I Got a Photo Speeding Ticket in the Mail

[09CTSV]

Our city in IA has these stupid cameras. They also bought an unmanned vehicle with a camera to capture speeders. Here if you dispute the ticket, you ask for a review by the police, from their court and if you are still guilty then you either pay or they turn it over to a collections agency. There was a county near Des Moines who fought the cameras and got them removed. The courts here ruled they are legal and able to be put in.
I have a radar detector which warns me of upcoming speed cameras and also red light cameras. It has saved me quite a few times.

Personally I think the red light and speed cameras are unconstitutional because they hold you guilty and won't be able to prove you guilty. You can tell it is all bull shit when they don't give you points, nothing on your insurance. It is a scheme to make money.

When the city put in the two new cameras, they rung up over 200 violations in the first week. Tell me it is not a money making machine. Wish there was a laser or something to fry the cameras.

[Big bob]

I got a toll tag bill they had a picture and everything. But I knew it wasn't me. Looking closer it was the same make model and year. They only difference was two numbers on the plate were reversed. Must have had a dyslexic camera.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Craig

I’m in Georgia. The counties handle the tag renewals here, and the speed trap program is county run as well. I’m sure they’re interfaced. And to make it worse, tags are due next month.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...tion-40-14-18/

(4) Liability under this Code section shall be determined based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Prima-facie evidence that the vehicle described in the citation issued pursuant to this Code section was operated in violation of the speed limit of the school zone, together with proof that the defendant was, at the time of such violation, the registered owner of the vehicle, shall permit the trier of fact in its discretion to infer that such owner of the vehicle was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such an inference may be rebutted if the owner of the vehicle:

(A) Testifies under oath in open court or submits to the court a sworn notarized statement that he or she was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation;

Looks like you have to write a sentence stating that YOU were not driving that car that day, and have it notorized, then submit it to the administrative law judge overseeing your case.

Does the video capture the driver, or just the car. If it's just the car, then no one can prove you were driving, and a quick read of the law doesn't indicate you are required to say who you think might have been driving.

As far as you know, the car never left the garage that day, so something in hinkey, and besides that, their own video shows NONE of the cars were excessively speeding to the speed they're claiming your car was going.

But the key is, you weren't driving, so the ticket is defective.

Note: IANAL, I did not stay at Holiday Inn last night, and I'm not giving legal advice. I am saying that I wouldn't bend over and take this bullshit Mobster style revenue collection. Subpoena the cop who signed off on this abomination, too. Ask HIM who was driving. Ask HIM if all those other cars going the exact same speed were ticketed. If not, then how did YOUR car get singled out, when they all appear to be going the speed limit together?

[BayouCountry]

Is that a Porsche in the driveway? I’m guessing guilty as charged.

If it doesn’t affect your record then I would just pay it and not risk them screwing with you.

[Taurus]

Gotta choose your battles, not sure I would choose this one.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by BayouCountry

Is that a Porsche in the driveway? I’m guessing guilty as charged.

If it doesn’t affect your record then I would just pay it and not risk them screwing with you.

That’s TWO Porsches sitting in the driveway.

[AUTOHOLIC]

Several years ago we had them in AZ. but they were removed. As I recall they were found to be unconstitutional.
State constitution? I don’t know, but if other states still have them I guess maybe that is the case.
I do know that if your address was a P.O. Box they never sent the ticket.
As I recall these AZ. cameras were operated by private enterprise.

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by Craig

I just looked it up: State law states that only vehicles traveling 11 mph or more over the limit are allowed to be ticketed by Robocop cameras.

And, your honor, I’m only admitting to the fact that I was not traveling at 70 mph.

So…STFU and fight the POWER!…

Go for it. You'll spend way more than $75 in lawyer fees, but it's all about the principle of the thing, right?

[Craig]

Again, I’m not going to dispute that I was driving, I was. I’m going to ask them to look at the evidence (their own video) and ask them how that does not dispute the preponderance of evidence.

…and then they’ll probably tell me to STFU…pay the fine and go away…or I won’t be able to register my vehicles…either way…they don’t care. I fully expect that to be the outcome.

And, I’m not going to hire a lawyer.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Craig

Again, I’m not going to dispute that I was driving, I was. I’m going to ask them to look at the evidence (their own video) and ask them how that does not dispute the preponderance of evidence.

