Phacucking Traffic cameras

[Sink]

I've been reading a lot about these traffic cameras since I experienced one a little over a month ago. Seems most states feel they are unconstitutional but the city of Council Bluffs in the great state of Iowa seems to think they can uphold the legality of these phacucking things!

I was car shopping and crossed the bridge into Iowa to check out Lake Manawa Nissan. Getting off of I-80 and looking for the dealership, I turned a corner and saw some lights flash. Phacucking red light camera!!!! WTF??? I thought they were all gone! 1 week later... in the phacucking mail... comes my ticket for $108.25!

So I could fight it and pay court costs no matter what plus if the judge doesn't listen to me, which is what I'm pretty sure would happen, I pay the fine or maybe even a larger fine. OR bend over, lube up and take one up the A$$! If you cant tell, I'm a bit pissed off about it. Great way to get people to come into thier fine city.

I did not go back to Lake Manawa Nissan. They called me several times. I finally answered the phone and told the guy that I spent my money across the river in Nebraska where the traffic laws are FAIR! I also spoke with the sales manager about it. Advised him that I wasn't coming back to Iowa to shop and that I did purchase a car in Omaha. I also made sure he knew that they lost the sale because of the unconstitutional traffic ticket and that they should be talking to the city about not chasing business away from their fiine city! I'm sure they would have taken the price of the ticket off of the car, but that's just not the point. By the way... the fine picture of my truck shows 5 vehicles in the intersection or starting to enter it with a red light. I wonder if EVERYONE got a ticket??? Or just the guy from Nebraska?

So what do you guys think about these cameras? Legal? Constitutional? **** you off too? Should I just shut up and pay my fine and quit whining???

Lubed, bent over, and VIOLATED,
Sink

[Kelvin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovLpMzMSj9w

[DSMMIKE]

you broke the ****ing law and got caught suck it up and quit being a whiny *****. i could understand if you lent the truck to someone and they ran the light but it was you you got what you deserved. you can try and fight it they wont charge you anymore it will just cost you time and gas. Also thats some retarded ass reasoning to not buy something from council bluffs oh i broke the law and got caught in CB so im not gonna go there and break the law and buy stuff anymore

[Z28]

I think they are ****ing dumb as well. I feel for ya.

It's how they make easy money and honestly people make mistakes and run lights on accident. I don't think we need big brother watching us all the time.

If they really wanted us to be better drivers, say u get 3 of those in a year and then you have to take a driving test again or something like that, but no they need our money.

It's much worse in other states like Arizona, but I almost got caught in Iowa too, I must of made it through a half second early, cuz it was yellow, fastest yellow I have ever seen.

I use to go over there to eat cuz it is close to work, but I am with you. I am not risking it, especially with as fast as those lights turn...it's not even fair. Not everyone runs lights intentionally. A lot of people run red arrows and such, but there should be a cop out there watching, not a camera. Just how I feel about it. Dumb people like that will eventually get hit and they'll learn their lesson...

[supersayianjim]

they have these in springfield m.o. and they have big signs posted that there are traffic camreas(so no suprise).
so when in this situation i pay very close attention to the red lights. can it be helped??? yes.
if a cop is at an intersection and you see him are you going to take that yellow light?? same theory!

[jcarl]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bvtvfSJi2fg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bvtvfSJi2fg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[turbodaytona87]

Quit breaking the law asshole!

[Trick]

pics of daughter?

[Sink]

you broke the ****ing law and got caught suck it up and quit being a whiny *****. i could understand if you lent the truck to someone and they ran the light but it was you you got what you deserved. you can try and fight it they wont charge you anymore it will just cost you time and gas. Also thats some retarded ass reasoning to not buy something from council bluffs oh i broke the law and got caught in CB so im not gonna go there and break the law and buy stuff anymore

Yup Mike, I broke the law. I paid my fine. My thread was about the constitutionality of these cameras, not if I was guilty or not. They couldn't prove it was me and my only option was to show them a bill of sale that I sold the vehicle to someone else. From what the ticket said, if I fought it, I would have to pay court costs, which I did not have to pay if I just went online and paid it or mailed it in.

