Judge halts Minneapolis' red-light camera program

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:12 am

YAAAAAYYYYYY FREEDOM!

Posted on Tue, Mar. 14, 2006

Judge halts Minneapolis' red-light camera program

BY Lee Egerstrom

Pioneer Press

A judge ruled today that Minneapolis' "photo cop" program is unconstitutional, a decision that at least temporarily will halt the city's controversial practice ticketing motorists captured on camera running red lights.

The ruling, issued by Hennepin County District Judge Mark S. Wernick, came in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.

The city maintains the red-light program, in effect since July, has caused a 16 percent reduction in accidents at intersections monitored by camera.

In a statement, the city said it was disappointed with the ruling. The city has asked Wernick to stay the ruling while it decides whether to appeal. In the meantime, police will not issue tickets to red-light runners caught on camera, the city said.

Minneapolis calls the camera program its "Stop on Red" campaign. But the ACLU argued that the cameras do not prove an infraction, and place the individual in the position of having to prove innocence when all other criminal law requires that arresting authorities prove the individual's guilt.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:21 am

That, is a beautiful thing there!!! There's enough cameras out there as it is, to see some removed or unused gives me a real warm fuzzy.

Take THAT Big Brother!! :yh_beatup

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:31 am

Accountable wrote: the ACLU argued that the cameras do not prove an infraction, and place the individual in the position of having to prove innocence when all other criminal law requires that arresting authorities prove the individual's guilt.I'm not sure I follow that - unless the cameras operate differently to the ones in England. Here, the court is presented with multiple timed photographs showing the state of the lights and speed before the car crosses the light and after. Our lights switch from green to red by way of an amber warning period. The photographic evidence shows that the driver had sufficient time and room in which to safely brake to a standstill.

English law also says that the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for the offence unless he demonstrates that he wasn't the driver. Maybe that's the basis of the argument?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:58 pm

spot wrote: English law also says that the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for the offence unless he demonstrates that he wasn't the driver. Maybe that's the basis of the argument?
Good point. It would be extremely difficult to prove who was in the car. The owner could say he lent it out to so-and-so, who could also say he lent it out, etc, etc...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:52 pm

But in American court, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We do not have to prove that we were not driving the car, the prosecuter has the burden of proof.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:00 pm

Accountable wrote: But in American court, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We do not have to prove that we were not driving the car, the prosecuter has the burden of proof.The crime, here, is not jumping a light, it's being responsible for a car that jumps a light. The issue of the prosecution establishing personal guilt requires both proof that the light was jumped and proof that the person being prosecuted was either the registered owner or, by admission, the actual driver. Given the choice, the prosecution is brought against the latter.

I don't see that a presumption of innocence is lost in any of that. UK law carries the same concept.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:03 pm

spot wrote: The crime, here, is not jumping a light, it's being responsible for a car that jumps a light. The issue of the prosecution establishing personal guilt requires both proof that the light was jumped and proof that the person being prosecuted was either the registered owner or, by admission, the actual driver. Given the choice, the prosecution is brought against the latter.

I don't see that a presumption of innocence is lost in any of that. UK law carries the same concept.
I'm not certain. I don't know if multiple cameras are involved. Some guy on the radio was goin on about the camera taking the human factor out of it - that with a human cop, you stand a chance of talking your way out of it. :wah:

With our judicial system, he may actually have a point a judge may consider.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:06 pm

Our city center roads are quite often too congested for a car to be pulled over to book the driver without seriously degrading the rush hour experience.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:12 pm

Yeh, but this is Minnesota. Nobody lives there except Nomad, the people noted in the news story, the politician that doubles as state & local government, and 2 or 3 militia hermits.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:38 pm

Oh, poor Nomad!:wah:

I am glad they ruled against it, I think the legal matter is what AC has stated, you are innocent until proven guilty. It is more a machine against the man-it would be different if a law enforcement officer gave the ticket.