Hidden cam shows my wife running a red light

[waggy]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN

Originally posted by: Citrix
i just went to traffic court on wed for a accident i was in. before court started the judge told us that if you were there for a red light camera ticket you are wasting your time.
1. its a zero point ticket so you cant plea bargin with the city attorney
2. only the judge can impose the fine and she said she always gives out the max fine for red light runners
3. you can plea not guilty and go to trial, of which you will loose because there is a picture of you running the red light.

so if i was your wife i would just mail in the fine.

:thumbsup:
all that fairy BS about your rights and whatnot is annoying

I hate lame drivers that run the lights and don't stop on right red light turn. They cause T-bone and other accidents.

yeah standign up for your rights is just nnoying i meant htey are bullshit right?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Farley2k

Originally posted by: bapace
In Florida, Red Light Cameras are only able to issue warning tickets due to the fact that it is your constitutional right to face your accuser in court. If your accuser is a camera, you can't really face them. Red Light Cameras are still banned in Florida from issuing real tickets.

That is so stupid.

If I rob an ATM it is just the camera accusing me as well! Why don't I just get a warning?

Also by the stupid logic of Florida if I kill someone I should never be able to be found guilty of murder (assuming no one sees) because I can't face my accuser in court! After all they are dead so my defense can never get to cross examine them!

Actually in a murder case the accuser could be "The People" and you get to face the representative of the people, usually the ADA / DA / what have you.

Hugely different circumstances...

wrong. unless you are being sued by another party all cases are "the people Vs. you"

that is exactly how the judge on wed called each person. "the people Vs. Citrix"...

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Linux23
Is this a moving violation?

Yes, running a red light is a moving violation...and a $375 fine.

In MD, unless something has changed, those fines aren't anywhere near as steep and are NOT considered moving violations. In other words, you have to pay the fine, but they do not assess points. They are basically treated the same as a parking ticket--they can suspend your license/registration/etc, but that's it.

I think part of it is that since they take pictures of your car/license plates but do not have an actual ID of the driver, they can't prove the owner of the vehicle is necessarily the person that violated the law.

 

[JC86]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: JC86
Here's some real advice: DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE ADMIT THAT SHE WAS THE DRIVER. Once she does, she's cooked and the court has all the other evidence it needs to nail your wife.

Here in California, once you get the ticket, you can request a written not guilty plea. Choose that option. Have your wife write a letter to the court not denying but not admitting that she was the driver. She's basically pleading the fifth. Say a lot of people drive the car, your sister, in laws, whatever and that your wife cannot recall whether she was the driver of the vehicle at the time. CLAIM THAT THE SINCE NO PEACE OFFICER PULLED HER OVER AND IDENTIFIED HER AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME, THE COURT MUST DISMISS THIS CASE BECAUSE A BLURRY PICTURE OR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ARE NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY YOUR WIFE AS THE DRIVER. You'll have to first post bail but once the court dismisses the case, the record will be wiped and bail refunded.

This applies to any camera ticket because the only evidence linking you to the driver is the vehicle registration and some blurry photos. That is not enough evidence to hold up in court and the court will have no option but to dismiss your case. I was able to get out of a red light ticket by using this method.

How many hours did you spend doing that including taking the time to go there and back? My red light ticket was $150 and having to take a day off wasn't worth it. That, plus it's not guaranteed to get you out of it. Red light tickets also cost 0 points (thus making them fishy) but that did not add any incentive to fight either.

you don't need to go anywhere, just fill out the bail forum included in your ticket, write a letter explaining your case, and mailing it back to the court. Took me less than an hour at home and saved me $375 and insurance.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: JC86
Here's some real advice: DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE ADMIT THAT SHE WAS THE DRIVER. Once she does, she's cooked and the court has all the other evidence it needs to nail your wife.

