1. Free Legal Help, Legal Forms and Lawyers. TheLaw.com has been providing free legal assistance online since 1995. Our most popular destinations for legal help are below. It only takes a minute to join our legal community!

    Dismiss Notice

Texas bans "redlight" $CAMERA$

Discussion in 'Constitutional Law & Civil Rights' started by army judge, Jun 3, 2019.

  1. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Jurisdiction:
    Texas
    This is just one of 1,000,000 reasons I love My Republic of Texas, the ONLY US State to have been an independent nation before becoming a state.


    banredlightscams.JPG

    banredlightscams2.JPG


    Governor Abbott has signed the bill banning red light cameras in the state of Texas.

    Gov. Greg Abbott said in a video on Saturday that he was at the Capitol signing bills.

    He then signed and held up a bill saying, "The one that will ban red light cameras in Texas is now law."

    Gov. Abbott signs bill banning red light cameras in Texas
     
    PayrollHRGuy likes this.
  2. justblue

    justblue Active Member

    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Curious...Why do you have an issue with red light cameras?
     
  3. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113


    The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

    If a motorist is cited by a law enforcement officer, she has the right to "due process".

    She can go to court and request a trial.

    The law enforcement officer has to appear and testify under oath as to why the motorist was cited.

    The motorist can cross examine the officer, she can't cross examine an inanimate object, the camera.

    That fact alone deprives the motorist of "due process".

    Redlight cameras are simply revenue generation schemes, and thank God I live in The Republic of Texas.
     
  4. adjusterjack

    adjusterjack Super Moderator

    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Everybody has an issue with red light cameras, speed cameras or any other type of photo-cop.

    We had a governor a while back who publicly admitted that the revenue from photo-cops was an important part of her budget. She's no longer governor and there are only a few places left in AZ that still have them.
     
  5. justblue

    justblue Active Member

    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Hypothetical situation in Dallas:

    Car A has green light at intersection of Main and Second. Car B has red light. Car B runs red light and T-bones car A killing front seat passenger (mom) and the 7 month old little girl in the rear seat. Husband/Father that was driving was knocked out and unable to get the plate # of the car/or description of the driver that took off after the accident.

    Seems like a sad situation that poor dad can never see justice for his family in the "Great Republic of Texas". due to the lack of red light camera.
     
  6. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113

    My wife just asked me the same question, "How do redlight cameras deprive you of your property?

    I explained this to her again:

    The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

    We discussed this when slippery, local politicians rolled out this cozy, little scam.

    She understands this fully now, as well as what the due process means, along with what the 14th Amendment required states to do, not just to eliminate the stench of slavery.

    Yet, states daily are allowed to give shelter to scofflaws that enter our country illegally.

    The same applies to rogue states who allege marijuana is legal just to reap tax windfalls.

    The more we get right as a nation, the more mistakes we make.
     
  7. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113


    How would a camera prevent a scofflaw from running a redlight?

    Perhaps the same way a "sovereign" border prevents criminals from climbing the fence or ignoring the border?

    A criminal law professor (who endured the Bataan Death March) once told me, "You believe we are a nation of laws, you live accordingly."

    No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
     
  8. Zigner

    Zigner Active Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I believe that justblue was pointing out that the at-fault party in that scenario couldn't be brought to justice because there was no way to identify him/her.
     
  9. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I have no objection to SECURITY cameras, as they violate no constitutional protection.

    SECURITY cameras capture what a citizen observes.

    My objection is to the scam aspect of redlight cameras to the tune of $75 a pop in my county, up to $250 a pop in other areas of our population centers in our FREEDOM loving Republic.
     
  10. justblue

    justblue Active Member

    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The redligh camera would likely have captured the tag, make and model and perhaps even the perp.
    It wouldn't have prevented the accident...but it would aid greatly in the capture of the &*%$&#@ who ran the light and killed Mom and poor little baby Sally.
     
  11. adjusterjack

    adjusterjack Super Moderator

    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That's the same (WRONG) philosophy of gun control advocates. Trample the rights of law abiding citizens because there are some low lifes that create tragedies.
     
    PayrollHRGuy and army judge like this.
  12. justblue

    justblue Active Member

    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    How are your rights being trampled?
     
  13. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Redlight $camera$ that I reference aren't interested in taking photos of traffic miscreants for the purpose of apprehending said miscrenats.

    The $camera$ that our Republic of Texas banned (hallelujah) were interested in CONFISCATING $75 from unsuspecting motorists without "due process".

