Re: California: Los Angeles Court Defends Red Light Cameras

Hey man, I'm not sure that I'm against the cameras, but check this
out.

In Massachusetts, we (they, dems) made law that says to challenge any
traffic ticket (magistrate OR court (trial)), it will cost you $75.
Win or lose, you still owe the 75.

Jesus H. I know I am not a constitutional professor like someone
else, but on face value from a software geek, this violates amendments
1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 14, at first glance. I gotta PAY for being
aquitted? WHAT??? Lets just start with 1, "redress of grievances")

Ah, but ya just knew they'd bag a lawyer, who knows the law, and take
it to court.

They are gonna beat the living shit out of the, "but it made us $450
million last year", bullshit out da friggin window!!!!

And when the liberals cry foul, this is the same court that gave gay
marriage rights to uis (and I agree!)

On Mar 23, 1:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> *I suspect what they are really defending is their $42.90 cut from the
> $440 tickets generated.
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> California: Los Angeles Court Defends Red Light Cameras*
> /Appellate division in Los Angeles County, California stands against
> five counties to defend photo ticketing./
>
> LA County CourthouseA Los Angeles County, California court last month
> distanced itself from judicial colleagues in defending the use of red
> light cameras. A three-judge appellate division panel on February 14
> upheld the validity of photo ticketing despite the contrary holdings of
> the appellate division in Alameda, Kern
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3373.asp>, Orange
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp>, San Bernardino
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3411.asp> and San Mateo
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3166.asp> counties.
>
> "In affirming the judgment, we acknowledge the appellate division of the
> Orange County Superior Court has held that claims similar to those
> addressed in part III.A. warrant reversal of the judgment," Los Angeles
> County Judge Sanjay T. Kumar wrote. "We respectfully disagree with
> Khaled <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp>. As explained
> below, it is our view that photographs taken by an Automated Traffic
> Enforcement System may be admissible even if the testifying officer was
> not a percipient witness to the violation and was not personally
> responsible for setting up the camera."
>
> The Orange County court's Khaled decision (view case
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp#source>), whose
> publication was endorsed by the state's second highest court, argued
> that defendants were denied their right to cross-examine the evidence
> against them when the only live witness is a police officer who has no
> direct knowledge of anything related to the alleged offense. The US
> Supreme Court's Melendez-Diaz case
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp> reiterated the importance
> of the Confrontation Clause when considering evidence in a criminal
> case. Without a sufficient foundation, the Orange County court found the
> evidence in a automated ticketing case to be inadmissible hearsay. The
> Los Angeles judges argued that it did not matter that the officer lacked
> direct knowledge.
>
> "The officer provided expert testimony regarding the operation of the
> ATES and the photographs it produces based on information he had from
> city traffic engineers and Redflex as well as his experience with images
> obtained from the cameras," Kumar wrote. "The data bar affixed to the
> bottom of the photographs was not hearsay, insofar as it was not
> inputted by a person but, rather, was generated by the ATES once the
> system's sensors were triggered by appellant. The purpose of the hearsay
> rule is to subject the declarant to cross-examination in order to bring
> to light any falsities, contradictions, or inaccuracies that may not be
> discernible in the declarant's out-of-court statement."
>
> The Los Angeles judges affirmed the conviction of the motorist who had
> challenged her ticket. Out of each $440 red light camera ticket
> collected, the Los Angeles County court system receives a $42.90 cut,
> generating millions a year in revenue.
>
> A copy of the decision, courtesy of highwayrobbery.net, is available in
> a 100k PDF file at the source link below.
>
> Source: PDF File California v. Goldsmith
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-inglewood.pdf> (California
> Superior Court, Appellate Divison, 2/14/2011)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Never, ever interact with a government official without having a
> recorder running.
>
> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.