Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Should the Supreme Court make traffic cameras in Ohio illegal?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(258)

Mtlhed

Jun-10-14 8:41 AM

Traffic cameras are nothing more than a money grab and revenue stream and have nothing to do with safety.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Beaumont

Jun-10-14 1:41 PM

Just obay the traffic laws and don't worry about the cameras.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mtlhed

Jun-10-14 5:29 PM

Good idea Beaumont, that is until that car in front of you slams on his brakes the very instant the light turns yellow because he doesn't want to get a ticket. And guess whos fault it will be for Unassured Clear Distance? That's right, "You", for being the car in the rear that hit him.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mtlhed

Jun-10-14 5:37 PM

Or even more stressful, you catch the light yellow. Split second decision. Do you continue through knowing that if that light changes red right now, you might get a ticket, depending on how they have the trigger set? Or do you brake to a stop and hope you don't get rear ended by the lady behind you who might have no idea that this intersection is booby trapped? But hey, it's all worth it for safety, right? LOL

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ethomas38

Jun-10-14 6:16 PM

People, people, people!!! Once again it's a Constitutional question. The 6th Amendment gives each individual the right to face and question your accuser. HOW to you question a traffic camera? You can't! Thusly, it MUST be termed unconstitutional and illegal.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Numnudz

Jun-10-14 7:00 PM

**Repost**

After receiving the ticket by mail, Cox responded with a letter of his own:

To Whom it May Concern,

I received a letter claiming I committed a violation of a speeding law in the District of Columbia on 04/21/2012. As per the instructions, I am writing to plead ‘not guilty’ to this charge. Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings. As there is no evidence of my involvement with this alleged ‘crime’, as well as the fact that I am not granted my 6th amendment right to face my ‘accuser’ (a camera); I see no way the government could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Numnudz

Jun-10-14 7:01 PM

cont...

I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government’s responsibility to prove a person’s guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter.

If it is the government’s decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the “offense”; as well as, all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved.

Sincerely,

Nathan Cox

United States Army Veteran

full article: personalliberty. com/now-thats-how-you-beat-a-photo-radar-speeding-ticket/

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Numnudz

Jun-10-14 7:02 PM

Good call, Ethomas.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Beaumont

Jun-10-14 9:15 PM

Do people worry about cameras in stores, Only if they steal.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Beaumont

Jun-10-14 9:16 PM

Do people worry about cameras in stores, Only if they steal.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Beaumont

Jun-10-14 9:16 PM

Do people worry about cameras in stores, Only if they steal.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Beaumont

Jun-10-14 9:16 PM

Do people worry about cameras in stores, Only if they steal.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Numnudz

Jun-11-14 6:00 AM

Government surveillance is not the same thing.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kozy62

Jun-11-14 8:32 AM

You ok, Bob? You're stuttering.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-11-14 9:04 AM

:)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Jun-11-14 2:44 PM

Cameras on private property are different than cameras on public property. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have anything to hide. They're clearly unconstitutional, and I haven't heard of a single case holding up in court if someone has tried to fight it. Just like DUI checkpoints, you can say whatever you want about them but the conversation should start and stop with the fact that they're unconstitutional.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-11-14 3:59 PM

DUI checkpoints being contested is a new one for me, so fill me in on why they are unconstitutional. Because they are checking things out without a specific cause? (But is there a specific something that violates?) Not arguing, just inquiring because interested.

I will say, we've come from weddings/rehearsal dinners into Salem during cruise and been stopped. And they ask a LOT more questions, and much more pointed questions, to younger people than us older people--even when a group of us have come into town at the same time--various cars, but one after the other.

And aren't there states that do that same sort of pull-over to see if seat belts are buckled? (Not allowed in OH I don't think.)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rpmwwe

Jun-12-14 1:22 AM

Grant, I must respectfully disagree with your view that government cameras taking photographs of activity in/on public property is unconstitutional. If government cameras are taking photographs of activity in/on private property without the property owner's consent then I would agree they are unconstitutional.

I do agree with you on the checkpoint issue. They unnecessarily hinder the travel of countless law abiding citizens. I don't think the handful of seatbelt, DUS, and registration violations they pull out of each checkpoint session is worth the aggravation to all the other drivers.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrantMingus

Jun-12-14 9:07 AM

rpm, I specifically mean traffic cameras, for the reason that EThomas already mentioned. It's a clear violation of the 6th amendment. Most people won't fight those citations in court, but there are many who have and they've won. There are even cities that have been ordered to take down their cameras. If your car is speeding, the camera can't send you a ticket--there is no proof that you were driving. You have a right to face your accuser. Thus, unconstitutional.

And questioner, a DUI checkpoint is unconstitutional in the same way that NSA spying is. It's a clear violation of the 4th amendment. The only probable cause they have to stop you is that you're driving. If they can make the case that that is reasonable, then they can make the case that they can pull anyone over anytime they want.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PattiHannah

Jun-12-14 5:45 PM

Mtlhed a traffic device with a yellow signal is a "proceed with caution" alert. If you are traveling through an intersection and the light is visibly yellow and you are in motion, keyword, motion, you can proceed forward even if that light turns red and you are directly under it. Rarely will a police officer issue a citation in that circumstance.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PattiHannah

Jun-12-14 5:52 PM

Mr. Mingus, not exactly. There is no such thing as a D.U.I. check point. Law Enforcement agencies wised up and stop using that phrase. Second, even if a Law Enforcement agency set up a D.U.I. check point as you refer to them it will be legal within the boundaries of the State depending upon the State's chose to do so. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following that ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them. I believe and I may be wrong on that but I think Ohio is one of them.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PattiHannah

Jun-12-14 6:00 PM

They also did rule that it was NOT a violation of your fourth amendment rights. Police must have "probable cause". Ticket or click it is legal at check points. Again, not sure what Ohio has chosen.

Traffic cameras are not a violation of your fourth amendment right. That is why most cities have elected to post "camera traffic warning" signs. In other words, if you know that traffic device is there with a camera and you break the law you are busted. You have a right to view the video. Again, I don't know how Ohio chose to govern by those standards. It varies State to State.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PattiHannah

Jun-12-14 6:02 PM

Now having said that and before you become disgruntled with me. I am against traffic cameras and the right for a City to issue citations unless an actual sworn law enforcement officer issues the citation and that video is allowed to be reviewed by the accused.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mtlhed

Jun-12-14 6:03 PM

PattiHannah, but we're not talking about a police officer that can be reasonable and not ticket you due to common sense observation. We're talking about a camera. Even if it's set very well where it won't bust you unless you're obviously running a red light, people will still be paranoid, slam on brakes and cause the havoc I gave as an example.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mtlhed

Jun-12-14 6:11 PM

We have them here in the Houston area. I'd have to write a book here in order to tell you the long saga and history with cameras here, especially in my county. Many folks just throw the tickets away as there's no mechanism for cities to actually force a collection of fines. Some towns have voted the practice out, the cams turned off and now some cities in the area are being sued by the camera owners due to contract issues or breeches of contract. Some don't work right and just snap bright lights all the time for no apparent reason.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 258 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web