Here in California, once you get the ticket, you can request a written not guilty plea. Choose that option. Have your wife write a letter to the court not denying but not admitting that she was the driver. She's basically pleading the fifth. Say a lot of people drive the car, your sister, in laws, whatever and that your wife cannot recall whether she was the driver of the vehicle at the time. CLAIM THAT THE SINCE NO PEACE OFFICER PULLED HER OVER AND IDENTIFIED HER AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME, THE COURT MUST DISMISS THIS CASE BECAUSE A BLURRY PICTURE OR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ARE NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY YOUR WIFE AS THE DRIVER. You'll have to first post bail but once the court dismisses the case, the record will be wiped and bail refunded.

This applies to any camera ticket because the only evidence linking you to the driver is the vehicle registration and some blurry photos. That is not enough evidence to hold up in court and the court will have no option but to dismiss your case. I was able to get out of a red light ticket by using this method.

The only truly useful advice here so far.

problem is they will still find you guilty most of the time. This might work if you appeal but that probable cost as much as ticket. But in CA I think if affects your insurance so it might be worth it.

In NC i think it was $50 and no points as they treat it like a parking ticket. i.e. the ticket is to the car and has to be paid by the car owner. One guy fought it so far they agreed to drop it and pay his bills as he was about to make the courts tose out all the red tickets. Then soem cities pulled back the cameras after the courts made them give most of the money to the school system. Probalem is that was beofre they paid the company to give the ticket so every red ticket cost the city money.


But at leat in NC the cameras are big and even signs saying the intersection has a red camera. That way they can still say its about safety. But a hidden camera just screams money grab!!!

In CA you have to get the picture of the driver for the ticket to be valid, so you'll see a picture of your face. If it's blurry, crappy or whatever they usually throw it out, but if they got you, gg. If you got the ticket, it's usually gg, so don't even bother.

But yeah, I'm told written contestations are more effective... at least for speeding tickets. For speeding tickets if you go to court, the officer shows up to. Why wouldn't they? They get paid to. IF you write a report, they do to. They don't get paid to write up a fancy report, so your chances are better.

 

[JC86]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: JC86
Here's some real advice: DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE ADMIT THAT SHE WAS THE DRIVER. Once she does, she's cooked and the court has all the other evidence it needs to nail your wife.

Here in California, once you get the ticket, you can request a written not guilty plea. Choose that option. Have your wife write a letter to the court not denying but not admitting that she was the driver. She's basically pleading the fifth. Say a lot of people drive the car, your sister, in laws, whatever and that your wife cannot recall whether she was the driver of the vehicle at the time. CLAIM THAT THE SINCE NO PEACE OFFICER PULLED HER OVER AND IDENTIFIED HER AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME, THE COURT MUST DISMISS THIS CASE BECAUSE A BLURRY PICTURE OR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ARE NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY YOUR WIFE AS THE DRIVER. You'll have to first post bail but once the court dismisses the case, the record will be wiped and bail refunded.

This applies to any camera ticket because the only evidence linking you to the driver is the vehicle registration and some blurry photos. That is not enough evidence to hold up in court and the court will have no option but to dismiss your case. I was able to get out of a red light ticket by using this method.

As the registered owner, you are still responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
The state (if they want to) can find a way to either nail you or revoke the vehicle registration.

If you let another driver operate the vehicle, they are responsible for the direct operation; however, you made the decision to allow them - therefore you are also considered to be liable for anything that happens when they are in control of the vehicle.

If they cause an accident, your insurance company does not forgive you because you are not the one behind the wheel.

The thing is while I am responsible for the vehicle, you can't convict me of a traffic violation just because my name is on the registration.

Make no mistake, this method is a loophole in the system but if a blurry photo is all you have linking me to the driver of the vehicle at the time of the infraction, that is not enough. It could've been my brother, or father, or friend that was driving. If a cop pulls you over, they ask for your license and registration, thereby linking you, the driver, to the vehicle. A camera cannot and does not do this so all they have is a photo taken from distance in bad lighting that identifies you as the driver.

