Speeding Ticket Stumper?

I have found the answer to this one stumps people, and was really surprised someone could have a copy of the constitution handy and still not get the answer. If you work in the legal profession, though, please refrain from participating till the answer is given.

"No fair" looking it up in some way. However , you may have a copy of the Constitution of the United States at your disposal.

Of course, I may find this group gets it answered fast. Should be of interest anyway.

The question: You get a ticket from a machine that catches you speeding or running a red light. It has as evidence a single photo of your car and the license plate. Why is it that you should always be able to beat this ticket *if* you go to court and challenge it?

I'll take it for granted we all know what I mean by "ticket" and not try to phrase this in a more legally correct manner.

Hint: you will be within your rights and do not have to commit perjury.

Constitution Link

edited

I didn't look it up. This is just a guess.

You have a right to face your accuser.

However, I think that's just for criminal cases...

Also, these machine tickets are against the car, not the driver. So that really doesn't apply. That accused is the car, not the driver or the owner - although it is the owner who has to pay.

FYI: These offenses, when written up by an officer against a driver, include points. Since this is a machine writing up the car, no points are included.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

...You have a right to face your accuser.

However, I think that's just for criminal cases...

Well, what little I know about the law, I learned from TV drama, so my knowledge in this area isn't worth a flip.

My first guess was the same as the DJ's, but I just have one question here: Doesn't a traffic ticket constitute a criminal case? What is the alternative other than it being a civil case, which I think it's not?

That's ridiculous. You're being accused by the police department. The traffic camera only has the evidence.

Plus the fact that surveillance cameras (being operated independently without a "user") are used to arrest people frequently. If that's been proven to not be a violation of your Constitutional rights, I can't see how a red light camera would be a violation. In most jurisdictions, I believe you must be made aware of the Red Light Enforcement by a sign approaching the intersection (I saw them in Maryland). This is similar to the "Premises under surveillance." signs in buildings, casinos, etc.

I looked up the answers and they're all pretty silly unless you can prove the machine malfunctioned.

Quote: Doc

Quote: DJTeddyBear

...You have a right to face your accuser.

However, I think that's just for criminal cases...

Well, what little I know about the law, I learned from TV drama, so my knowledge in this area isn't worth a flip.

My first guess was the same as the DJ's, but I just have one question here: Doesn't a traffic ticket constitute a criminal case? What is the alternative other than it being a civil case, which I think it's not?

You're right.

I used the wrong phrase.

I think traffic offenses are misdemeanors. The 'face your accuser' thing might refer to felonies.

Then again, I'm still just guessing here...

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You have a right to face your accuser.

this is one half of the correct answer. Although it may be enough to get you off by itself, the other half of the answer assures it. 50% credit for djtb.

I'm not sure what is supposed to be the right answer, but if was so easy to play the Constitution card, everybody would be doing it. Not that it was asked, but I fully support red light cameras, and wish they would use them in Vegas. The blatant disregard for traffic laws here is disgusting, especially for left turners.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You have a right to face your accuser.

this is one half of the correct answer. Although it may be enough to get you off by itself, the other half of the answer assures it. 50% credit for djtb.

May I guess that the other 50% is your ability to invoke your 5th amendment rights? You can say that you can't prove that I was driving the car (if the photo isn't a 100% clear picture of your face driving the car), and if they ask you if you were driving the car, you can say that you are pleading the 5th amendment, and are legally not required to answer, nor are they allowed to take your refusal to answer as any admission of guilt.

The only thing I do agree with in the "let's fight the lights" is that they shouldn't be able to give the ticket to the "car", without proof of who was driving it. Speeding tickets and traffic violations need to be given to the offender, not the owner of the vehicle.

Quote: cclub79

... Speeding tickets and traffic violations need to be given to the offender, not the owner of the vehicle.

How do you propose they handle parking violations, stand at the vehicle and wait for someone to show up and admit they parked it there?

I think it is reasonable to assign responsibility for the vehicle to the owner, except in cases of stolen vehicles and perhaps vehicles otherwise operated without the owner's authorization. If someone else violates the law in your car and gets you a ticket, then you can settle it with that person, even if you have to make it a civil suit, I suppose.

Quote: cclub79

May I guess that the other 50% is your ability to invoke your 5th amendment rights? You can say that you can't prove that I was driving the car (if the photo isn't a 100% clear picture of your face driving the car), and if they ask you if you were driving the car, you can say that you are pleading the 5th amendment, and are legally not required to answer, nor are they allowed to take your refusal to answer as any admission of guilt.

The only thing I do agree with in the "let's fight the lights" is that they shouldn't be able to give the ticket to the "car", without proof of who was driving it. Speeding tickets and traffic violations need to be given to the offender, not the owner of the vehicle.

this is the other part of the answer.

for speeding tickets, the driver, not the car, is the violator and the one that must pay. You may claim in court that the there is no evidence you are the driver, and that " the officer" needs to provide that evidence. I have heard of systems sophisticated enough to provide your picture, this unconfirmed, but without that the case is dead in my experience. You are not required to give evidence against yourself.

regarding parking tickets, that's interesting, and I don't know how to answer that. Not a lawyer myself.

regarding the WoO's point, from the admittedly fairly slim experience I have had, these are indeed pretty easy to beat and they seem to rely on people just paying anyway out of convenience. The fact that there is no 'points' involved is a factor with that.

