Do I have to pay this speed camera fine?

[longliveCS40]

Also, don't look now but it would appear your "significantly less crashes on S curve" assertion is total B.S.

Quote from the DOT (A group with nothing to gain or lose by cameras being in place):

“We looked at six years before and three years after the cameras were installed, and at that location the total number of crashes was essentially the same on an annual basis averaging about thirty two crashes per year in that stretch,” Gent said. “So, really nothing changed in the total number of crashes. Based on our further evaluation, It's really hard to say the cameras made a significant difference."

Oops, please explain why they should stay now that facts are in play.

 

[herecomethehawkeyes]

I guess you have to do whatever you can to make money when you spend millions on stupid crap like a failed casino and paying a company millions for your new library location only to tear down the building and have to spend millions more on asbestos. That city government is the absolute worst and I'm glad I moved away.

if you have moved away, were you aware of the tax levy that was put up to a vote earlier this year to increase taxes to keep the library operational, all the while tearing up perfectly good green space right across the road to make it into...... green space, complete with a $1/4 million sculpture from an artist in california. funny how there is money for those kind of projects, but they have to guilt trip the public into voting to raise taxes if they want to keep the library running as it was.

 

[longliveCS40]

if you have moved away, were you aware of the tax levy that was put up to a vote earlier this year to increase taxes to keep the library operational, all the while tearing up perfectly good green space right across the road to make it into...... green space, complete with a $1/4 million sculpture from an artist in california. funny how there is money for those kind of projects, but they have to guilt trip the public into voting to raise taxes if they want to keep the library running as it was.

I did read about that, I was just a lot less angry about it since I no longer have to pay taxes in that bassackards town. That whole library fiasco with True North getting such a sweet deal should have been enough to get the mayor and anyone in the government relieved of duty.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Good grief, I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd argue it.

If the Sixth only applies to criminal prosecutions, why would the Supremes cite radar guns in justification of their ruling?

Courts all over the country have ruled against speeding tickets issued by LEOs when they couldn't prove the machine was correctly calibrated. Courts have invalidated red light and speeding camera programs for the same reason (some right here in Florida). The supreme court even cited as such as a justification to rule the way they did and yet you still continue with your foolishness.

If the government wants to extract a fine from me on the basis that I did something wrong, then I should have the right to confront my accuser. If any court has found a way to weasel out of that, then such a court is wrong. As are you. I have the right to try and prove my innocence, and the only way to do that is to attack the validity of the device that is accusing me of wrongdoing.

I'm not ready to surrender our rights to an unimpeachable Robocop. Not sure why you are, either. Perhaps it's your pathological need to disagree with me about everything. Might want to seek help for that.

I'm back! Point by point:

If the Sixth only applies to criminal prosecutions, why would the Supremes cite radar guns in justification of their ruling?

Is this serious? Traffic violations are criminal violations, and also they can have further criminal implications such as through the 4th and search/seizure.

Courts all over the country have ruled against speeding tickets issued by LEOs when they couldn't prove the machine was correctly calibrated. Courts have invalidated red light and speeding camera programs for the same reason (some right here in Florida). The supreme court even cited as such as a justification to rule the way they did and yet you still continue with your foolishness.

Again, you are talking about criminal violations, and even then you aren't talking about what you think you are talking about. Proving a machine is incorrectly calibrated would certainly be a defense. I think this is stemming from your belief that there can be no judicial review, which I told you was incorrect. But, I haven't had time to look at the Cedar Rapids ordinance until now, so you are forgiven for not simply trusting me.

If the government wants to extract a fine from me on the basis that I did something wrong, then I should have the right to confront my accuser.

It is a civil penalty, and we have lots of civil penalties. Do you say that for all the others as well? Parking tickets are the most oft compared, but there are plenty of others I'm sure you are aware of.

Really what you are complaining about here is not a 6th Amendment concern, since that doesn't apply to civil, but a Due Process issue in general. That, because the government is taking from you, due process is required. You could certainly argue, and lose, that due process requires confrontation, but that would seem a bit silly considering the 6th specifically requires it in criminal, which it wouldn't need to do if it applied to any and all takings. In reality, due process is required, and most states (all that still have cameras, that I'm aware of) have determined that their various procedures do, in fact, satisfy due process.