The best example off the top of my head was that my dad's friend got busted for the same red light right turn at the intersection. The problem was he was driving in his wife's car. The court sent the ticket to his wife even though the photo clearly showed a man driving. So the court didn't even bother looking at the photo and automatically assumed the registerd ownner was the driver even though they weren't even the same sex! Granted, 9/10 times, the registered own is the driver but to try and link you to the car just because your the owner is ludicrous.

The whole point of the automated camera system is to nail as many people as they can. Most people do not fight it and simply pay off the fine to get it over with. But most people also don't realize that if you fight it, the court doesn't want to waste their time and will simply drop the case and go after the next unfortunate person to get caught and not realize that the court doesn't have enough to prove you were driver and not someone else.

In the example of accidents that you or the person driving your car was responsible. If you authorized them to drive the car, then you're responsbile for any damages caused but if you did not, then your insurance company will simply decline any claim that will arise and the victim will simply go after the driver of the car and not the owner. Some parents, in an effort to reduce their insurance premiums, purposely put their eligible children on the unauthorized list of drivers for their cars so that if anything happened while their children were driving, they'd be off the hook.

 

[Auric]

See, that's why I wear a false nose and glasses while driving. It only makes sense.

 

[JulesMaximus]

UPDATE: Well, she got back from court and they found her guilty so she has to pay the fine. She is going to traffic school to keep the points off her driving record though. So, basically it was a complete waste of time. She didn't have to pay any court fees either-to those of you who suggested that she might have to.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
UPDATE: Well, she got back from court and they found her guilty so she has to pay the fine. She is going to traffic school to keep the points off her driving record though. So, basically it was a complete waste of time. She didn't have to pay any court fees either-to those of you who suggested that she might have to.

no court fees? wow amazing.

 

[wiredspider]

That's odd, in DE it doesn't count as a moving violation as anyone could be driving the car. There is just a fine for the owner of the car. I got caught once, the ticket said you could appeal, but if you lost, you would have to pay the fine and an additional fee.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I never understood the point of fighting tickets. Speeding is against the law, auew we all do it, but we need to at least understand that if we get caught, well we have to pay the price, and thats the end of it. So pay the $250 or whatever and then its over.

It will end up costing more to fight it. Even if you win, it will cost more grief and probably more money in the end.

Erm I said speeding, but really meant traffic law violations in general.

except for the points on your record can make your insurance insane prices.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Camera tickets are interesting to say the least. Now what I heard quite some time ago was that pleading not guilty to a ticket gives you the right in court to cross examine your accuser, the so called way out is how do you cross examine and question a machine. The guy that was on the radio that told how to beat those kind of tickets said thats all you have to do, I would like to see if this is true. Even though your wifes case is already done if someone in the law industry knows about what I heard feel free to chime in.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
UPDATE: Well, she got back from court and they found her guilty so she has to pay the fine. She is going to traffic school to keep the points off her driving record though. So, basically it was a complete waste of time. She didn't have to pay any court fees either-to those of you who suggested that she might have to.

humm thats odd no court fees and they send her to traffic school so no points are assessed. in boulder red light photo tickets dont have points. also was she given the option to just mail in the fine?

 

[FoBoT]

did they taze her bro?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: JC86
Here's some real advice: DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE ADMIT THAT SHE WAS THE DRIVER. Once she does, she's cooked and the court has all the other evidence it needs to nail your wife.

Here in California, once you get the ticket, you can request a written not guilty plea. Choose that option. Have your wife write a letter to the court not denying but not admitting that she was the driver. She's basically pleading the fifth. Say a lot of people drive the car, your sister, in laws, whatever and that your wife cannot recall whether she was the driver of the vehicle at the time. CLAIM THAT THE SINCE NO PEACE OFFICER PULLED HER OVER AND IDENTIFIED HER AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME, THE COURT MUST DISMISS THIS CASE BECAUSE A BLURRY PICTURE OR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ARE NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY YOUR WIFE AS THE DRIVER. You'll have to first post bail but once the court dismisses the case, the record will be wiped and bail refunded.