In Wisconsin, and I bet just about everywhere, traffic tickets are not misdemeanors, but civil violations; speeding is against the law, but is not a crime. Though it doesn't matter to your checkbook balance, the money you pay for a ticket is a forfeiture, rather than a fine.

There are no traffic cameras in my area, but I'd be surprised if the law recognized an automobile as having committed a violation; pretty hard to lock up the Ford for contempt of court. Rather, Wisconsin uses an "owner's liability" law. For instance, if someone in your car pumps $20 of gas and drives off, you as the registered owner are on the hook for that bill (and/or citation), unless your girlfriend 'fesses up.

Red light camera systems take multiple pictures simultaneously. One of the licence plate and one head on to get the driver's face. If the driver's face cannot be seen clearly (a persone has to review these one-by-one), the ticket is not mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. Copies of the pictures are mailed with the ticket. The pictures are surprisingly clear.

It's silly to bring the Constitution into this kind of debate, because for many criminal proceedings (and prosecution of a vehicle code violation is DEFINITELY a criminal proceeding), the so-called "rights" of the accused are totally ignored.

Without getting too far afield, let's look at the "basic" speeding ticket. A policeman accuses a driver of violating the speed limit, based on his observation of the driver at a given moment in time. If the ticket goes to court, then it is the driver's word against the officer's, which equates to Bambi vs. Godzilla. The policeman--and, by extension, the district attorney--is not tasked with providing ANY kind of EVIDENCE to back up his accusation--the mere accusation is enough to secure a conviction. The courts have consistently ruled that the uncorroborated testimony of a single policeman is enough to eliminate "reasonable doubt". This, of course, is ludicrous.

The reason, of course, for obliterating the rights of the accused is that fines and fees from infraction, violation, and petty misdemeanor convictions (i.e., not just traffic offenses) are a major source of revenue for municipalities, and it would not be profitable to hold the prosecutor's office to the Constitutional standards for making and proving criminal cases--the conviction rate would plummet, and expenses would go up. So, like so many things, it's all about the $$$.

The rationale for photo tickets goes like this:

1. The machine doesn't make the accusation--the policeman who later examines the video does. And it is perfectly legitimate for a policeman to accuse someone of a crime based on forensic evidence, even if the policeman didn't directly observe the crime (reasonable).

2. Even if the camera doesn't observe the driver, probable cause is established, because the owner of the car is most likely to be the driver. This goes to the fact that criteria for an arrest are much less stringent than criteria for a criminal conviction. The accused will always have recourse to the affirmative defense that he was not, in fact, the one driving the car at that time (shifts the burden of proof to the defendant; dubious at best).

Constitutional (non-)protections aside, a defendant in such a case can always make the prosecution's life difficult enough that they will likely drop the case; all the defendant has to do is make sure the burden of proof shifts to the state (where it belongs). This, essentially, involves putting up a fight. Like the bully who, when his victim fights back, will usually seek someone else to torment, the state will drop the accused from its jaws if it appears to be no longer profitable to continue the case. That is why defendants in minor criminal cases are blackmailed with the threat of much higher fines, and possible jail time, if they insist on their rights to have an actual trial---if you fight and lose, you get hammered. That's because you are expected to just bend over, pay your fine, and get on with your life. That's what the vast majority of people do, and that's why it works so well for the municipalities that collect all the swag.

I only skimmed the previous responses so I don't know if this has already been said (or if it's even accurate), but the first thing that came to my mind was the following question: how can you tell how fast a car is going without at least two frames of reference?

If there's only one photograph, you would have no way of knowing whether the car was still, going 5mph, or going 100mph. If you had two photographs, you could calculate the speed of the car based on the differences between the photos.

Quote: JB

I only skimmed the previous responses so I don't know if this has already been said (or if it's even accurate), but the first thing that came to my mind was the following question: how can you tell how fast a car is going without at least two frames of reference?

If there's only one photograph, you would have no way of knowing whether the car was still, going 5mph, or going 100mph. If you had two photographs, you could calculate the speed of the car based on the differences between the photos.

That's why the eventual accusation is based on either a series of photos taken at very short intervals, or an actual video (which is really the same thing).

Reasonable suspicion is required to stop a car for speed, provided either by direct observation or the reading of a laser or radar gun. A traffic ticket is a non-criminal offense, and thus the state need not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It need only provide a preponderance of evidence, more like a 51% / 49% proposition. A conviction for speeding does not generate a criminal record under your name, it creates an entry in your driver's file with the state D.O.T.

Your Bambi v. Godzilla scenario is the result of courts stipulating to the accuracy of the laser and radar technology used to determine a vehicle's speed. One might argue that the cop picked out the wrong car, but "radar isn't accurate" doesn't fly as a defense. At best, a defendant might contend a unit hasn't been calibrated on schedule, but that might be it.

I'm uneasy with the idea of traffic cameras, it seems like "cheating" But I suspect they are a very cost-effective way to reign in excessive speed.

Quote: mkl654321

That's why the eventual accusation is based on either a series of photos taken at very short intervals, or an actual video (which is really the same thing).