Simply repeating yourself ad naseum about a clause that doesn't apply doesn't win you the day ... especially when the case you cite does not say anything remotely close to what you claim it does. That was an OWI/DUI/DWI case, clearly a criminal case under the 6th amendment. Do you also think you have a 5th amendment right to counsel provided by the public? How about a right not to incriminate yourself, and they force you to violate that right by requesting a hearing?

I have the right to try and prove my innocence, and the only way to do that is to attack the validity of the device that is accusing me of wrongdoing.

Who is stopping you from proving your innocence? The first step would be innocence. Are you aware of anyone who was wrongfully cited and then found in violation of one? Did you help them appeal it? Sue on their behalf? It isn't like there aren't options available, you just dream about tyranny wherever you can.

 

[theIowaHawk]

People drive 75 until they get near the camera areas and then they slow down. If you want to argue that then you do not drive that stretch of 380 daily.

If you think the cameras are there for safety rather than for revenue generation, you're fooling yourself.

As the previous poster pointed out, if safety were the goal, they'd have placed the cameras in school zones and places like Collinsville Road around the mall. These cameras are for money and the idiot city government that implemented them didn't even do that right. They contracted a company out of New York and the city only gets like 40% of the revenue.

I guess you have to do whatever you can to make money when you spend millions on stupid crap like a failed casino and paying a company millions for your new library location only to tear down the building and have to spend millions more on asbestos. That city government is the absolute worst and I'm glad I moved away.

You are wrong, people generally are not driving 75 through cedar rapids. Maybe at specific times each day, I'm not there enough to say it conclusively, but I am there multiple times/week/month and generally people are at 65 or lower. And no one is slamming on their brakes around the curve. As you say they slow down near the camera...which is the intended effect, because the curve is dangerous, much more dangerous than any other stretch of 380.

I'm sure it is for revenue as well, I don't think anyone on here claimed it absolutely wasn't. But if there is any one speed camera in the state that is for safety and impacts safety it is this one.

Care to explain how people slowing down at the curve is not good for safety?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Also, don't look now but it would appear your "significantly less crashes on S curve" assertion is total B.S.

Quote from the DOT (A group with nothing to gain or lose by cameras being in place):

“We looked at six years before and three years after the cameras were installed, and at that location the total number of crashes was essentially the same on an annual basis averaging about thirty two crashes per year in that stretch,” Gent said. “So, really nothing changed in the total number of crashes. Based on our further evaluation, It's really hard to say the cameras made a significant difference."

Oops, please explain why they should stay now that facts are in play.

That is a very good reason to re-think the camera. We also have laws against masturbating in public, but my guess is there has been no significant decrease in the act. That might mean the law isn't having its intended effect (or the effect wasn't needed), but that doesn't prove that it wasn't done for safety. As even you admit, people are slowing down significantly if they were going 75 and then passed through under 65.

 

[The Tradition]

I'm back! Point by point:

If the Sixth only applies to criminal prosecutions, why would the Supremes cite radar guns in justification of their ruling?

Is this serious? Traffic violations are criminal violations, and also they can have further criminal implications such as through the 4th and search/seizure.

Courts all over the country have ruled against speeding tickets issued by LEOs when they couldn't prove the machine was correctly calibrated. Courts have invalidated red light and speeding camera programs for the same reason (some right here in Florida). The supreme court even cited as such as a justification to rule the way they did and yet you still continue with your foolishness.

Again, you are talking about criminal violations, and even then you aren't talking about what you think you are talking about. Proving a machine is incorrectly calibrated would certainly be a defense. I think this is stemming from your belief that there can be no judicial review, which I told you was incorrect. But, I haven't had time to look at the Cedar Rapids ordinance until now, so you are forgiven for not simply trusting me.

If the government wants to extract a fine from me on the basis that I did something wrong, then I should have the right to confront my accuser.

It is a civil penalty, and we have lots of civil penalties. Do you say that for all the others as well? Parking tickets are the most oft compared, but there are plenty of others I'm sure you are aware of.