As far as buying a car and where, it doesn't take a lot to sway a buyer one was or the other. Running people out of town is not a very good decision on the part of Council Bluffs. I feel strongly that these cameras are not fair. It's not law enforcement. It's entrapment. Fighting a traffic ticket just isin't worth it as most of the time you don't win. Fighting a constitutionality battle is way beyond me. I guess it's not at all about the ticket. It's the pricipal of the entire thing. How can one state or city say it's constitutional and the next one, a mile away says it's not.

I'm pretty sure, technically you break the law daily. Ever go 1mph over the limit? Would you fight a ticket for that if you got it? Can they write it if they want? All YES! If I'm deciding between one car and another and they are really close, guess what? That might make the difference! CB has plenty of traffic in town with the casinos. If I want to gamble, I can go east or south. Up to me, right?

Oh.. I didn't intentionally break any laws. I didn't roll up to it and say to myself that I was going to run the light to save time. Just followed the car in front of me and watched the oncoming traffic. No one coming. Not an excuse. I did run the light. Didn't really know I was doing it until after it happened, YOUR HONOR. LOL!

I asked for opinions, didn't I? :rofl:

turbodaytona87 Quit breaking the law asshole!

SERIOUS???? :rofl: I'm impressed! That's your opinion on a constitutionality issue? Did you graduate the 6th grade or still trying????



Note to self: Perverts AND IDIOTS on this site.

[93DEESEM]

Quit breaking the law asshole!

[turbodaytona87]

You must be too mature for Jim Carrey, too bad.

It's not law enforcement. It's entrapment.

So having that traffic camera there made you run the light when you wouldn't have normally done it? The camera forced you to break the law? Interesting...

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

I see your sense of laws is not as sharp as you'd like us to think it is. Maybe you should really think about the issues at hand before throwing out legal terms you've heard minorities holler on Cops.

[millertime]

Quit breaking the law asshole!

SERIOUS???? :rofl: I'm impressed! That's your opinion on a constitutionality issue? Did you graduate the 6th grade or still trying????



Note to self: Perverts AND IDIOTS on this site.

that's how this site is, get used to it,

[86Shelby]

Sink, I recommend that you watch the motion picture títled Liar Liar to fully grasp the "Quit breaking the law asshole" comment.

Oh hell here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/v/lbOtyWTRZ_g

[Nubraskan]

You made a thread about the constitutionality of traffic cameras and your argument so far is, "it's entrapment."

I'm not impressed.

[Sink]

And I still haven't seen a discussion about constitutionality of traffic cameras. I said I paid the ticket. Guilty. I ran the light. Didn't go fight it. Not something I could win in a city that enforces unconstitutional traffic cameras. I say this because most of the surrounding cities and states feel it is unconstitutional. Several of them have the cameras set up but don't use them. Wonder why???? Maybe we should just let big brother put cameras everywhere. It would stop street racing, which I understand is illegal.

[Kries]

Traffic cameras suck.

[Nubraskan]

I say this because most of the surrounding cities and states feel it is unconstitutional.

Why is it unconstitutional?

[Z28]

I say this because most of the surrounding cities and states feel it is unconstitutional.

Why is it unconstitutional?

It's considered an invasion of privacy.

[red93z28]

I dont like these things either I feel like I am being watched or something

[millertime]

well you are, that's why some states have made them unconstitutional.

[zpeters]

They cant take a picture of you without your permission is why its unconstitunional. so i hear... **** the police and their cameras

[srt-4_uk]

They cant take a picture of you without your permission is why its unconstitunional. so i hear... **** the police and their cameras

Im gonna use that one when I rob a bank and they ID me off the security camera.

