Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Not So Fast

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:42:18 PM EST
    Tags: Michigan, HB4763, Red-Light Cameras, 6th Amendment, Supreme Court, Bribery?, Jackboot, Wayne A. Schmidt, Fred Durhal Jr., Thomas F. Stallworth III, Brian Banks, Michael D. McCready, Woodrow Stanley, Henry Yanez, Scott Dianda (all tags)

    Republican Progressive (RINO) Wayne Schmidt loves himself some Orwellian plans.

    Originally mentioned here on RightMichigan, this issue has other aspectsd that need to be discussed.  Demonstrating the jackboot mentality that infests the cranium of big government types, State Rep Wayne Schmidt R-104 along with Fred Durhal Jr., Thomas F. Stallworth III, Brian Banks, Michael D. McCready, Woodrow Stanley, Henry Yanez, Scott Dianda have decided they want to automate oppression with HB4763. Adding to the other ways in which those who implicitly trust that government will NEVER abuse its power of force, these legislators and the man who never met a government expansion he didn't like, explain it as empowering to local communities.

    "local governments should be given control over whether they want to use this kind of technology in their communities."
    Yeah, but..

    The constitution has something to say already with regards to this legislation.

    What about this amendment to the motor vehicle code that is proposed in this poorly thought out power grab?:

    (5) A complaint signed by a police officer shall be treated as made under oath if the violation alleged in the complaint is A civil offense described in section 752 and if the complaint contains the following statement immediately above the date and signature of the police officer:
    "I declare under the penalties of perjury that the statements Above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.".
    If you look to the text of the existing code, you will find it does not supplant the text that already makes the under oath claim requiring the police officer's presence, but adds to the powers granted to police for after-the-fact enforcement without ever witnessing the crime first hand.

    Its saying "to the best of my knowledge you are indeed guilty, unless you can prove otherwise", and allowing the same latitude that is currently only available with crimes that have occurred or were committed in the signing officer's presence.

    Is that such a good idea?

    Continued below.

    Under the legislation, vehicle owners would be sent a ticket once local police have reviewed the incident and have decided to issue a citation.  A fine of $130 or less would then be issued by the local government.  Local governments would have to place a sign within 500 feet of the intersection to alert motorists and wait for 30 days after the first day of public notice to be able to write citations for violations that occur.  

    And according to the bill's sponsors, any citations written because of the red-light cameras would only be a civil infraction and would not count on a driver's record or against their insurance.

    For now.

    I sell this kind of stuff.  One might think I have a compelling interest in moving cameras to local governments that want to do "Cop by Proxy".  However, surveillance side of government is getting a little ahead of itself on this.  Its one thing to have cameras that alert operators to accidents or to have cameras that monitor traffic flows for planning, but the possible fourth amendment violations, and the DIRECT right to face one's accuser as afforded in the 6th amendment, has already been decided for cases such as these.  

    How does one cross examine a camera? "Was it ME driving that car Mr camera?"  nope..  doesn't work.

    And if an officer who reviews the video of an alleged infraction is not present during the infraction, will he simply be accepted at his word that you are guilty? Already, and based on the US Supreme Court case Melendez v Diaz, a forensics case in which analysts were not able to testify unless they used "notice and demand" statutes. Notice and demand statutes allow the prosecution to notify the defendant of the prosecution's intent to use a drug report without additional testimony. If the defendant does not object to the prosecution's use of the report, no confrontation clause violation has occurred.

    Thus the signs 'warning' of using the cameras for forensic retrieval.

    But you cannot object to the signs unless you know you are being targeted.  And can you object even AFTER?  Based on the ruling, it might be the case. In fact in California, Red light violation  pictures have already been tossed partially based on the Melendez ruling.

    "Baker countered that he had attended a 20-hour seminar provided by Redflex Traffic Systems, the for-profit Australian company that runs all aspects of the photo ticketing program for Victorville. Under questioning, Baker had no idea whether the photographs he brought to court had ever been encrypted or compressed. He did not know whether the Redflex technicians who worked on the camera system were certified or qualified in any way. The trial judge found Baker's testimony sufficient and convicted Macias. The three-judge panel disagreed, insisting that Baker's evidence was not sufficient under the law.

