Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defense for red light cameras

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Defense for red light cameras

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3164.asp

    "The photographs contain hearsay evidence concerning the matters depicted in the photograph including the date, time and other information," the ruling summarized. "The person who entered that relevant information into the camera-computer system did not testify. The person who entered that information was not subject to being cross-examined on the underlying source of that information. The person or persons who maintain the system did not testify. No one with personal knowledge testified about how often the system is maintained. No one with personal knowledge testified about how often the date and time are verified or corrected. The custodian of records for the company that contracts with the city to maintain, monitor, store and disperse these photographs did not testify. The person with direct knowledge of the workings of the camera-computer system did not testify."
    Case is California v. Khaled (Orange County, California Superior Court, 5/25/2010). PDF of case here:

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/ca-khaled.pdf
    Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

    snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

    Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

  • #2
    Re: Defense for red light cameras

    I'll have to read that later, but too funny.

    Do they require testimony from security camera installers and maintainers? I don't think so.
    |TG-6th|Snooggums

    Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Defense for red light cameras

      An interesting ruling... To be honest, from the section quoted, I was afraid that this ruling would make any video surveillance questionable, but after reading the full text I see what they are really trying to do. What the panel was really saying was looking at all the precedents set by other accepted surveillance, and because the company do in question is not legally obliged to do what they do, the evidence submitted is only hearsay. In short They are not striking down traffic cams, only that if a traffic cam is used, because you have the right to face your accuser, either traffic cams must be manned by a 'public official' or that the tech as well as the data management company may need to be present to testify.

      Either way you look at it, this should change how traffic cams are used in the State of California and the US as a whole.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Defense for red light cameras

        There is also a significant difference between a single framecapture from a camera and a continuous videotape. Traffic cams usually offer only a single frame picture of an offender, or possibly two frames, and you have to do a significant amount of additional technical coordination to figure out whether this frame was actually taken during a redlight.

        Other surveillance is usually done as part of a continuous shot which can not only show a suspect but also show that suspect's actions. You don't typically arrest someone because a security camera got a picture of him, but because a security camera got a video of him DOING something. If the camera doesn't show him doing anything but just shows that he was there, in the area, then the camera won't be enough evidence on its own -- it will have to be linked in court to all the OTHER evidence you have to support your case. This court ruling was just pointing out that all that other supporting evidence was not available for consideration for red light cases, so it didn't live up to the same standards.

        Comment

        Connect

        Collapse

        TeamSpeak 3 Server

        Collapse

        Advertisement

        Collapse

        Twitter Feed

        Collapse

        Working...
        X