[turbodaytona87]

They can if you're in a public place

[Sink]

I learned my lesson. I will NEVER break the law again! I should delete this thread as I'm sorry I ever brought it up! I was wrong and am sorry for even thinking they shouldn't be able to take my picture and send me an unsigned ticket without proof of who was driving. I have stopped street racing and will never even exceed the speed limit by even 1mph as that is against the law. I have sold my Z as I don't need a vehicle that can go that fast. The highest speed limit around here is 75 on the interstate so I puchased a used Yugo that should do the trick... downhill anyway. (see avatar)

I want to thank those of you that have steered me straight! This will probably be my last post as I no longer agree with what this site stands for.

Greatfully,
Sink

[GC8U]

:rofl:

[Nubraskan]

They cant take a picture of you without your permission is why its unconstitunional. so i hear... **** the police and their cameras

Im gonna use that one when I rob a bank and they ID me off the security camera.

That would be the difference between someone taking a picture of you on their own property vs the government taking a picture of you in public.

So that's not exactly a valid counter-example.

[srt-4_uk]

So if I'm on the sidewak and the bank catches me on the atm camera, the sidewalk is private property too?

[zpeters]

its invading privacy, you have no privacy in the general public/robbing banks. On the other hand when you are in the privacy of your car then that is invading your space.

[srt-4_uk]

How does privacy in your car translate to a outside photo of your license plate? Is the plate not in the general public area while a pedestrain is?

[millertime]

so who's driving the car?
or...
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=591950

[zpeters]

How does privacy in your car translate to a outside photo of your license plate? Is the plate not in the general public area while a pedestrain is?

dont they have to take a picture of you so they have proof that it was infact you that ran the red light? I really dont see why you are trying to argue with me, im just saying what i have heard on this subject and why it is that some states dont have it.

[srt-4_uk]

How does privacy in your car translate to a outside photo of your license plate? Is the plate not in the general public area while a pedestrain is?

dont they have to take a picture of you so they have proof that it was infact you that ran the red light? I really dont see why you are trying to argue with me, im just saying what i have heard on this subject and why it is that some states dont have it.

It all depends on how they decide to charge you. If it is a criminal charge, yes they need your picture since it is points on the license. If its a civil charge, all that matters is that it is registered to you. I am just bringing up a different opinion to what you heard. The last thing you want to do is take legal advice from what you heard. This post included.

[spoonraker]

Traffic cameras don't invade anyone's privacy. There is no expectation of privacy on public roads. The constitution doesn't change from city to city and state to state, that isn't the reason why they are used in some places and not others. Some of the logic in this thread baffles me.

[srt-4_uk]

Dont argue with zpeters. He is just sayin what he heard

[Nubraskan]

The constitution doesn't change from city to city and state to state.

True. But I think a state judge can rule something unconstitutional within its state. Other states have voted to ban them.

Red light and speeding tickets have always been a criminal case in our courtrooms. Criminal cases give the defendant certain constitutional rights such as the right to question his or her accuser directly. This means that if a cop gives you a ticket you have the constitutional right to question him about the incident in court to defend yourself. Now since these photo enforced tickets have been given out by cameras all across the country local governmnets have changed the town codes to make these tickets into civil violations. So it is not a criminal case anymore it is a civil case in the court. You lose your constitutional right to question your accuser since there was no police officer present at the time of the incident. It makes it impossible to question your accuser directly in the courtroom to defend yourself. Another way that your constitutional rights are taken away is that in a criminal case the burden of proof falls on the prosecution and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is just not son in a civil case where the defendent carries the burden of proof and has to prove their innocence. This also takes away your fifth ammendment, the right to remain silent. Because you can't remain silent and prove your innocence. There are other constitutional issues with these camera tickets as well.


Cliffs: Due process gets a back seat


Furthermore, it appears not all of these situations are cut and dry. For example, the following video might be questionable. But that kind of goes hand-in-hand with the due process issues of immediately being presumed guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1lkKCt-5s


Beyond all of the constitutionality of the subject, you might want to question the motives of the governments/companies creating and implementing these things. Do they want things to be safer or do they want to make money?

It's understandable that some states just decided to ban them altogether.

