Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?
Not So Fast
By JGillman, Section News
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: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."I declare under the penalties of perjury that the statements Above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.".
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?
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.
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 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.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.
Not So Fast | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
Not So Fast | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
Related Links+ here on RightMichigan
+ as empowering to local communities.
+ this poorly thought out power grab?
+ in the 6th amendment,
+ Red light violation pictures have already been tossed partially based on the Melendez ruling.
+ maybe not so much:
+ got it right
+ no reductions in red light related crashes
+ follow the money back where it usually leads.
+ Also by JGillman