The speed is determined by a radar or laser unit that tells the camera to trip the shutter.

Quote: mkl654321

That's why the eventual accusation is based on either a series of photos taken at very short intervals, or an actual video (which is really the same thing).

That's probably how it is in reality, but the original question said the only piece of evidence was a single photograph. If that were truly the case, it could be disputed on purely scientific grounds, without even resorting to using the Constitution (I think).

perhaps it's time to bring in my limited experience with this, in Virginia

Virginia has something called High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. You can get into trouble for getting on one without 3 people in the car, as they are reserved for such. I indeed got a robo-camera ticket for this, but wasn't driving the car. I actually didnt know much about what I was doing, but brought the person responsible to court with me, to testify that it was him driving. He never got a chance to testify. It went something like this: Judge: "officer, can you put this person in that car?" Officer : "no, your honor". "Case dismissed!". I didnt really understand what happened, to tell you the truth, at that time. But now I note that the Judge avoided asking me to provide evidence that I was in the car, or just who was in the car.

Years later, I read some things online to bone up on how to beat a ticket in general, in order to prevail in a case that actually did *not* involve such cameras. I did win that case, and coincidentally picked up some other facts, such as how your right to confront your accuser can come in on such things. This right was particularly mentioned for speeding cameras.

I later got a ticket for running a red light due to one of these cameras. I was busy and paid it once I saw there were no points involved, even though I didnt think the evidence was convincing; I believe I ran a "yellow" light and the evidence would support this to some degree, but, as I say, didnt contest. I really started thinking about what to do next time, and boned up on it again. Putting two and two together, I finally realized what had happened with these things and some other incidents I learned about second hand. I certainly plan to go to court if I ever get one of these things again. In the meantime Virginia has dropped using these cameras.

Quote: Doc

How do you propose they handle parking violations, stand at the vehicle and wait for someone to show up and admit they parked it there?

I think it is reasonable to assign responsibility for the vehicle to the owner, except in cases of stolen vehicles and perhaps vehicles otherwise operated without the owner's authorization. If someone else violates the law in your car and gets you a ticket, then you can settle it with that person, even if you have to make it a civil suit, I suppose.

Speeding tickets and traffic violations (moving violations) are what I was referencing, not a parking ticket. Most DMVs do make a distinction between illegal parking and violations that occur when the car is being driven. Once its in motion, the driver becomes liable.

Was it on this board that we discussed the old PA Turnpike toll ticket system when there were rumors they could give you a ticket based on figuring what time you got on the road and off, and how many miles you'd traveled?

Quote: cclub79

Was it on this board that we discussed the old PA Turnpike toll ticket system when there were rumors they could give you a ticket based on figuring what time you got on the road and off, and how many miles you'd traveled?

That is possible in the northeast with the Fast Lane (Massachusetts) and EZ-Pass (other than Massachusetts) toll-paying systems. To date I don't believe anyone has ever received a speeding ticket using data from the toll transponders as evidence, though.

Quote: Calder

I'm uneasy with the idea of traffic cameras, it seems like "cheating" But I suspect they are a very cost-effective way to reign in excessive speed.

What they actually are is a very cost-effective way to rein in (I assume that's what you meant) a nice big chuck of revenue. Reducing motorists' speed is a secondary, or maybe tertiary, consideration: a highly visible scowling cop on a motorcycle is a direct deterrent, a surreptitious camera is not.

Quote: JB

That's probably how it is in reality, but the original question said the only piece of evidence was a single photograph. If that were truly the case, it could be disputed on purely scientific grounds, without even resorting to using the Constitution (I think).

Given the decidedly unlevel playing field in state vs. motorist court cases, I think they could say that the radar detected that there was a car speeding, and the camera merely identified which one it was. Game, set, match. Pay your fine and shut up.

The accuracy of these radars is questionable, and the fact that the radar tells the camera to snap a picture does NOT mean that the resultant photo is of the car that tripped the radar. But if the court stipulates going in that the radar/camera system is 1000% foolproof (much like it stipulates that the testimony of a traffic cop is unimpeachable), then what can the poor mouse in the trap do, except perhaps squeak a little?

It sounds like fighting it is more plausible than perhaps is CW:

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

The fact that a CA town had to refund 7000 motorists' money suggests that you may be able to do more than squeak a little. Also the info on "snitch" tickets is very valuable.

To mkl's point, often it is NOT an officer of the law (Police) that is issuing the fine, but an independent company (similar to EZ Pass violations). It seems that the court does not recognize these companies with the same kind of authority that they would a police officer testifying against you. Their standing is up for debate.

In my state (NC), speeding 15 mph over the limit or less is a non-criminal "infraction", while speeding more than 15 mph over the limit is a misdemeanor. The District Attorney's office prosecutes both, if charged by a law enforcement officer, and must prove both beyond a reasonable doubt. There are (or were) some cities and towns that charged offenses, including speeding, by mailing a citation based upon a violation caught solely on camera. Those offenses are indeed truly civil cases (not criminal), and are decided by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Those offenses carry no license or insurance points even if you lose or just pay them. I realize this differs for different areas of the country.

Quote: mkl654321

It's silly to bring the Constitution into this kind of debate, because for many criminal proceedings (and prosecution of a vehicle code violation is DEFINITELY a criminal proceeding), the so-called "rights" of the accused are totally ignored.

