right to confront accusers, no longer in california

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3910.asp

Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation Friday rescuing California's red light camera companies from several pending legal challenges. The state Supreme Court has been poised to rule on whether defendants have the constitutional right at trial to confront the individuals responsible for generating the photographic evidence produced by automated ticketing machines. As recently as September 17, the state's second-highest court was ready to take up a similar question (view case).

Lobbyists for Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australian company, took credit in emails for authoring provisions of the newly signed law that takes those issues off the table. The new law re-writes the state's evidence code stating that the computer output and images from a red light camera are presumed accurate, even though cameras have ticketed motorists for running green lights or tricked them with signal timing that is deceptive. The National Motorists Association (NMA) lobbied against the camera industry proposal, arguing the creation of a new hearsay exception deprives motorists of a fundamental right to challenge the evidence against them.

Outgoing state Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) lured colleagues into voting for the Redflex legislation by claiming it would rein in red light camera abuses
Click to expand...

did california turn conservative all of a sudden? All in one fell swoop, a liberal state eradicated a right, saved a foreign corporation, and let that same corporation write it's laws. Brown probably signed it without reading it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3910.asp



did california turn conservative all of a sudden? All in one fell swoop, a liberal state eradicated a right, saved a foreign corporation, and let that same corporation write it's laws. Brown probably signed it without reading it.
Click to expand...


The only group that is taking away our rights is the liberals ..... have you been under a rock for the last decade ?
Conservatives are defending the Constitution .....
What do you want, the inventors and installers of the cameras to become the accusers in court cases.....
The next time a cop beats the shit out a jaywalker and someone videos it on a cellphone, do you want the cellphone makers to come to court...?
 
bravo said:
The only group that is taking away our rights is the liberals ..... have you been under a rock for the last decade ?
Conservatives are defending the Constitution .....
What do you want, the inventors and installers of the cameras to become the accusers in court cases.....
The next time a cop beats the shit out a jaywalker and someone videos it on a cellphone, do you want the cellphone makers to come to court...?
Click to expand...

The person that took the video could be called.
 
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3907.asp

"Since none of Hill's testimony included declarations by an out-of-court declarant and the photographs and video constituted demonstrative evidence and did not meet any definition of hearsay in the evidence code," Commissioner Singer ruled against Winters, noting he did not subpoena any witnesses from Redflex.

Winters did not rest, taking his case to the next step. He filed an appeal with a three-judge panel of the Superior Court's appellate division. The panel was unanimous not only in overturning Singer's June ruling, but also in ordering their decision to serve as precedent in San Bernardino County.

"The trial court was mistaken," the appellate judges wrote. "Under the evidence code, photographs and videotapes are considered 'writings.' Accordingly, they are subject to the same foundational and hearsay rules as all writings."

As such, the appellate judges found the photographs had to be properly authenticated, which means having the person who had been present testify that it accurately depicts what it purports to show. Instead of a Redflex employee, Hill testified despite not being involved in the taking of any photos.

"She did not testify to any personal knowledge of the contents of the photographic images or the method of their creation, storage or transmission -- instead she recited a prepared statement that contained no evidence that she was testifying to facts within her own knowledge, or even that she had prepared the statement herself," the appellate judges ruled. "At most, Ms. Hill testified she had attended training sessions on the red light camera system three times since January 2011, and displayed a general familiarity with the system. She did not, and logically could not, attest that the photos or videos were true representations of what they purported to depict because she had no personal knowledge."

The judges also insisted the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution does not put the burden on a defendant to subpoena witnesses against him. It is up to the prosecution to do so, according to the US Supreme Court's 2009 decision Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

"Accordingly, the erroneous admission of evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and the judgment must be reversed," the appellate division concluded.


