I Turned a Routine Traffic Ticket into a Constitutional Trial(thepublicdiscourse.com)
thepublicdiscourse.com
I Turned a Routine Traffic Ticket into a Constitutional Trial
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/01/18093/
467 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> “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.
> 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.
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...
It may well be wrong, but it sounds like what I'd expect in the UK.
I never got a speeding ticket, but I looked this up here: http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/dispute-speed-ticket-you-we...
It may well be wrong, but it sounds like what I'd expect in the UK.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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?
As a layman, can anyone explain why they are taught not to ask this?
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Commentary on this at Volokh -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
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...
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).
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).
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.
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.
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?
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
Source: I use to work in this industry, even participated on the Montgomery County Red Light Camera Pilot.
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.
""” 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.
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.
> "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.
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.
This story makes me wish I had studied law.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
[deleted]
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"?
What will they do when they can no longer control us via "you could be drunk" or "you're driving the wrong way"?
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.]