As I wrote above, not all situations where someone is accused of breaking a traffic law is a criminal proceeding.

Quote: mkl654321

Without getting too far afield, let's look at the "basic" speeding ticket. A policeman accuses a driver of violating the speed limit, based on his observation of the driver at a given moment in time. If the ticket goes to court, then it is the driver's word against the officer's, which equates to Bambi vs. Godzilla. The policeman--and, by extension, the district attorney--is not tasked with providing ANY kind of EVIDENCE to back up his accusation--the mere accusation is enough to secure a conviction.

If a mere accusation is enough to secure a conviction, then why have a trial? Many trials are just one person's word against another. That doesn't mean that it isn't a proper method to make a determination about the charge.

Quote: mkl654321

The courts have consistently ruled that the uncorroborated testimony of a single policeman is enough to eliminate "reasonable doubt". This, of course, is ludicrous.

If 3 people, X,Y, and Z are standing on a street corner with nobody else around and X shoots and kills Y, are you saying that X should not be convicted of a crime soley on the testimony of Z? Of course a jury should at least have the option to covict X. To suggest otherwise, of course, is ludicrous.

Quote: mkl654321

The reason, of course, for obliterating the rights of the accused is that fines and fees from infraction, violation, and petty misdemeanor convictions (i.e., not just traffic offenses) are a major source of revenue for municipalities, and it would not be profitable to hold the prosecutor's office to the Constitutional standards for making and proving criminal cases--the conviction rate would plummet, and expenses would go up. So, like so many things, it's all about the $$$.

Once again, in NC, I think traffic citations cost the state more money than they make. But once again I realize that there may be other places where these types of cases do generate revenue.
I think the reason people believe that rights, Constitutional and otherwise, are being obliterated is that a lot of people don't understand how the criminal justice system works, or they think they have a right that they do not. For example, the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury is in the US Constitution. Does that mean you get to demand a jury trial on your speeding ticket? You might, but not because of that part of the US constitution I just quoted.

Quote: EnvyBonus

As I wrote above, not all situations where someone is accused of breaking a traffic law is a criminal proceeding.

If a mere accusation is enough to secure a conviction, then why have a trial? Many trials are just one person's word against another. That doesn't mean that it isn't a proper method to make a determination about the charge.

If 3 people, X,Y, and Z are standing on a street corner with nobody else around and X shoots and kills Y, are you saying that X should not be convicted of a crime soley on the testimony of Z? Of course a jury should at least have the option to covict X. To suggest otherwise, of course, is ludicrous.

think the reason people believe that rights, Constitutional and otherwise, are being obliterated is that a lot of people don't understand how the criminal justice system works, or they think they have a right that they do not. For example, the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury is in the US Constitution. Does that mean you get to demand a jury trial on your speeding ticket? You might, but not because of that part of the US constitution I just quoted.

A traffic violation certainly doesn't result in a CIVIL proceeding. There are only two kinds of court proceedings--civil and criminal. Therefore a traffic violation results in a criminal proceeding. If you don't think so, try not paying it or showing up in court, and see if you wind up getting sued, or getting thrown in jail. Guess which.

I agree with you---if it's cop vs. human, why have a trial at all? Especially since the defendant is usually punished (by getting a larger fine than if he had just quietly paid up) for insisting on one.

And one person's word vs. another should NOT be a proper method to make a determination. That's why we usually have that silly ol' thing called EVIDENCE. I, in fact, cannot simply say that you raped or assaulted or robbed me, and expect that my accusation alone would be sufficient to convict you. In fact, it wouldn't be enough even to go to trial. But when a COP says you did something, not only is it enough to go to trial, it's enough to get you convicted. I can't believe that you don't see what's wrong with that.

I am, in fact, saying that Z's testimony alone should not be enough to convict X. Why is it "ludicrous" to say that a person should be convicted of a crime solely on the testimony of another person? What if Z, in fact, is the one who shot Y? What if C or J or Q actually shot Y, but Z hates X and wants to see him get the rap????

Municipalities have invented a new kind of crime, the "infraction", as a way to circumvent defendant's rights and "streamline" the process of collecting revenue. Many states, in fact, affirm the defendant's right to a jury trial when accused of ANY crime, even an "infraction" or "summary offense". Title 18 of the United States Code defines the different types of these petty offenses, but the Constitution takes precedence over it; the Constitutional protection against summary trials remains intact. Thus, the body of law is subject to interpretation.

Arizona recently did away with it's traffic cameras. Here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us/16camera.html

It reads in part:

There is no glitch. The state, the first to adopt such cameras on its highways in October 2008, has become the first to pull the plug, bowing to the wishes of a vocal band of conservative activists who complained that photo enforcement intruded on privacy and was mainly designed to raise money.

Quote: FatGeezus

Arizona Department of Public Safety recently did away with it's traffic cameras.

FTFY. Speed and red light cameras are very alive and well here in Tucson, although two new cameras are offline right now because they don't have the correct signage (you need to have speed limit signs in the warning zone before speed cameras, and these didn't), and I think someone called them on it. I would imagine other municipalities have them as well.