    "He did not, and could not, attest that the photos or videos were true representations of what they purported to depict because he had no such personal knowledge," the appellate judges wrote. "In short, Deputy Baker failed to provide any of the evidence necessary to lay a foundation for the admission of the photographs or the videotape into evidence... Accordingly, the evidence was inadmissible under the Evidence Code section 1401, and the trial court abused its discretion by admitting it. In the absence of any admissible evidence to support the conviction, the judgment must be reversed."

    He wasn't there, so he could not testify that it happened.

    But that won't stop our legislators from providing the tools to violate our rights.  All in the name of 'safety' of course.

    Oh, and maybe a little 'revenue' as promised by proponents, and vendors. Or maybe not so much:"The city received only 14,336.46 in revenue after paying for redflex's services from the funding received from the red-light camera violations.  However if you take staff's time into account the city actually expended 166,968 over these 22 months with no financial return."Doh!  

    We've never seen THAT before, right?

    And least some Collier County Florida commissioners got it right after finding the dark side of the Red Light Monitoring:

    "..  Red light cameras are positioned at 10 county intersections. Ticketing based on images generated by these cameras is civil in nature, notwithstanding that the underlying videoed offense may be criminal. Since the driver of the vehicle can't be identified, tickets are being issued against the owner of the vehicle without proof that the owner was the driver of the vehicle at-the time of offense. Further, statistics have not been presented to support that there is a direct correlation between the use of red light cameras and a reduced number of accidents related to running red lights.

    Alternative solutions to reducing accidents related to running lights exist including but not limited to increasing the visibility distance and conspicuity of the traffic light so it is more likely to attract the driver's attention in time for him or her to stop, re-timing lights so drivers will encounter fewer red ones, increasing the duration of the yellow light between the green and the red, adding /  increasing a "clearance" phase to the intersection' s traffic signals during which all directions have a red light. .."

    Common sense.

    And perhaps such common sense might be engaged by our local governments as well when considering such ill placed public wealth.  In the mean time, we should probably look at the grant processes which will surely be put into play to 'encourage' such implementation however.  These things DO NOT happen because a city or policing government has extra cash laying around.  Expect such plans to emanate from the local COGs or other unaccountable grant writing operatives locally.

    They'll find all the money needed for such things.  They always do.

    Even though no reductions in red light related crashes are seen afterwards.

    And when one of these:

    "A local unit of government may appoint 1 or more persons or entities to serve as agent to administer an automated traffic enforcement safety device program and may enter into an agreement with a private agent for the installation, operation, notice processing, and administration and maintenance of automated traffic enforcement safety devices."
    operators is announced,we can follow the money back where it usually leads.


    < Memorial Day | C4L Thanks Amash For Opposing Internet Sales Tax >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Oh ... and then there is (none / 0) (#1)
    by JGillman on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:10:34 PM EST

      (14) The activities of an agent authorized as described under this section shall not constitute providing or participating in private investigative services or acting as a statutory authority under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
    Umm what?  No transparency?

    And the rest of it is absolutely HORRIBLE..

    OMG what a cluster foxtrot piece of legislation.

    Stupid People do stupid legislation I guess.

    Civil infractions are bogus in the first place (none / 0) (#2)
    by jgillmanjr on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    I've gotten in a bit of an argument with a friend who has his P-Number over this, but bottom line is that the concept of "civil infractions" is B$

    For starters, it's essentially guilty until proven innocent.

    Then on top of that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't actually request court provided counsel. The idea, again from what I know, is that since it's not considered a criminal matter (no chance of jail time), you can't request an attorney.

    So apparently the government can rake your bank account over the coals w/o offering representation because there's no jail time? B$, emphasis on the $

    Just priming the well... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Corinthian Scales on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    ...for Commiefornia inspired mentality camera shakedown scheming.

    They can take this facist crap and shove it... (none / 0) (#4)
    by KG One on Tue May 28, 2013 at 05:02:35 PM EST
    ...where the sun doesn't shine.

    I've dealt with this enough in Ohio to tell you that it is a royal pain, especially when you have other motorists in front of you who "just realized" they are are camera and lock 'em up at the last second.

    If they are truly concerned about public safety, I will be more than happy to point them into areas of Detroit where even the cops are afraid to go (unless they are following a heavily armed SRT squad and the keys to the city). Something that even Representatives Thomas F. Stallworth III (D-Detroit), Brian Banks (D-Harper Woods???), and Fred Durhal Jr. (D-Detroit) should be as familiar with as I.

    There they can make a real difference instead of treating Michigan Motorists as an ATM machine.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search