Really what you are complaining about here is not a 6th Amendment concern, since that doesn't apply to civil, but a Due Process issue in general. That, because the government is taking from you, due process is required. You could certainly argue, and lose, that due process requires confrontation, but that would seem a bit silly considering the 6th specifically requires it in criminal, which it wouldn't need to do if it applied to any and all takings. In reality, due process is required, and most states (all that still have cameras, that I'm aware of) have determined that their various procedures do, in fact, satisfy due process.

Simply repeating yourself ad naseum about a clause that doesn't apply doesn't win you the day ... especially when the case you cite does not say anything remotely close to what you claim it does. That was an OWI/DUI/DWI case, clearly a criminal case under the 6th amendment. Do you also think you have a 5th amendment right to counsel provided by the public? How about a right not to incriminate yourself, and they force you to violate that right by requesting a hearing?

I have the right to try and prove my innocence, and the only way to do that is to attack the validity of the device that is accusing me of wrongdoing.

Who is stopping you from proving your innocence? The first step would be innocence. Are you aware of anyone who was wrongfully cited and then found in violation of one? Did you help them appeal it? Sue on their behalf? It isn't like there aren't options available, you just dream about tyranny wherever you can.

Look, why don't you go argue with Brett Snider, Esq. since you think you know everything.

• Use of the camera photo is a violation of your Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Constitution guarantees you the right to confront your accusers. That means the photo technically cannot be allowed into evidence without allowing you to cross-examine a witness who maintains the records and system associated with the camera.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/05/legal-how-to-fighting-red-light-camera-tickets.html

Until then, begone troll.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Ok, so here is the Cedar Rapids ordinances: https://www.municode.com/library/ia/cedar_rapids/codes/code_of_ordinances

Traffic cameras are under Chapter 61. (e)(2) is the provision moving this from administrative to judicial. At that point you could conceivable challenge the certification and whatnot of the device.

Vehicle Owner's Civil Liability for Certain Traffic Offenses.

1. The Vehicle Owner shall be liable for a fine as imposed below if such a vehicle crosses a marked stop line or the intersection plane at a system location when the traffic signal for that vehicle's direction is emitting a steady red light or arrow.

2. The Vehicle Owner shall be liable for a fine as imposed below if such vehicle travels at a speed above the posted limit.

3. The violation may be exempted from liability as outlined below in subsection (f.) of this section, and other defenses may be considered in connection with the appeal process.

4. In no event will an Automated Traffic Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record.

(e) Contesting an Automated Traffic Citation. A Vehicle Owner who has been issued an Automated Traffic Citation may contest the citation as follows:

1. By submitting in a form specified by the City a request for an administrative hearing to be held at the Cedar Rapids Police Department before an administrative appeals board (the "Board") consisting of one or more impartial fact finders. Such a request must be filed within 30 days from the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle Owner. After a hearing, the Board may either uphold or dismiss the Automated Traffic Citation, and shall mail its written decision within 10 days after the hearing, to the address provided on the request for hearing. If the citation is upheld, then the Board shall include in its written decision a date by which the fine must be paid, and on or before that date, the Vehicle Owner shall either pay the fine or submit a request pursuant to the next paragraph, (e.)(2.).

2. By submitting in a form specified by the City a request that in lieu of the Automated Traffic Citation, a municipal infraction citation be issued and filed with the Small Claims Division of the Iowa District Court in Linn County. Such a request must be filed within 30 days from the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle Owner. Such a request will result in a court order requiring the Vehicle Owner to file an answer and appearance with the Clerk of Court, as well as setting the matter for trial before a judge or magistrate. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the municipal infraction, state mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine imposed by this section.

(f) Exceptions to Owner Liability. There shall be no liability pursuant to this section if:

1. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the violation in question pursuant to Cedar Rapids Code Chapter 61 or Iowa Code Chapter 321 (2008); or

2. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen, provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle Owner at the time of the alleged violation; or

3. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle; or

4. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question was lawfully participating in a funeral procession; or

5. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question entered the intersection in order to yield the right-of-way to an emergency vehicle.

(g) Failure to Timely Pay or Appeal. If the recipient of an Automated Traffic Citation does not either pay the fine by the due date stated in the citation or appeal the citation as provided herein, a municipal infraction citation may be filed by the Cedar Rapids Police Department and a fine may be sought in accordance with Cedar Rapids Code section 1.12 rather than subsection (d.) above. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the municipal infraction, state mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine imposed by this section.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Look, why don't you go argue with Brett Snider, Esq. since you think you know everything.