Quote: mkl654321

A traffic violation certainly doesn't result in a CIVIL proceeding. There are only two kinds of court proceedings--civil and criminal. Therefore a traffic violation results in a criminal proceeding. If you don't think so, try not paying it or showing up in court, and see if you wind up getting sued, or getting thrown in jail. Guess which.

My main experience is in Arizona, but here there is a distinction between civil violations and criminal violations. It mostly revolves around the severity of the infraction, although there are other factors. Most speeding violations are civil, and don't require you to stand in front of a judge unless you want to plead "not responsible" (as opposed to criminal's "not guilty") and fight it. <IANAL>You will get into extra trouble if you don't take care of things before your "court date", but I think it ramps up more slowly, and the penalties are less harsh for civil violations.</IANAL>

Quote: FatGeezus

... a vocal band of conservative activists who complained that photo enforcement intruded on privacy ....

As I have stated before, I'm not really the political sort, so maybe I just don't remember correctly. Is the complaint that "the government is intruding on my privacy" usually associated with a "liberal" or "conservative" viewpoint? (Don't everybody jump at once to claim this as your own mantra.)

Quote: Doc

As I have stated before, I'm not really the political sort, so maybe I just don't remember correctly. Is the complaint that "the government is intruding on my privacy" usually associated with a "liberal" or "conservative" viewpoint? (Don't everybody jump at once to claim this as your own mantra.)

I would imagine that the Leave. Me. Alone. philosophy is associated more with the conservative movement. Their shibboleth is always, "less government". Though they would have no problem, it seems, with a million-man Federal Abortion Police, and a national monitoring system to make sure everyone prayed in school, on pain of being sent to a reeducation camp. And let's not forget the death penalty for blasphemy.

The conservatives would counter that the liberal philosophy of redistribution and "social justice" necessarily means a more intrusive, coercive, and powerful government, since "just" redistribution will only occur against some peoples' will. The liberals consider such a goverment to be an inherently good thing, because such a government is wise and benevolent and only will grant us those rights that we SHOULD have.

Frankly, I think both sides are assholes. But I would definitely say, to answer your question, that Big Brother is a Democrat.

Yes, I knew I didn't need to take a political stance -- thank you, mkl, for rising to the moment with some barbs I would not have offered myself. Now if we just wait a while, I assume that Jerry will escalate the conflict in the other direction, whichever that is.

I think, mkl, that your comment about conservatives having no problem with "a national monitoring system" is somewhat akin to my recollection that it is often the liberal side that objects to government intrusion on their personal, private lives while the conservative side objects to government intrusion into how they run their businesses. But I may have that mixed up. Anyway, that is why I was wondering about the quote that it was conservative activists that objected to photo monitoring intruding on their privacy.

Quote: Doc

Yes, I knew I didn't need to take a political stance -- thank you, mkl, for rising to the moment with some barbs I would not have offered myself. Now if we just wait a while, I assume that Jerry will escalate the conflict in the other direction, whichever that is.

I think, mkl, that your comment about conservatives having no problem with "a national monitoring system" is somewhat akin to my recollection that it is often the liberal side that objects to government intrusion on their personal, private lives while the conservative side objects to government intrusion into how they run their businesses. But I may have that mixed up. Anyway, that is why I was wondering about the quote that it was conservative activists that objected to photo monitoring intruding on their privacy.

Well, in Arizona, there pretty much ain't any other kind, except perhaps in Tucson--which may have some correlation with the persistence of auto-cameras there. As of last September (when I last visited), they were still ubiquitous on the local roads and freeways.

If Jerry responds, any conflict that arises will be with the demons that inhabit his fevered brain, not with me. I demur.

One reason why I have tended to favor the conservative philosophy over the years is that I believed their purported stance on "less government", which was in turn brought about by my feeling that as a society, we needed to be more vigilant than ever against the intrusion of government into our private lives: they now possess formidable technology, unlimited funding, and worst of all, a perceived mandate to truncate the rights of citizens in the name of "security". I have since realized that the conservatives don't have any problems with intrusive and coercive government at all, despite their oft-repeated mantra.

Quote: mkl654321

A traffic violation certainly doesn't result in a CIVIL proceeding. There are only two kinds of court proceedings--civil and criminal. Therefore a traffic violation results in a criminal proceeding. If you don't think so, try not paying it or showing up in court, and see if you wind up getting sued, or getting thrown in jail. Guess which.

If you don't believe me, fine. I think wildqat also pointed out that AZ has some traffic offenses that result in a civil proceeding.

Quote: mkl654321

I, in fact, cannot simply say that you raped or assaulted or robbed me, and expect that my accusation alone would be sufficient to convict you. In fact, it wouldn't be enough even to go to trial.

Yes, it would. If you are making it completely up though, you will be unlikely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote: mkl654321

I am, in fact, saying that Z's testimony alone should not be enough to convict X. Why is it "ludicrous" to say that a person should be convicted of a crime solely on the testimony of another person? What if Z, in fact, is the one who shot Y? What if C or J or Q actually shot Y, but Z hates X and wants to see him get the rap????

Take your scenario further: Have C,J,Q,X,Y, and Z all standing on a street corner. Z shoots Y, but everybody (except X) testifies that X shoots Y. I assume you are fine with this because now Z's testimony is corroborated by the other 3? You seem to just have a problem with testimony as evidence in general.

