Caught by traffic light camera on right turn

[z0mghii]

Hey,

New to here, but a friend told me to check this site out, heard it was super helpful.

Anyways, my mom was caught making a right turn and not stopping completely for three seconds. I looked at the pictures and her face is about half covered. I heard from friends that if they can't see your face or distinguish who you are, they aren't able to ticket you. Is that correct?

Attached is a picture of the text.

Help is appreciated!

Citation is F106665A
Code and section: 21453a

Fine is $480 (

 

[army judge]

Yes, OP, if the traffic scamera nazis are unable to identify you in the picture they allegedly took of you, you can dispute the citation.

The traffic scamera nazis will attempt to get you to eat cheese and snitch out who might have been driving your vehicle, but of course, you aren't legally bound to become a snitch.

So, advise mom to beef the citation according to the process specified on the citation. All she has to say, "Hey dude, this ain't me I see!"

The traffic scamera nazis will eventually relent, if mom doesn't fold like a cheap card table!!!

 

[CdwJava]

Derogatory commentary about the camera systems aside, she can challenge the citation through the normal process.

If the court agrees that she is not identified in the photo or the state does not produce a witness to present the image and camera information, then she will almost certainly prevail. However, lying or committing perjury is a good way to risk a much more serious offense being alleged. So, I would strongly recommend against her testifying that the image was NOT her or even that it might not be her, though she can assert that the photo does not identify the driver clearly.

(AJ, isn't the phrase "scamera nazis" a wee bit childish?)

 

[army judge]

My dear friend, CDWJAVA, actually no.

Those scamera nazis violate a very fundamental element of our contitutional rights.

There is no way one can cross examine that camera.

In fact, I was careful to avoid use of profanities and pejoratives.

Its an accurate description, too.

Only a nazi would disregard a person's constitutional rights to steal money from their pockets.

No, I prefer a good, old fashioned and certified LEO to testify and be cross examined in open court.

 

[CdwJava]

No, it is a derogatory pejorative designed to both impute an evil motive and to sound amusing and clever while simultaneously invoking Godwin's law.

The courts have found these cameras to be Constitutional in spite of your opinion or the opinion of some others. They are lawful in my state. Like ANY photographic evidence, a foundation must be laid for the admission of the evidence. Where these cameras fall down at the moment is that the courts do not appear to yet be on the same sheet of music as to what must be presented to lay this foundation.

And if we are going to talk about groups that might wish to subvert Constitutional rights, why not go with other such authoritarian social orders, why simply invoke Nazis? Let us also include Communists, Marxists, Maoists, Fascists, radical Monarchists, Islamists, or any other authoritarian regime that destroys individual liberties?

I also have problems with the cameras, but mostly for technical reasons. And I certainly would never presume to impugn some foul and obscene motive on those who would seek to install, utilize, operate and maintain a system that is both legal and, statistically, effective.

 

[army judge]

And, that is what makes the USA great.

We can each hold a different opinion and/or belief.

We are also able to freely express that belief.

So, the scamera operators are driven by one motive, and it isn't enforcing society's laws.


Nope, those greedy devils are driven by profit, so much so; they eagerly provide the suspect devices to even greedier local elected officials.



Sorry, enough is enough in my book.


Government, much like the citizenry, must live within their means. Which, by the way, are the confiscated fruits of the hard labor of the people.

Those scameras have but one purpose, to relieve unsuspecting dupes of their loot without benefit of due process.

That to me smacks of dozens of "isms", among which we find "nazism", more commonly known as national socialism; which has fallen into the vernacular as "nazi".

No, it is a derogatory pejorative designed to both impute an evil motive and to sound amusing and clever while simultaneously invoking Godwin's law.

The courts have found these cameras to be Constitutional in spite of your opinion or the opinion of some others. They are lawful in my state. Like ANY photographic evidence, a foundation must be laid for the admission of the evidence. Where these cameras fall down at the moment is that the courts do not appear to yet be on the same sheet of music as to what must be presented to lay this foundation.

And if we are going to talk about groups that might wish to subvert Constitutional rights, why not go with other such authoritarian social orders, why simply invoke Nazis? Let us also include Communists, Marxists, Maoists, Fascists, radical Monarchists, Islamists, or any other authoritarian regime that destroys individual liberties?

I also have problems with the cameras, but mostly for technical reasons. And I certainly would never presume to impugn some foul and obscene motive on those who would seek to install, utilize, operate and maintain a system that is both legal and, statistically, effective.