[Sink]

All good points. They don't have a picture of ME driving the truck. They have a picture of the back end of the truck and the license plate. Guilty by ownership? It is a revenue booster. Yes I did it but they can't prove it was ME! Maybe my truck should have paid it? They gave me a chance to say I sold it but I would have had to prove who I sold it to. I will check but there cant be points involved with these tickets since they cant prove I was driving it. I didn't sign a ticket until I sent in the money saying I was guilty or at least giving in to them so I didn't have a warrent put out for me.

Is my thinking way off base here? I have seen speeding cameras that get a picture of the driver which makes way more sense.

[spoonraker]

The constitution doesn't change from city to city and state to state.

True. But I think a state judge can rule something unconstitutional within its state. Other states have voted to ban them.

Red light and speeding tickets have always been a criminal case in our courtrooms. Criminal cases give the defendant certain constitutional rights such as the right to question his or her accuser directly. This means that if a cop gives you a ticket you have the constitutional right to question him about the incident in court to defend yourself. Now since these photo enforced tickets have been given out by cameras all across the country local governmnets have changed the town codes to make these tickets into civil violations. So it is not a criminal case anymore it is a civil case in the court. You lose your constitutional right to question your accuser since there was no police officer present at the time of the incident. It makes it impossible to question your accuser directly in the courtroom to defend yourself. Another way that your constitutional rights are taken away is that in a criminal case the burden of proof falls on the prosecution and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is just not son in a civil case where the defendent carries the burden of proof and has to prove their innocence. This also takes away your fifth ammendment, the right to remain silent. Because you can't remain silent and prove your innocence. There are other constitutional issues with these camera tickets as well.


Cliffs: Due process gets a back seat


Furthermore, it appears not all of these situations are cut and dry. For example, the following video might be questionable. But that kind of goes hand-in-hand with the due process issues of immediately being presumed guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1lkKCt-5s


Beyond all of the constitutionality of the subject, you might want to question the motives of the governments/companies creating and implementing these things. Do they want things to be safer or do they want to make money?

It's understandable that some states just decided to ban them altogether.

All I'm saying is that the privacy defense is a crock of ****. There is no expectation of privacy on public roads. Just because some local court ruled something unconstitutional doesn't make it so. I guarantee that if somebody actually pushed the issue all the way up to the higher courts their legality, from a privacy standpoint anyway, would be defended. There is no expectation of privacy on public roads, simple as that.

Now, there might be other things related to the process of actually giving somebody a ticket based on the evidence provided by a traffic camera that may or may not be constitutional, such as putting the burden of proof on the defendant, but that is a completely separate issue from an invasion of privacy.

The main reason in my mind why having an automated ticket writing process from traffic cameras is silly in my mind is just an issue of all the effort and cost required for an arguably non-existent benefit. They are expensive to purchase and install, require maintenance like everything else, and there are so many (often perfectly legitimate) reasons why a lot of people fight these tickets in court compared to regular speeding tickets that it would tie up the courts with silly traffic cases and cost taxpayers money. Ultimately I just don't think they are effective for what they cost, both upfront, and in the long term. I don't have any issues with the legality of them though, I just think it's a flawed idea from the start.

[srt-4_uk]

All good points. They don't have a picture of ME driving the truck. They have a picture of the back end of the truck and the license plate. Guilty by ownership? It is a revenue booster. Yes I did it but they can't prove it was ME! Maybe my truck should have paid it? They gave me a chance to say I sold it but I would have had to prove who I sold it to. I will check but there cant be points involved with these tickets since they cant prove I was driving it. I didn't sign a ticket until I sent in the money saying I was guilty or at least giving in to them so I didn't have a warrent put out for me.

Is my thinking way off base here? I have seen speeding cameras that get a picture of the driver which makes way more sense.

For them to give you points, it would be a criminal charge in which they would need to prove you were driving. This has to be a civil charge since there is no proof it is you behind the wheel.