    Nothing I've said has railed against SURVEILLANCE cameras, just redlight $camera$.

    Surveillance cameras don't attempt to do anything harmful to law abiding citizens.

    Surveillance cameras DO capture information that is often very valuable in police investigations, as with this little angel, Maleah Davis, may she rest in peace.

    Thanks to several surveillance cameras, the "perp" will soon be indicted for her murder.



    Remains found in Arkansas confirmed to be Maleah Davis
     
  14. adjusterjack

    adjusterjack Super Moderator

    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Trophy Points:
    113

    They aren't. For that I thank my freedom loving elected representatives and the Supreme Court of the US for respecting the 2d Amendment and resisting draconian anti-gun laws.

    By the way, I'm in favor of traffic and security cameras for the purpose of catching reckless drivers and criminals and I don't mind my taxes paying for them. But I'm with Army Judge on the revenue without due process thing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2019
    army judge likes this.
  15. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Governor Abbott and our citizen legislature outlawed greedy, money grabbing, unconstitutional redlight scameras denying citizens and visitors to our republic their constitutional right to "due process".

    Our more informed local leaders will beef up their constabulary with more sworn law enforcement officers, in lieu of buying more Chinese made SCAMERAS!

    Thanks to our founders for guaranteeing the citizenry "rights".
     
  16. Highwayman

    Highwayman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83

    In NYC red light camera violations result in a Notice of Liability being issued - which is like a parking ticket (Notice of Violation). It's on the car not the driver because there is no way to tell who was driving.

    Parking Notices of Violation are served all the time and yes, vehicle owners can request a hearing but the issuer is never present. The NoV, like the NoL, is adjudicated by the Administrative Law judge with only testimony/evidence from the respondent.
     
  17. army judge

    army judge Law Topic Starter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    29,910
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Before the redlight $CAM was outlawed in Texas, the $CAMERA cited the vehicle owner for the moving violation, even If the vehicle was driven by a relative, friend, or even car thief.

    In Texas, spouses own property acquired during the marriage equally.
    Again, not paying one of these SCAM citations by an inanimate object resulted in one's drivers license being suspended, registration renewal or drivers license renewal being denied. One could even have the INNOCENT automobile arrested, hauled off to a motor vehicle jail, and held for a very hefty ransom.

    Thank goodness, our claim was deliberated and caused the state to right this evil scam by some of our larger cities run by a certain political mob.

    I was among a group of about 250 people who organized and fought this denial of sue process fro the last 10 odd years.

    We're now working on requiring the greedy "gubmints" to refund the money scammed from innocent citizens.
     
  18. Michael Wechsler

    Michael Wechsler Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    470
    Trophy Points:
    83

    In New York City we have something possibly worse. Mayor Bill de Blasio calls it a "vision zero" policy to prevent fatalities from speeding, reducing the already slow 30 MPH on major roadways (including major boulevards) to a glacial 25 MPH. It cost millions of dollars to create and install new signs. All they needed to do was enforce the speed limit on side roads. But the intent appears to create speed traps to generate speeding tickets... Hence many of us call it the "zero vision" policy.
     
    army judge and Highwayman like this.
  19. Tax Counsel

    Tax Counsel Active Member

    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    There is a due process problem with a lot photo traffic enforcement laws, but it's not because there was a camera capturing the offense. If a person is seen on video shooting another person, that video is likely going to be admissible evidence against the alleged shooter in his/her murder trial even though that camera cannot be cross examined either. There is no requirement, either in the Constitution or by statute, that requires testimony of a witness who observed the crime in order for the defendant to be convicted of it.

    Similarly, there is no reason why a photo or video of person running a red light or speeding cannot be admissible against the alleged driver who committed the offense.

    The problem with a lot of these photo enforcement laws is not that a camera was involved. That's a red herring. Instead, it is that states and localities, in their zeal for easy money, provided at best a process that was truncated and wholly inadequate to provide the motorist a meaningful forum for challenging the ticket. They didn't allow for examining the persons at the company who runs the photo enforcement system to challenge how they made their determinations of the violations, question them on how the systems work, etc. If they allowed that it would undercut the profit out of the system for the state and local governments. They shouldn't care so much if the real purpose was safety rather than raising revenue. But because it is in many cases about the money, they don't provide sufficient due process to keep things cheap and the money rolling in.

    Kudos to Texas for prohibiting its cities and counties from engaging in that sort of money grab.
     

Share This Page