Quote: mkl654321

Many states, in fact, affirm the defendant's right to a jury trial when accused of ANY crime, even an "infraction" or "summary offense".

Which is why I said that it is NOT the US Constitution that gives you the right to a jury trial on a traffic case like we are discussing.

Quote: EnvyBonus

Which is why I said that it is NOT the US Constitution that gives you the right to a jury trial on a traffic case like we are discussing.

Actually, it does give you that right. The invention of the "infraction" or "summary offense" is an illegal attempt to take away that right. That illegal attempt has succeeded because of the ruling principle of American jurisprudence: "Money talks". The concept of the summary offense makes its MUCH more cost-effective for municipalities to impose and collect fines.

The United States Criminal Code (Title 18) defines "summary offense", but it does NOT supersede the Constitution. That is why the federal goverment has never challenged those states that endorse the right of ANY citizen to a jury trial for ANY offense.

It is a horrible, weaseling trick to strip criminal defendants of their rights simply because their offenses are "petty". My last traffic ticket, in California, cost $540, and I SHOWED UP IN COURT. My insurance rates went up by $260 a year (I had a clean driving record before then, and got all sorts of discounts), and that will last seven years, so the total cost to me will be $2360. The offense may have been "petty", but the punishment sure wasn't. And I was told flat out that I could NOT even REQUEST a jury trial.

Quote: mkl654321

Actually, it does give you that right. . . .And I was told flat out that I could NOT even REQUEST a jury trial

Do you not see how your own story just proved the point that the US Constitution doesn't give you that right?

Quote: mkl654321

The United States Criminal Code (Title 18) defines "summary offense", but it does NOT supersede the Constitution. That is why the federal goverment has never challenged those states that endorse the right of ANY citizen to a jury trial for ANY offense.

First, SCOTUS decided 40 years ago that the right to jury trial in the US Constitution doesn't apply to all cases.
Second, this statement doesn't make any sense. The reason that the federal government doesn't "challenge" the right to jury trial given by individual states is that nothing keeps a state from giving its citizens additional protections than those spelled out in the US Constitution.

Quote: EnvyBonus

Do you not see how your own story just proved the point that the US Constitution doesn't give you that right?

First, SCOTUS decided 40 years ago that the right to jury trial in the US Constitution doesn't apply to all cases.
Second, this statement doesn't make any sense. The reason that the federal government doesn't "challenge" the right to jury trial given by individual states is that nothing keeps a state from giving its citizens additional protections than those spelled out in the US Constitution.

Uh, no, I see how I was deprived of my Constitutional rights by a municipality that wanted my money enough that it stomped those rights into the ground.

The Supreme Court has made unconstitutional rulings in the past. As I said, money talks. I read no passage in the Constitution regarding the right to a jury trial that says, "Unless we don't feel like it."

Actually, the reason why the federal government doesn't usually interfere in issues of state constitutions is that it's political death to do so. If someone were in a state that didn't explicitly grant defendants those rights, and asserted those rights under the US constitution, the issue would move beyond state jurisdiction. Any subsequent ruling would establish the primacy of federal laws over state laws, which the US government has been loath to do. A good example is the CA marijuana initiative. If California says its citizens have the right to smoke pot, but the federal government says they don't, who wins---the 800-pound gorilla or the 50-pound chimpanzee?

Quote: mkl654321

A good example is the CA marijuana initiative. If California says its citizens have the right to smoke pot, but the federal government says they don't, who wins---the 800-pound gorilla or the 50-pound chimpanzee?

A California citizen did challenge the federal law. The Feds won. But they haven't been enforcing. If the new CA prop passes, it will become even more of a problem between the state and the Feds.

Quote: mkl654321

Uh, no, I see how I was deprived of my Constitutional rights by a municipality that wanted my money enough that it stomped those rights into the ground.

The Supreme Court has made unconstitutional rulings in the past. As I said, money talks. I read no passage in the Constitution regarding the right to a jury trial that says, "Unless we don't feel like it."

The phrase "beyond a resonable doubt" is nowhere in the US Constitution either, but you complained earlier that "uncorroborated testimony of a single policeman is enough to eliminate "reasonable doubt"". You can't just read the text of the Constitution and ignore the hundreds of years of case law and jurisprudence that go with it.

Quote: EnvyBonus

The phrase "beyond a resonable doubt" is nowhere in the US Constitution either, but you complained earlier that "uncorroborated testimony of a single policeman is enough to eliminate "reasonable doubt"". You can't just read the text of the Constitution and ignore the hundreds of years of case law and jurisprudence that go with it.

You're dealing in semantics. As you say, the burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a result of the centuries of case law as well as the social perception of what is law and what is not. Reasonable doubt is considered grounds for acquital. Uncorroborated testimony is not enough to eliminate reasonable doubt. I actually don't care whether that protection is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, or whether it's just a social trope. Either way, it's something we expect, and consider just.

You evidently believe that a summary trial is fair and just. I most emphatically do not. Further debate is pointless.

