Frustrated by the state’s refusal to approve cameras to catch red-light runners, Palm Beach County officials are researching how to bring the cameras to hazardous local intersections anyway.
The goal is to make roadways safer by nabbing motorists who plow through intersections after a light turns red. Statewide, red-light-running contributed to 7,325 crashes in 2006, according to the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles.
Driving’s a privilege, not a right. GO FOR IT!
Plan for cameras to snare red-light runners revived — South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Advertisement
Those are procedural errata on the part of the police department(s) involved, and have nothing to do with the issues under discussion. Of course the defendant has a right to demand proof that the equipment is operating properly and that the operators are properly trained.
You are, however, mistaking the position of state’s witness with that of a defendant “facing his accuser.” If the officer who was the complainant on the charge is not there to attest that the offense actually took place, then there is no charge. In the case of automated cameras, there is plenty of case law supporting their use in court. In that case, the technician who receives the data would be the complainant, and could possibly be made to appear and testify depending on the judges in that jurisdiction.
None of these issues, however, bear on the legality of using the cameras. They are, essentially, the means that lawyers use to get guilty clients off. The cops’ attitude on that is, “One way or the other, they pay.”
Strange, I fought a ticket – not in FL though – and had it “thrown out” because the PD couldn’t provide dates for when the officer recieved training on his radar gun. My friend also got out of a ticket because the officer didn’t show up at court.
The issue of “confronting one’s accuser” only applies to criminal offenses. Running a red light is a civil violation in Florida, unless an accident with serious injury or death occurs, and county/city ordinances can easily be written that way as well.
When it comes to photographic issues themselves, I have testified as a crime scene technician, and taught forensic photography and crime scene investigation. I have never been asked in court to show that my equipment was maintained in a particular way, or even to produce it. Photographs have long been accepted as stand-alone evidence that can only be challenged on the basis of tampering, which must be proven (or at least suggested) in court.
Even in the case of digital images which, as we all know, are easily altered, there is a presumption of accuracy unless a defendant can show reason for prejudice — difficult in the case of an anonymous, tamper-proof, self-operated device making images of anonymous license plates.
As to the other issues, all the underlying case law was well-established in other areas: breath-testing, etc.
There’s still the sticky legal issue of “confronting one’s accuser.” There is also the problem of proving ALL the underlying systems are working correctly. A defendant can demand the maintenance records – possibly sourcecode – of all systems that were involved in providing evidence in the case.