 
bravo said:
The only group that is taking away our rights is the liberals ..... have you been under a rock for the last decade ?
Conservatives are defending the Constitution .....
Click to expand...
I disagree. The war on terror and the patriot act, authored by and signed by conservatives, has done the most damage to the constitution. conservatives also voted and signed in to law the prohibition of machine gun possession by civilians. So your claim of defending the constitution is wrong.
bravo said:
What do you want, the inventors and installers of the cameras to become the accusers in court cases.....
Click to expand...
how about just the administrators, like the article discussed?
bravo said:
The next time a cop beats the shit out a jaywalker and someone videos it on a cellphone, do you want the cellphone makers to come to court...?
Click to expand...
argumentum ad absurdum, however, the video could be subpeonad by the victim, if it hasn't been confiscated by the cops already.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I disagree. The war on terror and the patriot act, authored by and signed by conservatives, has done the most damage to the constitution. conservatives also voted and signed in to law the prohibition of machine gun possession by civilians. So your claim of defending the constitution is wrong.
how about just the administrators, like the article discussed?
argumentum ad absurdum, however, the video could be subpeonad by the victim, if it hasn't been confiscated by the cops already.
Click to expand...

Wasn't patriot act authored by Joe Lieberman?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3910.asp



did california turn conservative all of a sudden? All in one fell swoop, a liberal state eradicated a right, saved a foreign corporation, and let that same corporation write it's laws. Brown probably signed it without reading it.
Click to expand...

i would question why a us city is using a foreign corporation's system in the first place, because it is cheaper?

as for saving a 'foreign' corporation vs any corporation is irrelevant - no corporation should be able to cause a legislature to write laws in their favor, but they frequently do...

who is behind the nma, thenewspaper.com and ticketbust.com/ca (advertiser)

your statement that ca has eliminated the right to confront their accuser is overly broad and incorrect

what is needed is a law that requires periodic testing of red light ticket systems

on the subject of traffic lights:

'green means go'

'yellow means go faster'

'red means honk as you go through'

are you aware of what is required by a yellow light

as for the claim that people are being ticketed for driving through a green light, i would like a link to evidence rather than anecdotal statements
 
Don Quixote said:
i would question why a us city is using a foreign corporation's system in the first place, because it is cheaper?

as for saving a 'foreign' corporation vs any corporation is irrelevant - no corporation should be able to cause a legislature to write laws in their favor, but they frequently do...

who is behind the nma, thenewspaper.com and ticketbust.com/ca (advertiser)

your statement that ca has eliminated the right to confront their accuser is overly broad and incorrect

what is needed is a law that requires periodic testing of red light ticket systems

on the subject of traffic lights:

'green means go'

'yellow means go faster'

'red means honk as you go through'

are you aware of what is required by a yellow light

as for the claim that people are being ticketed for driving through a green light, i would like a link to evidence rather than anecdotal statements
Click to expand...

What kind of evidence? Mechanical/electronic devices routinely malfunction.
 
Rune said:
What kind of evidence? Mechanical/electronic devices routinely malfunction.
Click to expand...

internal self checks need to be required such that if there is a failure, they shutoff the device and signal for service

as for 'routinely malfunction' there is a term 'mean time between failures' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_time_between_failures) that must be demonstrated for military equipment so that it may be replaced before failure - such needs to be applied to all manufactured devices - for example police speedometers and radar guns are required to be periodically calibrated to ensure accuracy

electromechanical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electromechanical) devices are much more reliable these days...assuming that the manufacturer has good quality assurance/quality control...
 
hazlnut said:
Don't run red lights.

Pretty simple.
Click to expand...
like a typical idiot, ignore the constitution and rights of defendants at trial, just follow the law. i'm guessing you didn't even bother to read the article for the things like inaccurate photos being signed off and illegal light timing? but who cares about that, right?
 
Don Quixote said:
i would question why a us city is using a foreign corporation's system in the first place, because it is cheaper?

as for saving a 'foreign' corporation vs any corporation is irrelevant - no corporation should be able to cause a legislature to write laws in their favor, but they frequently do...

who is behind the nma, thenewspaper.com and ticketbust.com/ca (advertiser)

your statement that ca has eliminated the right to confront their accuser is overly broad and incorrect

what is needed is a law that requires periodic testing of red light ticket systems

on the subject of traffic lights:

'green means go'

'yellow means go faster'

