Traffic Cameras: 4A Violation?

I just noticed that Rapid City has placed cameras at the intersection by my place. People seem to take it for granted that their government can continuously monitor them in public, or that private interests (e.g. Google) can publish images of their property.
To hear proponents of traffic cameras talk, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads, thus there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.
I do not believe the issue is so clear.
One of the traffic cameras mentioned above covers my residence; when my window shades are drawn, the camera could be looking directly into my living room. My hunch is that many of the houses in my neighborhood are also in a camera's view. To me this constitutes an illegal search and a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
I'm not as well informed on this issue as I'd like to be, so I'd appreciate your thoughts.

I'm not saying I condone this sort of behavior, but this is how some of the residents of New Orleans express their disgust with illegally operated traffic cameras put up by the city:

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Vandalism-shows-growing-frustration-with-traffic-cameras-104746784.html

I exercise my first amendment right by pointing at traffic cameras with my middle finger! :lol:

Are you in the view of the public when operating your car on publicly funded roads?
Can the camera see or record anything that a person standing in the same spot could not see or record?

Dreamer said:

I'm not saying I condone this sort of behavior, but this is how some of the residents of New Orleans express their disgust with illegally operated traffic cameras put up by the city:

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Vandalism-shows-growing-frustration-with-traffic-cameras-104746784.html

Click to expand...

Agreed, yet Legal or illegal does not equate to correct, right, moral, etc. Many laws are simply idiotic.

petrophase said:

...SNIP...
One of the traffic cameras mentioned above covers my residence; when my window shades are drawn, the camera could be looking directly into my living room. My hunch is that many of the houses in my neighborhood are also in a camera's view. To me this constitutes an illegal search and a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
I'm not as well informed on this issue as I'd like to be, so I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Click to expand...

You will probably have to file a FOIA, or your states equivalent to see the tape footage of the camera and see if it sees into your residence, if it does you probably have some grounds to have to moved/changed/adjusted.

My biggest issue with the Intersection Cameras and "Photo COP" is that if a citation is issued for an ALLEGED infraction, the citation is sent to the REGISTERED OWNER of a vehicle. This imposes an UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT for the registered owner(so much for "innocent until proven guilty) to prove that they were not the offender instead of the prosecution proving that you committed the infraction!

I am very thankful that the powers that be in UTAH have OUTLAWED the practice of using "PHOTO COP."

petrophase said:

I just noticed that Rapid City has placed cameras at the intersection by my place. People seem to take it for granted that their government can continuously monitor them in public, or that private interests (e.g. Google) can publish images of their property.
To hear proponents of traffic cameras talk, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads, thus there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.
I do not believe the issue is so clear.
One of the traffic cameras mentioned above covers my residence; when my window shades are drawn, the camera could be looking directly into my living room. My hunch is that many of the houses in my neighborhood are also in a camera's view. To me this constitutes an illegal search and a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
I'm not as well informed on this issue as I'd like to be, so I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Click to expand...

You might have something of a case, however when you open your shades to let in light and/or air you are voluntarily giving up some of your privacy to anyone within range to see through your window.:banghead:

Take Europe's Example To Heart

I've seen quite a few videos of people taking their old tires, filling them with gasoline, hanging them around the camera and setting it ablaze. I'm not condoning it, but this website has quite a collection of photos of the results.

Oh, those wacky Brits...

Fallschirmjäger said:

Are you in the view of the public when operating your car on publicly funded roads?
Can the camera see or record anything that a person standing in the same spot could not see or record?

Click to expand...

Exactly. You have no expectation of privacy driving through an intersection.

I mentioned an intersection in another thread (yet another thread ) that recently had red-light cameras installed. It had had surveillance cameras for years before the red-light cameras were installed. No one was griping about those cameras. Now that there are cameras catching their illegal activities, some folks are suddenly concerned about privacy at this intersection.

The surveillance cameras are continually running, and the moving images are stored (for how long, I don't know). The red-light cameras are taking series of stills, triggered by cars running the red light. Humans then review the stills (which focus remarkably well on what is going on on the roadway only) to make absolutely sure that there is no question that a car has been detected running the red. In my city, to get a ticket, the camera must capture the car and the tag, with all four wheels behind the line and the light red (all in one camera shot). Then it must capture all four wheels forward of the line and the light still red (all in one camera shot).