• Use of the camera photo is a violation of your Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Constitution guarantees you the right to confront your accusers. That means the photo technically cannot be allowed into evidence without allowing you to cross-examine a witness who maintains the records and system associated with the camera.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/05/legal-how-to-fighting-red-light-camera-tickets.html

Until then, begone troll.

You are hilarious. Earlier you posted that the court case you cited wins your argument, then you posted "If any court has found a way to weasel out of that, then such a court is wrong," saying that you would simply ignore any ruling to the contrary.

Then you tell me I'm wrong while pointing to some guy on Findlaw as who is right. You crack me up.

Let's take a look at your link:

"Red-light cameras can be a major pain for any driver who has received a ticket. But there are some potential ways to fight red-light camera tickets on your own."

"Here's how you may be able to fight your red-light camera ticket and potentially avoid paying a hefty fine:"

"Of course these are just a few potential arguments, and each red-light camera case is different. For more complex cases, or if you need personal advice on the best way to fight your red-light camera ticket, consider consulting an experienced traffic ticket lawyer near you."

Also, that is while he is talking about a prosecutor and arraignment, you know, things that apply to criminal sanctions. Again, you seem to think that civil penalties, like the CR traffic camera, is the same as criminal penalties like regular traffic violations. There are differences, you know, one of the reasons why they don't ping your license or anything else, because they aren't criminal.

Also, here appears to be the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brett-snider-346550b . You should take a look at his extensive experience in Constitutional law...where he, um, worked as a law clerk for nearly two years in a DA's office....while in law school.

Brett Snider
Product Manager - Direct to Consumer at FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters

Brilliant retort Trad, as usual.

 

[theIowaHawk]

There are lots of ways to complain about and legally challenge traffic cameras. I'm just pointing out your specific failings in doing so.

I'm not even in favor of them, I just didn't want you to echo-chamber ignorant claims to other HROT posters. There is only one in Iowa that I have found to be useful and successful (in my opinion, but as longlive points out may be incorrect) and that is the one in Cedar Rapids. I don't think red-light ones are all that helpful in Iowa, as I don't think we have the need that other places might, our traffic simply doesn't necessitate it

They are revenue generators, yes, but they are placed on people guilty of violating the law. I find it ironic that people believe that to be outrageous, that someone could have to pay $100 (I don't know the actual total) for speeding, but likely don't find it outrageous that a person caught stealing minimal items (think shoplifting) could owe several hundreds to thousands. We have always levied ridiculous financial burdens on those who "break the law" in order to pay for our shit, I just don't see why this particular stuff is any different.

 

[The Tradition]

There are lots of ways to complain about and legally challenge traffic cameras. I'm just pointing out your specific failings in doing so.

I'm not even in favor of them, I just didn't want you to echo-chamber ignorant claims to other HROT posters. There is only one in Iowa that I have found to be useful and successful (in my opinion, but as longlive points out may be incorrect) and that is the one in Cedar Rapids. I don't think red-light ones are all that helpful in Iowa, as I don't think we have the need that other places might, our traffic simply doesn't necessitate it

They are revenue generators, yes, but they are placed on people guilty of violating the law. I find it ironic that people believe that to be outrageous, that someone could have to pay $100 (I don't know the actual total) for speeding, but likely don't find it outrageous that a person caught stealing minimal items (think shoplifting) could owe several hundreds to thousands. We have always levied ridiculous financial burdens on those who "break the law" in order to pay for our shit, I just don't see why this particular stuff is any different.

What's "particularly different" about speed cameras and red light cameras is that they are machines, not people. Machines malfunction. If we're going to allow machines to accuse us of wrongdoing, then the machines need to prove they were operating correctly if challenged in court.

That's all it is. You need not go through so many gymnastics to try and prove I'm wrong.

As for your "echo-chamber ignorant claims" justification for being a ridiculous jerk,YOU were the one trolling for someone to suggest why they're unconstitutional. I wasn't on a soapbox telling everyone to go to court and demand to confront the camera, I simply answered your question. Should have known better from a troll like you.

And if anyone is turning to HROT for legal advice, then they probably need a whole lot more help than all of us combined can provide.