[1987rx]

thats why i dont have a front plate i would take a warning over a ticket any day

[swaggy853]

thats why i dont have a front plate i would take a warning over a ticket any day

you dip****...he just said they sent him a pic of the back of his vehicle.

All good points. They don't have a picture of ME driving the truck. They have a picture of the back end of the truck and the license plate. Guilty by ownership? It is a revenue booster. Yes I did it but they can't prove it was ME! Maybe my truck should have paid it? They gave me a chance to say I sold it but I would have had to prove who I sold it to. I will check but there cant be points involved with these tickets since they cant prove I was driving it. I didn't sign a ticket until I sent in the money saying I was guilty or at least giving in to them so I didn't have a warrent put out for me.

Is my thinking way off base here? I have seen speeding cameras that get a picture of the driver which makes way more sense.

[Z28]

Traffic cameras don't invade anyone's privacy. There is no expectation of privacy on public roads. The constitution doesn't change from city to city and state to state, that isn't the reason why they are used in some places and not others. Some of the logic in this thread baffles me.

Judges' logic baffles you?


The main reason in my mind why having an automated ticket writing process from traffic cameras is silly in my mind is just an issue of all the effort and cost required for an arguably non-existent benefit. They are expensive to purchase and install, require maintenance like everything else, and there are so many (often perfectly legitimate) reasons why a lot of people fight these tickets in court compared to regular speeding tickets that it would tie up the courts with silly traffic cases and cost taxpayers money. Ultimately I just don't think they are effective for what they cost, both upfront, and in the long term. I don't have any issues with the legality of them though, I just think it's a flawed idea from the start.

"Cleveland's automated traffic enforcement cameras are posted throughout the city, to catch speeding and red-light running. The cameras generate nearly 120,000 citations a year and collected $8.28 million in 2007."

[Sink]

So this is the same as raising taxes??? I don't believe I had to provide my DL# with the payment so there can't be any points involved. I really don't think there is a way to fight these unless you hire a high power lawyer.

Do you HAVE to sign a ticket when you are given one by a LEO???

[Z28]

If I ever get a ticket I will ask.

[srt-4_uk]

So this is the same as raising taxes??? I don't believe I had to provide my DL# with the payment so there can't be any points involved. I really don't think there is a way to fight these unless you hire a high power lawyer.

Do you HAVE to sign a ticket when you are given one by a LEO???

Did you not read what was already posted? Since they don't have a picture of you behind the wheel, you cannot get points.

There is a way to fight it but you have to prove the light wasn't red when you entered the intersection

[spoonraker]

Judges' logic baffles you?


If a judge said that traffic cameras violate privacy rights, then yes. That's stupid.

And I suppose they probably make a bunch of money if they actually work. Looks like the ones in Detroit only catch red light runners, and they automatically charge the vehicle's owner (even if they weren't driving) with a $100 civil ticket.

[STOK5OH]

That's what you get for going to stank ass council tucky, **** Iowa.

[srt-4_uk]

Looks like the ones in Detroit only catch red light runners, and they automatically charge the vehicle's owner (even if they weren't driving) with a $100 civil ticket.

Then its the job of the vehicle owner to get the money from whoever they lent their car to.

[regal403]

I still want to know what "phacucking" is.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Z28]

Judges' logic baffles you?


If a judge said that traffic cameras violate privacy rights, then yes. That's stupid.

And I suppose they probably make a bunch of money if they actually work. Looks like the ones in Detroit only catch red light runners, and they automatically charge the vehicle's owner (even if they weren't driving) with a $100 civil ticket.

You are smarter and have more logic than a 70 year old judge?

[spoonraker]

Judges' logic baffles you?


If a judge said that traffic cameras violate privacy rights, then yes. That's stupid.

And I suppose they probably make a bunch of money if they actually work. Looks like the ones in Detroit only catch red light runners, and they automatically charge the vehicle's owner (even if they weren't driving) with a $100 civil ticket.

You are smarter and have more logic than a 70 year old judge?

Uhm, well in this particular case, I would say yes.