end up coming back to court for a 3rd day.

BBF · « **Reply #64 on:** September 14, 2009, 03:42:02 AM »

Casull

It makes sense with the points when they go against your driver License instead of the Plate.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #65 on:** September 14, 2009, 04:05:55 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on September 11, 2009, 12:19:02 PM

I still want to know, if they have to have a clear picture of your face to ticket you? Could a person be ticketed if someone else was driving their car?

billy....has atllaw got you on ignore
i want his opinion too

can they give the driver a ticket with no facial picture
up to the jury......50/50 if i were on the jury

can you say ''asset forfiture''
drug dealers have their cars seized all the time....if used to facilitade a crime
in many cases they beat the charges but loose the vehicle
ever hear of a truck taken cause a doe was in it

YOU have a constitutional right to due process
your property doesn't

they should just hit the car with an extremly high fine and no point on lisence or seize the car
until some one pleads guilty

just pay the fine our country needs your money more than you
''wealth re-distribution is good for everyone'' b. husain obama

Casull · « **Reply #66 on:** September 14, 2009, 05:21:25 AM »

Quote

Casull
It makes sense with the points when they go against your driver License instead of the Plate.

Still makes no sense. If they have your plate, they know what your driver's license is (registered owner).

45-70.gov · « **Reply #67 on:** September 14, 2009, 06:45:49 AM »

i forgot to mention

watch who you let drive your car

seems like a good way to save my tax dollars
robots work cheaper than cops

vote to have speed limits raised if you think they are too low

one question to any lawers? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
man goes to trial claims he wasn't driving
calls a witness to the stand ask him ''were you driving my car on 9/14/09?''
witness refuses to answer claiming the fifth
witness says yes......can he be charged weeks after the act?

witness said yes i was driving this car on 9/14/09
when ask if speeding he pleads the fifth
owner has case dismissed witness is now charged

now charged witness calls owner to the stand
and is ask who is driveing in the photo
owner says that would be me.........no double jeoparty

Casull · « **Reply #68 on:** September 14, 2009, 06:52:49 AM »

45-70, I don't think I would want to trade a traffic conviction for a perjury conviction.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #69 on:** September 14, 2009, 06:58:24 AM »

no one has to perjure

but i am sure the shenenagans will upset the judge

it is clear he could seize the vehicle

wreckless driveing could be added for witch owner has been tried and admitted to driving

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #70 on:** September 14, 2009, 07:30:03 AM »

wild pay a lawyer 500 for a 70 dollar fine and a 50/50 chance of winning

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #71 on:** September 14, 2009, 07:30:48 AM »

BTW driving is a privlige not a right !

45-70.gov · « **Reply #72 on:** September 14, 2009, 07:50:25 AM »

just speculating for intertainment and curiosity

simplest thing is not speed

and if you get caught you get caught

maybe you could get a discount on the fine

since a photo ticket is cheaper to generate

the state could

just assess the tag when it gets renewed or by mail

then owner pays or talks to who ever uses his car

only charge points in the tratitional manner

BBF · « **Reply #73 on:** September 15, 2009, 04:14:38 AM »

Casull:
They split hairs on that legal wise and I wish I could recall exactly how this was justified in their mind.
Let me try it this way.

A picture of the Plate identifies the owner but not the driver therefore points could not be levied against the DL. If you showed up in court and fought the ticket saying you weren't the driver you got told basically" Tough sh*t" then get the money from whoever drove you are responsible because it is your vehicle.

If you fought the ticket because it was you, it came down to your word against a picture with the speed info imprinted and a cop's word the equipment was tested and worked within the specs. and you lost, period. Now the Judge( there were no jury trials on that ever) has your admission of being the driver and they will hang those points on your license which costs you more then the initial fine.

BTW this whole thing became a large issue in the election and got tossed out with a replaced Govt.

Hooker · « **Reply #74 on:** September 16, 2009, 02:39:41 PM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on September 14, 2009, 07:30:48 AM

BTW driving is a privlige not a right !

BS
The government has no authority to grant privilege to those it serves. One can only grant that which one has possession of and is ones property. Our Government owns no property assumed or physical. All properties that are not private are owned by the people, and are public properties. Among these publicly owned properties are the government and privilege. No where in our Constitution does it grant ownership to the government. It does however burden government with the duty of service to the people.

Pat

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #75 on:** September 17, 2009, 01:58:14 AM »

BS yourself , we the people are the govt. we own the road and we were not granted the right to drive in the consitution there fore we the people thru repsentation allow the driving thru privlage by those who meet the requirement .
You offer example of the problem America faces - it is easier to see Govt as a self sustained organization instead of a process we all are part of . It is much easier to sit back and complain than to take part .
Voting and being involved in Govt. is also a privlage not seen in many places .

billy_56081 · « **Reply #76 on:** September 17, 2009, 02:21:02 AM »

Ok here is my take akin to gun ownership. A few years ago the antis were trying to pass balisic fingerprinting. This would be just like the licence plate on your car. If someone was murdered with your gun does it automatically mean you are the culprit?

This has absolutly nothing to do with driving being a right or privilage. It has to do with due process and the presumtion of innocence which is one of the foundations of our legal system. If you don't get this you are sadly lacking in what it is to be an American

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #77 on:** September 17, 2009, 02:28:55 AM »

The lic plate is proof you paid your share to build and maintain the road .How is the MS like the lic plate ? are you paying for the air space the bullet flys thru. ? lic. plates and state inspection stickers prove your vehicle has met certian standards . MS is a ploy to make ammo hard to get and existing ammo unuseable or at some point illegal .
For the life of me i see no connection .

billy_56081 · « **Reply #78 on:** September 17, 2009, 02:43:27 AM »

Obviously your concept of ballistic fingerprinting is as far off as your concept of due process. Ballistic fingerprinting which is a sample bullet fired from your gun and kept in a datbase for refence in the future. Without a picture of the drivers face linked to the plate number the ticket shouldd not be issued. It is the burden of the prosection to prove guilt. It is not the burden of the defence to prove innocence. Due process DUHH!

If you go to court to fight a ticket and the officer does not show up the ticket is thrown out. It takes 2 appearences here in MN and the only statement you make is not guilty at the first appearence.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #79 on:** September 17, 2009, 02:58:48 AM »

not really i was stating the lack of connection of the two. In Va. if he does not show its most often thrown out . We also throw out the spent case shipped with a weapon .
Had you mentioned the adding of trace chemicals added to powder being like die added to diesel fuel for off road use it may have made sense . But still how does either relate to a DRI LIC ?