But, I'll concede, you're the biggest know-it-all on the internet. Congratulations. Al Gore will be snail-mailing you your prize.

 

[longliveCS40]

There are lots of ways to complain about and legally challenge traffic cameras. I'm just pointing out your specific failings in doing so.

I'm not even in favor of them, I just didn't want you to echo-chamber ignorant claims to other HROT posters. There is only one in Iowa that I have found to be useful and successful (in my opinion, but as longlive points out may be incorrect) and that is the one in Cedar Rapids. I don't think red-light ones are all that helpful in Iowa, as I don't think we have the need that other places might, our traffic simply doesn't necessitate it

They are revenue generators, yes, but they are placed on people guilty of violating the law. I find it ironic that people believe that to be outrageous, that someone could have to pay $100 (I don't know the actual total) for speeding, but likely don't find it outrageous that a person caught stealing minimal items (think shoplifting) could owe several hundreds to thousands. We have always levied ridiculous financial burdens on those who "break the law" in order to pay for our shit, I just don't see why this particular stuff is any different.

The difference, for me, is that the shoplifter is harming the store owner financially. It's a direct relation.

Me speeding down 380 is harming no one. Now if I cause an accident because I'm speeding, throw the book at me but that's not or scenario here.

The cameras haven't affected safety and are thus unnecessary...aside from generating revenue.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The difference, for me, is that the shoplifter is harming the store owner financially. It's a direct relation.

Me speeding down 380 is harming no one. Now if I cause an accident because I'm speeding, throw the book at me but that's not or scenario here.

The cameras haven't affected safety and are thus unnecessary...aside from generating revenue.

Sounds like you would scrap fines for speeding altogether, doesn't sound like a camera issue.

The cameras, according to what you posted, haven't affected accident totals, that doesn't necessarily mean they haven't affected safety. Admittedly, I only have my experiences and other anecdotal experiences to demonstrate that it is safer.

 

[theIowaHawk]

What's "particularly different" about speed cameras and red light cameras is that they are machines, not people. Machines malfunction. If we're going to allow machines to accuse us of wrongdoing, then the machines need to prove they were operating correctly if challenged in court.

That's all it is. You need not go through so many gymnastics to try and prove I'm wrong.

As for your "echo-chamber ignorant claims" justification for being a ridiculous jerk,YOU were the one trolling for someone to suggest why they're unconstitutional. I wasn't on a soapbox telling everyone to go to court and demand to confront the camera, I simply answered your question. Should have known better from a troll like you.

And if anyone is turning to HROT for legal advice, then they probably need a whole lot more help than all of us combined can provide.

But, I'll concede, you're the biggest know-it-all on the internet. Congratulations. Al Gore will be snail-mailing you your prize.

Machines are used all the time, they are used by people to calculate many things, far too numerous to even waste time posting them here. Your only complaint is that someone isn't standing there watching the camera/radar at all times. If they were, you seemingly would approve, because you could cross examine them.

It was easy to prove you were wrong. You still can challenge the cameras and radar themselves in court, I posted the judicial process to do so. That would be part of the required due process. That doesn't make the 6th applicable.

You claimed they were unconstitutional (or someone else did), so I asked why they were. Now you are upset that you answered it and were told how it was incorrect? Weird.

Funny, because you seem to want to take advice from a Product Manager at a website ... because he put esq. after his name. You were so impressed you even included the "esq." to try and support your link.

At least you admit that you were wrong, or at least potentially wrong as your esquire hero would say.

 

[longliveCS40]

Sounds like you would scrap fines for speeding altogether, doesn't sound like a camera issue.

The cameras, according to what you posted, haven't affected accident totals, that doesn't necessarily mean they haven't affected safety. Admittedly, I only have my experiences and other anecdotal experiences to demonstrate that it is safer.

It's a tough question. I wouldn't abolish speed limits because they do keep people from seriously driving recklessly. They give a baseline if you will. Most people are going to stay within 10 miles an hour of posted. I generally drive 5-8 over the speed limit but it definitely depends on conditions and traffic.

I do think that the cameras are unconstitutional, as you don't have a right to face your accuser or question equipment calibration.

I also think that driving faster doesn't necessarily mean wrecklessly. Go drive in California. People drive fast but most drive safer and more courteously than those in Iowa.