Ohio Federal Judge Says Speeder Cams Constitutional

December 11, 2008

  • December 11, 2008 at 10:16 am
    DWT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Note that nowhere in this article is any denial that she was in fact speeding. His only complaint is that she got caught…

    Too Bad!

  • December 11, 2008 at 1:11 am
    Ratemaker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think I saw something on this before. The lawyer’s constitutionality claim is that the speeder caught by the camera is denied the right to face the witnesses against her, which are guaranteend by the 6th Amendment.

    It’s actually kind of an interesting case.

  • December 11, 2008 at 2:48 am
    Frankie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Does that mean if I steal, there are no eyewitness and the only evidence was captured on film, am I off the hook?

    You were speeding. You got caught. Pay the fine.

  • December 11, 2008 at 3:17 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Some of the uses of technology is starting to scare me. Why not just install a computer chip in everyone’s car and have your bank account deducted monthly for all of your driving violations. Hope the lawyer wins this case.

  • December 11, 2008 at 3:30 am
    Wistler R. Adar says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Our new Speeding Camera Detector/Jammer will be coming out soon. It will transmit a holographic image of a ’56 Chevy doing 20MPH to first fool the Camera along with a military grade laser to fry the motherboard. Since we make both the Camera AND the Detector/Jammer, business will be brisk!

  • December 11, 2008 at 3:32 am
    DWT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Big Brother is here… There are companies ready to offer a Mile Driven auto policy. The technology allows them to track how many miles the vehicle is driven. It’s just one more step to know where the vehicle was driven and how fast it was traveling.

  • December 11, 2008 at 3:59 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    All traffic violations must be ok if you don’t get caught. A camera in a public place is not a violation of privacy. I will admit that having cameras everywhere is beginning to creep me out, but that’s life in the modern world. Try Google Maps sometime. You can get a street level picture of any address in a city of any size in the U.S. Smile, oh, and they were speeding and should just pay the fine.

  • December 11, 2008 at 4:03 am
    Plymn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We had cameras at the stoplights to catch people running red lights in Minnesota. A judge ruled as the police could not prove who was actually driving the car, they could not ticket the registered owner as they were doing.

    The cameras are now gone and the state had to pay back a lot money they collected as fines.

  • December 12, 2008 at 12:27 pm
    RMCSUSNRET says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let me get this straight. This attorney and some of the individuals posting on this board believe that having cameras set up to catch speeders is unconstitutional? But, it is ok for a retailer to sell a device such as a radar detector to someone to allow them to attempt to break the law?

    If someone in my family were killed by a speeder and I could prove that they were using a radar detector at the time of the accident I would certainly sue the manufacturer, the driver, the retail store and, the state allowing such nonsense. Only in our wonderful country do we see such convoluted logic.

    If we started to get rid of all the damn attorneys we might be able to get this country straight.

    RMCSUSNRET

  • December 12, 2008 at 2:44 am
    Com Mon Sens says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Lots of the posts on this indicate that many of us “don’t get it”. The judge doesn’t seem to have gotten it either. The challenge wasn’t on privacy grounds.

    Who said that there’s no right to privacy in a public place got it almost right….there’s no such right unless we’re talking unreasonable search or seizure of a person or the person’s property – but even then the cop still needs probable cause to think a crime is being or has been committed or unless the she has a warrant.)

    This speed cam case was brought under the 6th Amendment. It (no, not the 5th) guarantees the accused the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.

    Who can or can’t legally sell a radar detector is a red herring. Let’s try an easier example: the cops come to your house at 4AM and arrest you saying you are guilty of larceny.

    At trial, they produce a surveillance photograph of you in your car in front of the burgled office at (according to the digital time stamp on the photo) two minutes before the break-in occurs and again two minutes afterward.

    You aren’t permitted to question the accuracy of the time stamp on the photos, the placement of the camera, the lighting conditions, whether the photo was “enhanced” or any other aspect of this evidence in order to test it’s validity.

    You are convicted and go to the pokey because you can’t prove you didn’t burgle the place.

    Sit in the crossbar hotel for a few days or weeks and see if you still think this judge got it right.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*