I don't care what offense gets which court and who goes where for whatever. But when I see anyone pulled over as I drive down the road anywhere, I cheer, and if it's somebody who blatantly cut me off to get ahead or who was zooming by me while ignoring the speeding laws, I slow down, beep a few times, smile at them and give them a nice long look as they sit in humiliation. Many drivers have little regard for others and only see them as "in their way". They just want others "out of their way" since they're delusional about how the road is only there for them to get to where THEY are going. In my mind I'd have traffic cameras up in every city and state in the country. Either that, or have snipers at every stoplight ready to take out anyone who runs red.

Quote: EnvyBonus

If you are making it completely up though, you will be unlikely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think, mkl's point is that the courts tend to hold government employees (policemen in particular) to a lot lower standard as witnesses.
If you make something up and go to court to testify, chances are your testimony will not be convincing enough, like you said. But if you were a policeman, it would be the whole different story then.

Quote: mkl654321

Many states, in fact, affirm the defendant's right to a jury trial when accused of ANY crime, even an "infraction" or "summary offense".

The right to a jury trial isn't everything. I had a dispute with the city about a parking ticket once. The process over here is that you don't get any trial at all - you just get a hearing by the hearing officer, employed by the same department that issued the ticket in the first place, and then if you lose that hearing ("if you lose" - haha), you can sue the city in the Superior Court. There you can have your jury trial all you want ... just pay $250 filing fee (that you won't get back, even if you win the case). My ticket fine was $45 ... Now who wants to guess if I exercised my right for the jury trial or not? :)

The traffic violation appeal process is very similar here too, with an exception that the initial appeal is heard by a court clerk, not a city official, and has a slightly higher chance to win. Because it is not the court proceedings, stuff like "reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of evidence" isn't even mentioned. You just need to convince the officer that you did not do what they say you did. Try arguing something as ridiculous as "you can't prove that it was me who was driving", and you'll be laughed out of there.

If you do file the suit after you lose the hearing, it'll be a different story. There you will have a chance to question the officer that gave you the ticket, and argue any ridiculous defense you want. It comes at a fairly high cost though, and you'll likely have to commit perjury to put up a defense (no, there is no 5th amendment right here) that has any chance of winning. Besides, 99% of time, you'll simply actually be guilty and know it.

So, technically, the option is available, but understandably, not very frequently used.

A couple of random points ...

mkl, traffic violations are normally civil infractions, not criminal (unless, it's a DUI or something), the consitution doesn't actually provide any protection for that. If you don't pay your obligations by a civil judgment, you can be thrown in jail too (for contempt of court), but unpaid traffic tickets rarely result in that - most of the time, you'd just get your license suspended or revoked.

Well, since we are relating personal experiences, I’ll offer one from back in my days as a military draftee. The post where I was assigned was out in the desert of New Mexico, and there was definitely a lot of speeding that went on there. The commanding general was perturbed (a different word starting with “p” might be more appropriate), and the told the MP company to put a stop to all that speeding.

When the general gives that kind of order, you can bet that a lot of tickets are going to be issued. No GI wanted to be in the position that someone could claim he was not fulfilling the general’s instructions, so each MP had to be certain that he had issued a sufficient number of speeding tickets. And it wasn’t necessarily the case that the drivers who received citations were actually speeding at the time.

In this environment, I was one of a line of drivers who were stopped by a radar speed trap one morning, and we all were adamant that we were not exceeding the speed limit. At the ensuing hearing, we had the options of (1) paying the assessed fine or (2) declaring our innocence and (because it all happened on a military base) defending ourselves in what constituted a federal court.

I chose option #2 as a matter of principle -- I was young, a bit naive, and I knew that I had not been speeding (at least not that particular morning). The judge said that in order to get off, I would have to show that the MPs made an error, and he scheduled the case for a week later. It was clear that the judge was not going to be swayed by half a dozen other drivers testifying that none of us were speeding, so I spent the week gathering info on what instructions the MPs had been given for operating a speed trap. The MP company was not the least bit cooperative in that, but the clerk of court was able to coerce them into giving me some of the info.

At my court date, I was given the opportunity to ask questions of the MP who issued the ticket. His testimony revealed that he and his partner were basically clueless about how to operate a speed trap and that they set up their equipment improperly:

(1) They set up in a curve so that the cars were coming at them at an angle when struck by the radar beam. (Ordinarily this would understate the vehicle’s speed, but this setup violated their instructions for using the radar.)

(2) They had the range for their radar unit set on maximum, which the MP on the stand claimed would work up to a mile. Their targeted vehicles were only about 50 yards away, but he testified that they always used maximum range, with no explanation as to why. In this instance, behind the targeted cars in the curve was a large open athletic field and beyond that more roads – I suggested that they might be measuring speeds of the vehicles on those roads. He said they weren't, but offered no explanation of why their "maximum range" setup couldn't be monitoring those more distant cars.

(3) Back in those days, their radar readout was analog, not digital, and one of the other drivers who had been stopped had observed the needle making spurious jumps, even when there was no car passing by. I asked the MP on the stand about that and he said, "That's just noise; we can tell what is real speed info and what isn't." That may have been true, but he didn't sound the least bit convincing.

The judge recognized the weaknesses in the testimony by the MP and the questionable way they had operated their speed trap. He said to me, “I suspect that you were actually speeding, but ruling that would require me to open my courtroom to speculation. Case dismissed.” I had “won” by representing myself in federal court, but it left a bitter taste in my mouth that the judge still believed I had been speeding.

