jknutson1978
New Member
Hello,
I am new here and have a question for everyone. I live in Sioux Falls, SD. I received a ticket in the mail for my car making a right turn at a red light that has a sign that states no turn on red. The problem is, I was not driving my car at the time the pictures where taken. I have loaned my car out to a few friends now and then when they need a vehicle. But I am not sure which one was driving at that time.
I appealed it, but they said I still have to pay, but can appeal it again if I want to. Which I intend to do. The city says that because it is not a traffic violation and does not go on your driving record or to the insurance company, they don't have to prove who the driver of the vehicle was, like the case was in Minnesota, and whoever owns the car, is the responsible one. I feel they are proving me guilty right from the get go. Even though I was inocent. But they say that is not the case in this instance.
They say that because of how they are inforced in Sioux Falls, and because it is not considered a crime, as was the case in Minnesota, there is no need to prove beyond a resonable doubt who the driver was. They said in this case, it is the same as if I loaned my car to a friend, whom then parked at a meeter and didn't pay. The ticket would goto me.
They said in Minnesota, their fine is over $140, where ours is $86. Second is, there's an actual traffic ticket in Minnesota, which means it goes through the court system.
In South Dakota there are no laws that govern red light cameras.
They also said there is no state law in South Dakota that talks to this issue at all. Sioux Falls as a community with a charter can do anything that the legislature hasn't sad that we can't do.
I told them I wasn't driving my car that night and that I on ocation loan my car out. But they said that there are different laws between rental cars and non rentals, and mine is not a rental car.
So what I am woundering is, is there anything I really can do for fighting this. I feel that it isn't right that they should be considering me guilty. Is it just a right that someone is inocent until proven guilty? Or is it a law or something like that? And if so, are they in violation of proving me guilty until I prove I was inocent? Or in the constitution or something. Thus making it unconstitutional to find me guilty till proven inocent?
Also, they say it is not a traffic violation and thus they don't have to prove me guilty beyond a resonable doubt. I just get the fine. So then what is a traffic violation? Isn't a traffic violation "anything" that involves a moving vehicle or operation of a vehicle such as speeding or running a red light? And since technicaly the car turned on a red light, it ran the red light. Making it a traffic violation, meaning they have to prove me guilty beyond a resonable doubt? Otherwise if that is not the case, then simply running a red light should not be a traffic violation either.
Any response would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
John
I am new here and have a question for everyone. I live in Sioux Falls, SD. I received a ticket in the mail for my car making a right turn at a red light that has a sign that states no turn on red. The problem is, I was not driving my car at the time the pictures where taken. I have loaned my car out to a few friends now and then when they need a vehicle. But I am not sure which one was driving at that time.
I appealed it, but they said I still have to pay, but can appeal it again if I want to. Which I intend to do. The city says that because it is not a traffic violation and does not go on your driving record or to the insurance company, they don't have to prove who the driver of the vehicle was, like the case was in Minnesota, and whoever owns the car, is the responsible one. I feel they are proving me guilty right from the get go. Even though I was inocent. But they say that is not the case in this instance.
They say that because of how they are inforced in Sioux Falls, and because it is not considered a crime, as was the case in Minnesota, there is no need to prove beyond a resonable doubt who the driver was. They said in this case, it is the same as if I loaned my car to a friend, whom then parked at a meeter and didn't pay. The ticket would goto me.
They said in Minnesota, their fine is over $140, where ours is $86. Second is, there's an actual traffic ticket in Minnesota, which means it goes through the court system.
In South Dakota there are no laws that govern red light cameras.
They also said there is no state law in South Dakota that talks to this issue at all. Sioux Falls as a community with a charter can do anything that the legislature hasn't sad that we can't do.
I told them I wasn't driving my car that night and that I on ocation loan my car out. But they said that there are different laws between rental cars and non rentals, and mine is not a rental car.
So what I am woundering is, is there anything I really can do for fighting this. I feel that it isn't right that they should be considering me guilty. Is it just a right that someone is inocent until proven guilty? Or is it a law or something like that? And if so, are they in violation of proving me guilty until I prove I was inocent? Or in the constitution or something. Thus making it unconstitutional to find me guilty till proven inocent?
Also, they say it is not a traffic violation and thus they don't have to prove me guilty beyond a resonable doubt. I just get the fine. So then what is a traffic violation? Isn't a traffic violation "anything" that involves a moving vehicle or operation of a vehicle such as speeding or running a red light? And since technicaly the car turned on a red light, it ran the red light. Making it a traffic violation, meaning they have to prove me guilty beyond a resonable doubt? Otherwise if that is not the case, then simply running a red light should not be a traffic violation either.
Any response would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
John
