Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Tacoma Judge Correct on Redlight Cameras

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Tacoma Judge Correct on Redlight Cameras

    A bit off-topic, but I know one of our forum owners considers red-light traffic cameras an issue, so I'm hoping it will be allowed.

    Dateline 12/7/12

    "Washington City Charges Public $670 to Exercise Constitutional RightTacoma, Washington courthouse clerk demands $670 payment to exercise rights under the Confrontation Clause in red light camera case...The judge singled out the Sixth Amendment issue and dismissed the charges against Schmadeka."

    Article here: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3968.asp

    Found out about it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/the-agitator

    Don't be thrown off by the Huffpo web address. Radley Balko does great work on a certain liberty issues. He worked for Reason. And, had his own website/blog, The Agitator, before taking the job at Huffpo. It looks like he simply got Huffpo to host his Agitator blog.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-12-2012 at 12:20 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Article link seems broken. Page not found error.

    Edit: you have an extra 'I' at the end.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 12-12-2012 at 12:12 AM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Wow is all I can say. Glad the judge got it correct.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    Article link seems broken. Page not found error.

    Edit: you have an extra 'I' at the end.
    Thanks. Fixed now.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Thanks. As the resident traffic law junkie I haven't seen this one...
    Live Free or Die!

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Kevin was a poster here for awhile. He is a fighter when it comes to certain issues.

    I have met him and I know he was helping Pooh, Green, Orange whatever his new name was too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    Thank you, Citizen, for the link and how the holy hells did that "policy" get past any City Attorney? Talk about shearing the tax payer to support the government, but that does not even come close to the common sense test.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    *insert incredulous, creative, non forum approved expletives here*

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Thank you, Citizen, for the link and how the holy hells did that "policy" get past any City Attorney? Talk about shearing the tax payer to support the government, but that does not even come close to the common sense test.
    +1

    It wasn't intended to shear the taxpayer, though. It was intended to protect the income of red-light cameras. If you can get a Confrontation Clause wedge into the scheme, you jeopardize the whole scheme. The private company running the program isn't going to be able to afford to send a reps all over the country testifying. Not without raising prices, which will raise fines, which will raise a ruckus with already-annoyed citizens. The whole point was to trick/coerce people into waiving their right to confront witnesses.

    You could probably do worse damage by insisting on confrontation and demanding chain of custody of evidence. "Mr. Camera Rep, who downloaded the camera data and forwarded it to your office? Across whose fiber-optic network? Oh, I am sorry. Are those people in the courtroom today?"
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I cited melendez-diaz in a speeding ticket case regarding the certificate of calibration of the LIDAR unit .. back in 2010 I think.

    Judge tossed out the evidence and w/o the COC, the case fell apart and I was found not guilty.

    In melendez, the court ruled that: 1) defendant need not get the witness there -- this is a burden by the state
    2) no costs to the defendant can be associated with it + other stuff

    Everyone should read this case.

    Its a 2008 case that has stretched out its roots very wide ...

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    *insert incredulous, creative, non forum approved expletives here*
    Here, Here!!!!!

    Sure glad my states legislature has prohibited the collection of ANY fines based upon the use of "traffic cameras".....

    My biggest issue from this-- traffic or intersection cameras, is the requirement that I must prove that I was not operating my vehicle at the time of offense. I have frequently loaned most of my vehicles to others at their times of need. All the camera companies do, from my understanding, is send a photo of the driver and the license plate to to the registered owner. It is then required of the registered owner to prove innocence! Completely turning the legal standard UPSIDE DOWN of INNOCENT until proven guilty!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  12. #12
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Here, Here!!!!!

    Sure glad my states legislature has prohibited the collection of ANY fines based upon the use of "traffic cameras".....

