Comments on: Breakin’ The Law

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:00:02 +0000

“When government treats the people as the enemy, then government is the enemy of the people.” Michael Rivero, 21 Feb 2009

By: Robert-NW Side

Robert-NW Side — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:19:39 +0000

-
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/18226101/detail.html#-
-
BMV: Don’t Smile, Wear Glasses
Smiles Confuse Facial Recognition Software
08 Dec 2008
-
INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is restricting glasses, hats, scarves — and even smiles — in driver’s license photographs.
-
As of right now, 62 percent of those polled (10164) vote AGAINST this new BMV policy.
-
Alas, since when has government cared what we want?

By: Robert-NW Side

Robert-NW Side — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:10:30 +0000

On the radio, Abdul stated that he had nothing to hide, thus he had no fear of the cameras.
-
I suppose that it’s okay for government to enter his home unannounced at 3AM, since he has nothing to hide.
-
Police use this gambit at traffic stops, etc. “Let me search your trunk”. “Nope”. “Well, if you have nothing to hide, what’s the harm?”
-
The ‘harm’ is my right to privacy, and right to be free from warrantless searches of my property.
-
Unfortunately, not enough people actually stand up for their rights. Pity an attorney is fine with this latest example of government intrusion.
-
I wonder what OTHER uses these camera’s, or the camera’s that will surely follow, will be put to use?
-
Eventually, government will be able to identify ALL of us by simply viewing us in a traffic cam.
-
Think this is ludicrous? Think about the new BMV policy of not smiling when your pic is taken. No makeup, etc.
-
WHY ???
-
Because it interferes with their facial recognition software!
-
Once this policy is in place long enough, ALL persons in Indiana will have their faces digitized, and government will be able to ID everyone by simply looking at your face.
-
Welcome to “1984″.

By: jumpsuit trustee

jumpsuit trustee — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:15:44 +0000

The only issue I have with this is the removal of one of the facets of this country. That is innocence until your guilt is proven. Red light cameras presume guilt until you find some way to prove your innocence. Unless they have a picture of me driving through the red light I don’t see me paying a ticket.

By: coupon cutter

coupon cutter — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:46:44 +0000

The foot is in the door now. What infraction or law will be the next target? I guess that puts the ‘right to trial’ out the door. Will the cameras be used to catch people smoking in thier cars or the street? This is only the beginning of using the cameras to catch people doing something to get a ticket. It will lead to other things more invasive, for our protection of course.

By: Mark W. Rutherford

Mark W. Rutherford — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:56:30 +0000

You have the right to a jury trial in traffic cases but you must request one in writing within ten (10) days after you enter your denial. The instructions for entering a denial are on the back of the ticket in fine print.

If drivers asked for more jury trials in traffic cases, we’d see a lot fewer dubious traffic tickets and an end to red light cameras, in my opinion.

By: Local Lawyer

Local Lawyer — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:59:21 +0000

Even an infraction must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Since cars don’t commit infractions that means people do. An essential element of any case brought by a prosecutor, either criminal or civil, is the identity of the offender. Just because the state can prove that my car ran a red light doesn’t mean that I was the one driving it. I currently have five vehicles registered in my name with the BMV. Three of them are almost exclusively driven by my children and one of them is driven by both my wife and myself. I fail to see how the name of the registered owner, without more, can constitute a preponderance of the evidence on the element of identity. What will likely happen is that many people that get these tickets will request a trial and the state will end up dismissing any case based entirely on a camera since they can’t prove the charge. Many others, however, will simply pay the ticket to avoid the hassle of spending all day in traffic court. That is what Big Brother is counting on.

By: firehammersteel

firehammersteel — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:29 +0000

I would recommend that somebody look at the history of this issue in Hawaii. First, you will have a public procurement for a vendor. The “three-letter” company that is engaged in the eligiblity deal will get the business. There will be a public outcry. Politicians will blame the three-letter company and will shut down project. Three-letter will sue. I’ve seen it first hand. Red light cameras are a bad idea. Period.

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:17:37 +0000

Kathryn,

There is no shortage of money going to schools. Education spending has soared way above inflation for over 30 years. Schools don’t need more money. They just need to spend it more wisely.

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:16:29 +0000

John Doe,

I agree with almost all of what you said. YOu’re right it’s an “infraction” and not a criminal matter. I was a little sloppy with my language when I talked about a conviction.

However, with a moving offense you still have to identify the driver. Now how much proof a judge requires is another matter. I think though if there is not identification evidence presented you could get it reversed on appeal. Of course, people are going to pay thousands of dollars to appeal traffic court tickets. Judges know that too that’s why they don’t care if they get sloppy about things like the identification requirement.

Some of the examples you’re talking about are not moving violations. There’s a big difference there.