I am not concerned that this constitutes guilty until proven innocent. The camera shots provide a prima facie case that one has broken the law. The way that the law is written, one has committed a violation if his vehicle runs a red light, regardless of who is driving. This is not a new legal concept. Folks are already responsible for what others do with their cars while driving it with permission. (If you don't believe this, loan your car to someone. Watch who gets sued if the car gets into an accident. You and the driver are both on the legal hook. A wise plaintiff sues you both, jointly and severally.) Of course, is someone gets you one of these tickets, they are legally liable to you for the costs, just as one who causes an accident in your car could be legally liable to you for the damages to your car and damages you have to pay to another.

Having gotten one of these tickets due to another party driving my truck through red at the intersection mentioned above, and having thoroughly researched the red-light camera law in my city (coincidentally, just weeks before the ticket arrived), I know whereof I speak. She, of course, stepped up and paid for her violation. All we needed to do was to point out her actions, and she took responsibility. We raised her well. She is not perfect, but she takes responsibility for her actions.

I saw another t-bone at this intersection the day before yesterday. Someone ran a red light--again--illustrating the dangerous disregard folks show for this traffic control. But, the cameras are working. Such accidents used to be a routine occurrence. I'd pass a wreck at this corner about once a week. It's been months since I've seen any trace of an accident there--until this week. The drivers are getting tickets, paying them, learning, and passing on the lesson. Good.

One thing some "authoritarian" types here are forgetting, rights apply to people not government. We have the right to video, or take pictures in the public not necessarily the government, especially when they are using it to "control" its' citizenry.

And I'm not talking about "red light" cameras--of which there are precious few still operating in this country.

I'm talking about "speed cameras", and technically and operationally that is a copletely different story.

For instance in MD, they can only put them in high-accident areas and in school zones. So what does MD do? They create a BUNCH of new school zones--in front of schools that have been shut down for years, they extend existing school zones by over 1/2 mile, an they run them during holidays when school is not in session.

Then, in violation of the Md Statutes which says they can't be run by a contractor on a per-ticket-fee basis, Montgomery, Baltimore, and PG counties ALL negotiate contracts with ACS from TX to run these systems--on a per-ticket fee basis ($16.25 per ticket). The MD Attorney General gives the Counties a pass, and says because a MD LEO has to sign off on the citation, that the cameras are not "operated" by ACS, but by the counties, so that law doesn't apply. Even though ACS owns the cameras, the telcom lines, the computers that process the image, and even mails the cites from TX and collects the fees in a PO Box in MD that is rented by ACS...

I have no problem with getting caught when I break the law. But my wife got TWO tickets last Thanksgiving going 42 in supposed 35MPH "school zones", both of which were more than 3 blocks (over 1.2 mile in one case) from an actual school...

I have a problem with the Counties being given a pass when they are operating these systems in DIRECT violation of State Law. When the State can charge Citizens with violations through a process that is itself illegal, then that is bald-faced tyranny.

These cameras are nothing more than revenue enhancement--they DO NOT serve to reduce speeding, they DO not reduce accidents, they DO NOT do anything except cause people who aren't familiar with the area to slam on their brakes when they see the signs, and they are clogging up the District Courts with hundreds of thousands of people who contest them. The day I went in to contest our tickets, everyone on the docket except 3 cases were about camera-generated tickets. One guy got let off without ANY fines or even court fees because he was a licensed bail bondsman in MD, and had been "in pursuit of someone who skipped bail".

Different laws for different classes.

Oh, and BTW, the counties which are operating ACS-based "speed cameras" have actually seen a slight increase in traffic accidents that result in death or serious injury in the last 2 years. These cameras have also been proven to increase gridlock in the DC area--they serve NO positive function other than to generate revenue.

And one more thing--ACS has been indicted in Canada, NV, and several other states for bribery of public officials in their pursuit of contracts, and it has been proven that they showered MD legislators with over $700,00 in gifts and cash donations as part of their "lobbying" effort to get the traffic camera laws changed in MD. And we won't even get into the DOJ investigation of ACS for securities fraud in a stock-options back-dating scam, or the fact that their executive board is full of thieves who were all involved with the TX S&L swindles in the 1980's.

And it was the IT contract run by ACS that was responsible for changing Mohammed Atta’s visa status in the US from tourist to student, according to the Kean Commission report.

And it was ACS contracters (recently transferred to Lockheed after a restructiring purchase of an ACS division) that were responsible for torture at Gitmo, according to Pentagon reports.

ACS is a den of thieves, sociopaths, and criminals. And any state that does business with them is supporting that.

That's what I have a problem with...

Dreamer can you provide links or sources for the claims? Would like to read more on it since our city is deciding (against what the public wants) to install these cameras. If it is the same company I want to point it out to the local paper.

eye95 said:

Having gotten one of these tickets due to another party driving my truck through red at the intersection mentioned above, and having thoroughly researched the red-light camera law in my city (coincidentally, just weeks before the ticket arrived), I know whereof I speak. She, of course, stepped up and paid for her violation. All we needed to do was to point out her actions, and she took responsibility. We raised her well. She is not perfect, but she takes responsibility for her actions.

I saw another t-bone at this intersection the day before yesterday. Someone ran a red light--again--illustrating the dangerous disregard folks show for this traffic control. But, the cameras are working. Such accidents used to be a routine occurrence. I'd pass a wreck at this corner about once a week. It's been months since I've seen any trace of an accident there--until this week. The drivers are getting tickets, paying them, learning, and passing on the lesson. Good.

Click to expand...

It's a shame your daughter didn't learn that she was supposed to stop at red lights before she went out onto public roads and put others at risk. Instead of patting yourself on the back for how well you've raised her, perhaps you should be considering that her negligence could have caused several people their lives. Wouldn't it have been better to teach her how to do things correctly (and safely) the first time instead of just teaching her to take responsibility for her wrongdoings after the fact?

This is the second time I've seen you hold up your daughter's irresponsible and wreckless driving as a reason why these cameras are a good thing and it's the second time I've rolled my eyes after reading that nonsense.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

LV XD9 said:

It's a shame your daughter didn't learn that she was supposed to stop at red lights before she went out onto public roads and put others at risk...

Click to expand...

That is as far as I read. I find your comments directed at my daughter to be incorrectly judgmental and inexcusably reprehensible. I hope you choose to apologize to her through a post to me. If you choose not to do so, I'll just move on.

If you have never ever broken a traffic law, intentionally or through negligence, then I'll pass on your rebuke. I don't think that is the case.

We all make mistakes. The value of a person is not in the never having done anything wrong. It is in the taking responsibility for one's missteps. It was her ready willingness to take responsibility that I take pride in having helped instill.

Now, will you take responsibility for your actions in your post and apologize? Or, shall I make permanent my utter disregard for your opinions (that you created with this post) by disposing of all of them on the ignore heap? Or, shall I renew my respect for you as a responsible person, one who makes mistakes, but makes it right.

zack991 said:

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Click to expand...

The key words being "essential" and "temporary." Kudos to you for using the entire quote. Many leave out those key words.

eye95 said:

That is as far as I read. I find your comments directed at my daughter to be incorrectly judgmental and inexcusably reprehensible. I hope you choose to apologize to her through a post to me. If you choose not to do so, I'll just move on.

If you have never ever broken a traffic law, intentionally or through negligence, then I'll pass on your rebuke. I don't think that is the case.

We all make mistakes. The value of a person is not in the never having done anything wrong. It is in the taking responsibility for one's missteps. It was her ready willingness to take responsibility that I take pride in having helped instill.

Now, will you take responsibility for your actions in your post and apologize? Or, shall I make permanent my utter disregard for your opinions (that you created with this post) by disposing of all of them on the ignore heap? Or, shall I renew my respect for you as a responsible person, one who makes mistakes, but makes it right.

Click to expand...

Well said. That is what I derived from your story about your daughter. Not what NN from Henderson surmised.:banghead:

OldCurlyWolf said:

Well said. That is what I derived from your story about your daughter. Not what NN from Henderson surmised.:banghead:

Click to expand...

+1

The courtesy and decency here is rapidly dwindling.