    My biggest issue from this-- traffic or intersection cameras, is the requirement that I must prove that I was not operating my vehicle at the time of offense. I have frequently loaned most of my vehicles to others at their times of need. All the camera companies do, from my understanding, is send a photo of the driver and the license plate to to the registered owner. It is then required of the registered owner to prove innocence! Completely turning the legal standard UPSIDE DOWN of INNOCENT until proven guilty!
    In WA the camera cannot show the driver in the photo frame.

    most people just say they weren't driving even if they were. the court will ask who was driving the car, but to my knowledge they can't actually cite that person. I sat in Bremerton Municipal Court and watched RLC citation contests, one guy claimed up to 6 people were operating his car that day, and gave the judge six names (ha, collect that!) I found it funny all the people who go for mitigation and then tell their sob stories and get their tickets reduced to 70 bucks...

    There was one guy I saw, who came into court with whole tupperwares full of files and told the judge he intended to contest, and she asked for his story and he begins by saying "well these bins of files are my brief, if you'll give me 6 hours I can explain..... DISMISSED!


    I thought that was hilarious....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Kevin was a poster here for awhile. He is a fighter when it comes to certain issues.

    I have met him and I know he was helping Pooh, Green, Orange whatever his new name was too.
    He should just change his screen name to "Color Spectrum"
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489

    Re: Tacoma Judge Correct on Redlight Cameras

    Off topic. Nothing to do with Open Carry.

    Sent by Droid

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    Off topic. Nothing to do with Open Carry.
    Correct.

    However, the Social Lounge subforum description says, "Really want to talk about your new car or the movie you saw last night? This is where such topics should go. All other forum rules still apply here including the prohibition on discussing long gun carry, bashing other gun groups or LEOs and personal attacks."

    And, since this thread topic is:

    • of interest to the Washington subforum
    • of interest to a large concentration of the Washington subforum who are particularly active both as OCers and forum participation
    • involves a constitutional issue


    I opted to start the thread in this subforum for maximum exposure to the people affected, rather than slavishly observe the subforum selection rules. The rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Correct.

    However, the Social Lounge subforum description says, "Really want to talk about your new car or the movie you saw last night? This is where such topics should go. All other forum rules still apply here including the prohibition on discussing long gun carry, bashing other gun groups or LEOs and personal attacks."

    And, since this thread topic is:

    • of interest to the Washington subforum
    • of interest to a large concentration of the Washington subforum who are particularly active both as OCers and forum participation
    • involves a constitutional issue


    I opted to start the thread in this subforum for maximum exposure to the people affected, rather than slavishly observe the subforum selection rules. The rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
    By keeping it in the WA SubForum it also helps keep all the comments on laws in effect in other states from drowning the "conversation".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Local Coverage....

    The Tacoma News Tribune has picked up the story...

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/1...ight-over.html

    Im planning to continue running red lights and keep getting more tickets, to keep chipping away at the constitutional issues, he said. Im planning on making a project out of this.

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/1...#storylink=cpy
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Hopefully he meant continue running those red lights with cameras when it is otherwise safe to do so.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-25-2012 at 01:22 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489

    Re: Tacoma Judge Correct on Redlight Cameras

    Still has nothing to do with Open Carry.

    Sent by Droid

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    Still has nothing to do with Open Carry.

    Sent by Droid
    The owners of the site give some leeway for local rights related issues. I like that leeway.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Here, Here!!!!!
    Where, where?

  22. #22
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489
    Don't drink and drive.

    http://youtu.be/Z2mf8DtWWd8

    Posted while OC'ing

  23. #23
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Where, where?
    Here, Here.... as I typed earlier! LOL I've surpassed a posting milestone now but I an NOT officially competing to have the highest post count!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    Still has nothing to do with Open Carry.

    Sent by Droid
    Correct. But neither is most of what's posted in the Social Lounge. So, what's your point? That you have such a strong reaction you just have to criticize a well-named thread that nobody twisted your arm into clicking?
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-24-2012 at 10:25 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    I didnt think a thread was off topic and to be sent to public forum until spydertattoo said so.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •