Red Light Camera Questions

My jurisdiction is: South Holland, IL

I am confused over the legality and enforceability of red light cameras in South Holland, IL.

My sister received a ticket in the mail for "not stopping before turning at a red light." It was caught on camera and you can view the footage online but it does not show who was driving. The ticket states that you have to pay the fine or request a hearing. It also states that if you have five unpaid tickets like this they will suspend your license. The hearing is held at the police station, not the court house, like "normal" tickets. I told her to request a hearing because I didn't think that this was legal. (To get a ticket for being the owner of a car that violated the law without proof of who was driving it.) I have since heard that people claiming this defense are being found guilty anyway and being told that since this ticket will not affect your driving record, that the normal laws of "innocent until proven guilty" do not apply and therefore they don't have to prove who was driving. Instead, you have to prove your innocence.

If the above is true about it not being a ticket that goes on your record, then how can they enforce you paying it? That would be like me trying to fine people for trespassing on my property and expecting them to pay. If they don't pay me, I have no recourse of course. How is this different? How can they suspend your license for not paying the fine if it is not a "real ticket". The whole situation appears to be a money making scheme more than anything. I know about the argument for safety, but I don't buy it.

One reason I doubt the enforceability of this is because I have had a situation in the past where I had collected several parking tickets on University of Chicago property. The tickets were issued by university police, not Chicago police. They sent me letters telling me to pay or my license would be suspended. I never paid, they never suspended. Why? Because they were not issued by real police. My sisters situation is no different in my mind. There were no police involved, only cameras. And no proof of guilt in her case as they don't know she was driving.

Does anyone know anything about this?

If the cameras are there, then they are legal in your state, but the point of no police involved is the reason why some states forbid them. They feel that it violates your constitutional right to face your accuser. However, the states that do allow them argue that the police are reviewing the footage, and hecne the police are the accuser.

The next part is the innocent until proven guilty. There are civil cases (and this would also fall under civil case) where a judge can enter a summary judgment. That is where he/she finds against the defendant without a trial or hearing based on the fact that there is so much blatant evidence that there is no possible way for the defendant to not be guilty (or I guess judged against). That would be the case here, that the evidence clearly shows that the car blew the light.

As far as the driver, if she tries to use the angle of "you can't prove who the driver was" then it will become a case of "well, then did you loan your car out?" and if so, who to?

It sounds like since the hearing as the police station, then it is more of a review of the tapes.

tpajet said:

If the cameras are there, then they are legal in your state, but the point of no police involved is the reason why some states forbid them. They feel that it violates your constitutional right to face your accuser. However, the states that do allow them argue that the police are reviewing the footage, and hecne the police are the accuser..

Click to expand...

I would agree that it does violate our constitutional rights. This is the reason I posted this inquiry. I can't believe they are allowed. I think this proves that it is just a money making scheme. I actually live in Las Vegas and I am writing this on behalf of my sister because she cannot afford internet. Nor can she afford this ticket. I will be paying the fines incurred on her behalf. I think the mayor of Las Vegas won't allow these types of cameras here because of what was stated previously. He thinks it is a violation of peoples rights to have cameras in public. We have enough cameras on private property as it is (casinos).

tpajet said:

The next part is the innocent until proven guilty. There are civil cases (and this would also fall under civil case) where a judge can enter a summary judgment. That is where he/she finds against the defendant without a trial or hearing based on the fact that there is so much blatant evidence that there is no possible way for the defendant to not be guilty (or I guess judged against). That would be the case here, that the evidence clearly shows that the car blew the light..

Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but to me this is not a civil case. This is a crime they are accusing her of. A moving violation in a vehicle. So, how they can use this means of trying her is baffling to me.

tpajet said:

As far as the driver, if she tries to use the angle of "you can't prove who the driver was" then it will become a case of "well, then did you loan your car out?" and if so, who to?

It sounds like since the hearing as the police station, then it is more of a review of the tapes.

Click to expand...

Her situation is unique. She has several roomates who also use the car. And of course no one remembers who was using the car at that time. How convenient. We are hoping they have footage of the driver to resolve this.

The other problem I have with this whole situation is that the "letter" was delivered with her regular mail, not certified. So they have no proof she received it. I wonder what would have happened if she just ignored it? How could they legally justify suspending someones license without the "letter" being properly or officially served like a normal traffic ticket. I am sure they have a good excuse for that one too. Maybe they put a camera in her mailbox too so they can prove she got the letter? Why stop with traffic violations? Where does it end?

RED light camera

Hello to everyone:

All red light camera are a violation of your 6th Amendment rights end of story.
Anyone coming in on behalf of the ticket is hearsay.

If you do find your self in court in front of a judge point blank ask him to recite the 6th Amendment.

then ask him where is the sworn police officer that is the witness.
You do not have to admit guilt in any fashion.

If the judge finds you guilty then ask him the final question, how does this not violate your 6th Amendment rights.

This is no different than gun rights , right to bare arms in public and private. It is your consitutional right and no one can take that from you.

Knowledge is power, but access to the knowledge is infinite power.

Can any Judge or Lawyer here prove my statement wrong that this is not a violation of our 6th Amendment rights?

The problem with these tickets is not that you are not able to confront your accuser. The camera and it's operator is your accuser. However, the car does not commit a crime the driver does. These are not "civil" tickets they are criminal tickets. There must be a picture of your face or you can simply deny that you were driving your car. You might have to appeal the conviction but you will win it. Do not admit to anything. Appeal.