This applies to any camera ticket because the only evidence linking you to the driver is the vehicle registration and some blurry photos. That is not enough evidence to hold up in court and the court will have no option but to dismiss your case. I was able to get out of a red light ticket by using this method.

As the registered owner, you are still responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
The state (if they want to) can find a way to either nail you or revoke the vehicle registration.

If you let another driver operate the vehicle, they are responsible for the direct operation; however, you made the decision to allow them - therefore you are also considered to be liable for anything that happens when they are in control of the vehicle.

If they cause an accident, your insurance company does not forgive you because you are not the one behind the wheel.

Wrong. This is a real pet peeve of mine. The state (city, county or municipality) has the burden to prove that you were the operator of the vehicle. In NC, they decided they didn't need to, for the same bullshit reason you just said. It was on its way to being challenged in state supreme court when the stoplight cameras were tossed out for financial reasons (someone else in the thread talked about it).

In AZ, they had to change the cameras to take photos of the drivers too, after losing for failure to meet the state's burden. They got Charles Barkley that way, back when he played for the suns.

The cameras that just photograph your plate and or vehicle are not sufficent evidence. If every person who gets ticketed fights the tickets in state courts (and not in whatever b.s. appeals system they establish), then the entire system will be tossed.

It's not about anarchy, it's about holding government to the proper standard.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
did they taze her bro?

lol i got a fckin ticket from UFPD the other day. I was so pissed, i was on a motorcycle and took off my sunglasses to drive from one library to another. On campus at speed limit of 20mph, i get a fckin $80 for no eye protection. I couldnt believe it, i wish i could decide if i wanted to pay for cops or not. I have only been hurt by cops never helped

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: JC86
Here's some real advice: DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE ADMIT THAT SHE WAS THE DRIVER. Once she does, she's cooked and the court has all the other evidence it needs to nail your wife.

Here in California, once you get the ticket, you can request a written not guilty plea. Choose that option. Have your wife write a letter to the court not denying but not admitting that she was the driver. She's basically pleading the fifth. Say a lot of people drive the car, your sister, in laws, whatever and that your wife cannot recall whether she was the driver of the vehicle at the time. CLAIM THAT THE SINCE NO PEACE OFFICER PULLED HER OVER AND IDENTIFIED HER AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME, THE COURT MUST DISMISS THIS CASE BECAUSE A BLURRY PICTURE OR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ARE NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY YOUR WIFE AS THE DRIVER. You'll have to first post bail but once the court dismisses the case, the record will be wiped and bail refunded.

This applies to any camera ticket because the only evidence linking you to the driver is the vehicle registration and some blurry photos. That is not enough evidence to hold up in court and the court will have no option but to dismiss your case. I was able to get out of a red light ticket by using this method.

As the registered owner, you are still responsible for the operation of the vehicle.
The state (if they want to) can find a way to either nail you or revoke the vehicle registration.

If you let another driver operate the vehicle, they are responsible for the direct operation; however, you made the decision to allow them - therefore you are also considered to be liable for anything that happens when they are in control of the vehicle.

If they cause an accident, your insurance company does not forgive you because you are not the one behind the wheel.

Wrong. This is a real pet peeve of mine. The state (city, county or municipality) has the burden to prove that you were the operator of the vehicle. In NC, they decided they didn't need to, for the same bullshit reason you just said. It was on its way to being challenged in state supreme court when the stoplight cameras were tossed out for financial reasons (someone else in the thread talked about it).

In AZ, they had to change the cameras to take photos of the drivers too, after losing for failure to meet the state's burden. They got Charles Barkley that way, back when he played for the suns.

The cameras that just photograph your plate and or vehicle are not sufficent evidence. If every person who gets ticketed fights the tickets in state courts (and not in whatever b.s. appeals system they establish), then the entire system will be tossed.

It's not about anarchy, it's about holding government to the proper standard.

and thats why i say you should always fight teh ticket. if everyone did it theh amount of BS tickets would plummet.

 

[Gothgar]

TTIWWP
























of said wife