…and then they’ll probably tell me to STFU…pay the fine and go away…or I won’t be able to register my vehicles…either way…they don’t care. I fully expect that to be the outcome.

And, I’m not going to hire a lawyer.

If they are willing to lie under oath and claim you were speeding when you were not, then I don't see why you wouldn't simply write, "I was not driving any car at the time and date of the alleged incident." and have it notarized. They lied their asses off, obviously they don't think telling the truth is sacrosanct.

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

If they are willing to lie under oath and claim you were speeding when you were not, then I don't see why you wouldn't simply write, "I was not driving any car at the time and date of the alleged incident." and have it notarized. They lied their asses off, obviously they don't think telling the truth is sacrosanct.

Who’s lying under oath, the camera?

When our daughter was in college I got a red light camera ticket in the mail because the car she had was registered to me. She was 200 miles away. I disputed the ticket saying I wasn’t driving and they can’t ticket a vehicle, only the driver. They provided a photo zoomed in showing a female driver and agreed it wasn’t me. They asked if I could identify the driver and I said nope, not from the photo. Ticket was dismissed. I’d be reluctant to lie about not being the driver given camera technology and ability to zoom in on the driver.

In this case I’d pay $75 and forget about it.

[Craig]

If I counter their evidence as it’s presented, and they come back with, “because I said so,” I may contact local media and see if they’re interested…

…or probably just say fugget…and get on with my life.

[Don Rickles]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Who’s lying under oath, the camera?

They say the camera adds at least 10 lbs.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Who’s lying under oath, the camera?

When our daughter was in college I got a red light camera ticket in the mail because the car she had was registered to me. She was 200 miles away. I disputed the ticket saying I wasn’t driving and they can’t ticket a vehicle, only the driver. They provided a photo zoomed in showing a female driver and agreed it wasn’t me. They asked if I could identify the driver and I said nope, not from the photo. Ticket was dismissed. I’d be reluctant to lie about not being the driver given camera technology and ability to zoom in on the driver.

In this case I’d pay $75 and forget about it.

Unless there’s a camera aiming the other way, that they haven’t disclosed, there’s way to see the driver in what they have. It doesn’t matter to me; I was driving, but I was not doing 70.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Who’s lying under oath, the camera?

When our daughter was in college I got a red light camera ticket in the mail because the car she had was registered to me. She was 200 miles away. I disputed the ticket saying I wasn’t driving and they can’t ticket a vehicle, only the driver. They provided a photo zoomed in showing a female driver and agreed it wasn’t me. They asked if I could identify the driver and I said nope, not from the photo. Ticket was dismissed. I’d be reluctant to lie about not being the driver given camera technology and ability to zoom in on the driver.

In this case I’d pay $75 and forget about it.

They have to have a real life police officer sign off on the allegation. THAT is the person that is lying. From the video, it's not clear the car they pictured is going 70.....that's not clear at all, but some officer signed off that yes, it is clear. THAT is the guy who is lying. Under oath.

That officer needs to be on a Brady list. He might be. I'd file for discovery and pull his jacket from every department he has worked for.

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

They have to have a real life police officer sign off on the allegation. THAT is the person that is lying. From the video, it's not clear the car they pictured is going 70.....that's not clear at all, but some officer signed off that yes, it is clear. THAT is the guy who is lying.

Yeah, good luck with that. I’m sure that argument has never been used.

There was no officer’s signature on the ticket I mentioned.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

They have to have a real life police officer sign off on the allegation. THAT is the person that is lying. From the video, it's not clear the car they pictured is going 70.....that's not clear at all, but some officer signed off that yes, it is clear. THAT is the guy who is lying.

That’s true, there is an officer’s signature on the citation, probably a formality. It’ll be interesting to see if I’m the first ever to try to present an argument based on timing and measurements, you know…physics.

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Yeah, good luck with that. I’m sure that argument has never been used.

These guys have heard every bullshit defense in the book 100 times by now and they know how to deal with each and every one of them.

[Big bob]

Porsche= money cops want money = you pay money

[LATB]

The ticket states it’s a no points, non-reported fee, no impact to insurance. It’s $75 and unless I pay it or dispute it in the next 30 days, I can’t renew my tags.

Not worth the hassle for 75 bucks.