Quote: weaselman

mkl, traffic violations are normally civil infractions, not criminal (unless, it's a DUI or something)

In Wisconsin, a first-time OWI isn't even a crime...non-criminal forfeiture, with a licenses suspension tacked on.

The state Tavern League has a pretty strong lobby in Madison.

Quote: weaselman

mkl, traffic violations are normally civil infractions, not criminal (unless, it's a DUI or something), the consitution doesn't actually provide any protection for that. If you don't pay your obligations by a civil judgment, you can be thrown in jail too (for contempt of court), but unpaid traffic tickets rarely result in that - most of the time, you'd just get your license suspended or revoked.

That's pretty much my point--by creating this new category of offense, municipalities did a neat little end run around civil rights, the Constitution, and simple fairness. The potential punishments are less drastic than for more serious offenses, but that doesn't mean they aren't substantial. Legislators who make $100,000 a year, plus twice that again in bribes, are likely to pooh-pooh a $200 fine as a mere flea-bite. That's not the case if having to pay such a fine makes you have to choose between getting the phone or the electricty shut off.

By the way, the term "civil infractions" is pretty much an oxymoron. If you can be fined or have other sanctions placed against you by the state, that is a criminal punishment. In a civil proceeding, one party seeks either damages or an injunction against the other. A traffic fine is not damages; it is PUNISHMENT.

Quote: Doc

The judge recognized the weaknesses in the testimony by the MP and the questionable way they had operated their speed trap. He said to me, “I suspect that you were actually speeding, but ruling that would require me to open my courtroom to speculation. Case dismissed.” I had “won” by representing myself in federal court, but it left a bitter taste in my mouth that the judge still believed I had been speeding.

That was a truly assholy thing for the judge to say. He was trying to convert the verdict from "not guilty" to "case not proved" (which is a valid ruling in Britain, but not here). I suspect that he was subtly trying to discourage anyone else from being as uppity as you had been.

The blowback you got was symptomatic of the hostility a person attempting to assert his rights receives in the case of "summary offenses". The whole summary offenses construct was meant to bypass due process and proceed directly from accusation to guilty verdict, so by resisting, you upset the applecart.

The score isn't Lions 10,000,000,000, Christians 0--it's more like Lions 9,999,999,127, Christians 873. But that's bad enough to discourage most Christians from trying to fight the Lions.

Quote: mkl654321

A traffic fine is not damages; it is PUNISHMENT.

There is a notion of "PUNITIVE damages".
Compare it to a contract with your cell phone company. You agree to pay for their service for two years or, if you fail, to pay $250 in "early termination fee". Or take a credit card agreement. If you do not pay your beel on time, you are assessed a "late fee".
Neither of these fees is actual "damages" to the other party of your contract, they rather serve to deter you from breaching the contract at will.
Same can be said about government fines. The government gives you the privilege to drive on public roads, and you agree to obey the traffic rules or pay the deterrent "fee" in case you don't.

Quote: weaselman

There is a notion of "PUNITIVE damages".
Compare it to a contract with your cell phone company. You agree to pay for their service for two years or, if you fail, to pay $250 in "early termination fee". Or take a credit card agreement. If you do not pay your beel on time, you are assessed a "late fee".
Neither of these fees is actual "damages" to the other party of your contract, they rather serve to deter you from breaching the contract at will.
Same can be said about government fines. The government gives you the privilege to drive on public roads, and you agree to obey the traffic rules or pay the deterrent "fee" in case you don't.

The most obvious difference would be that if you don't pay your cell phone bill (or break the contract), you can't be thrown in jail. You also can't be assessed penalties that have nothing to do with the original "offense" (like getting your driver's license suspended for failing to pay a fine). It isn't a crime to not pay a bill that you owe a private party, but it IS a crime to not pay a fine you owe a municipality (that was assessed by a court).

And that was my point, that "damages" usually are NOT punitive, but relate to the redress of actual harm caused. A traffic fine is never a redress of "damages" (which are the province of CIVIL courts), because it is impossible to quantify the harm you have caused the body politic by going 55 in a 45 zone (and if you could quantify such harm, I suspect it would be something like three cents).

Quote: mkl654321

The most obvious difference would be that if you don't pay your cell phone bill (or break the contract), you can't be thrown in jail.

Yes, you can actually. The cell company would have to sue you, and secure a judgment, and then, if you still refuse to pay, the judge may order you arrested.

Quote:

You also can't be assessed penalties that have nothing to do with the original "offense" (like getting your driver's license suspended for failing to pay a fine).

The license suspension is akin to termination of the contract. Cell company can terminate your service if you violate terms of contract, and, much the same, the government can revoke your driving privileges if you refuse to obey the rules.

Quote:

It isn't a crime to not pay a bill that you owe a private party, but it IS a crime to not pay a fine you owe a municipality (that was assessed by a court).

It is a crime to refuse to obey the order of the court. Doesn't matter who you owe.

Quote:

And that was my point, that "damages" usually are NOT punitive, but relate to the redress of actual harm caused.

If I am one day late with my credit card bill, how does it cause them any harm at all, leave alone 45 bucks they want to charge me for that?