'red means honk as you go through'

are you aware of what is required by a yellow light

as for the claim that people are being ticketed for driving through a green light, i would like a link to evidence rather than anecdotal statements
Click to expand...
lots of municipalities have laws that require testing and/or recalibrating equipment, but as we all know, these laws aren't always followed, especially since they are supposed to apply to government. DC, for example, required (by law) recalibration of their breathalyzer equipment every 6 months, but that wasn't done for years and the sgt that operated that equipment KNEW it, but signed off on it anyway.

but let me guess, you'd like links to all of that as evidence, right?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
lots of municipalities have laws that require testing and/or recalibrating equipment, but as we all know, these laws aren't always followed, especially since they are supposed to apply to government. DC, for example, required (by law) recalibration of their breathalyzer equipment every 6 months, but that wasn't done for years and the sgt that operated that equipment KNEW it, but signed off on it anyway.

but let me guess, you'd like links to all of that as evidence, right?
Click to expand...

<sarcasm>
But that would be too much of a burden on the wealthy PRIVATE coprorations.
</sarcasm>

What STY, states is why the cameras should NOT be presumed accurate. The accusers are those who maintain the equipment and can verify accuracy. Technology is great, but this is a case of arrogant systems analysis and design, which makes fraud and error undetectable.
 
Last edited:
Don Quixote said:
internal self checks need to be required such that if there is a failure, they shutoff the device and signal for service

as for 'routinely malfunction' there is a term 'mean time between failures' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_time_between_failures) that must be demonstrated for military equipment so that it may be replaced before failure - such needs to be applied to all manufactured devices - for example police speedometers and radar guns are required to be periodically calibrated to ensure accuracy

electromechanical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electromechanical) devices are much more reliable these days...assuming that the manufacturer has good quality assurance/quality control...
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with what you are saying. However, a defendant SHOULD be able to challenge the quality assurance/quality control. Without that protection our rights to a fair trial will vanish.
 
They should also be required to standardize the yellow time and make it clear to everyone what that is. It would also be good if they provided more than one light. I don't know how many times I have been behind a tractor trailer (I do not tailgate but may get a little close before passing) and gotten surprised by a light. This MIGHT be avoided If there were another set of lights on the shoulder/median.

But most of the apologists are not really concerned about safety, which SHOULD be the focus. They want to punish, seek vengeance and/or provide revenue to the state/private company.
 
TheJanitor said:
They should also be required to standardize the yellow time and make it clear to everyone what that is. It would also be good if they provided more than one light. I don't know how many times I have been behind a tractor trailer (I do not tailgate but may get a little close before passing) and gotten surprised by a light. This MIGHT be avoided If there were another set of lights on the shoulder/median.

But most of the apologists are not really concerned about safety, which SHOULD be the focus. They want to punish, seek vengeance and/or provide revenue to the state/private company.
Click to expand...

Amen to that!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I disagree. The war on terror and the patriot act, authored by and signed by conservatives, has done the most damage to the constitution. conservatives also voted and signed in to law the prohibition of machine gun possession by civilians. So your claim of defending the constitution is wrong.
how about just the administrators, like the article discussed?
argumentum ad absurdum, however, the video could be subpeonad by the victim, if it hasn't been confiscated by the cops already.
Click to expand...

The Pat. Act was voted and passed by Congress, 455 for, 67 against combined....in 2001 after 9/11

Major provisions

* Allows surveillance in cases when foreign intelligence is a "significant purpose" of an investigation, a lower standard than the previous "primary purpose."

* Allows law enforcement to share grand jury and wiretap information regarding foreign intelligence without first obtaining a court order.

* Makes it easier for law enforcement to enlist the help of third parties, such as landlords, in conducting court-ordered surveillance.

* Permits the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize physical searches and electronic surveillance of foreign powers' employees for up to 120 days, compared with 45 days previously, and allows extensions of up to a year.

This is the law signed by Bush......I see nothing counter to the Constitutional freedoms of citizens or the US.
It was not without limits....

Though I support the 2nd Amend. , absolutely none of our freedoms are limitless, and the ban against automatic weapons of war is within those limits.....
We can agree to disagree.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top