Red Light Scammeras

By

Michelle Hohmeier

While reading a letter to the editor about the whining red light violators, I realized
the American people are willing to give up their rights and liberties for a little
security or convenience. I am not surprised by this cavalier attitude, simply
nauseated by it. Many men died trying to defend the idea of American freedom and
yet people are willing to give those freedoms away so carelessly. They support this
next travesty of injustice in a long line of abuses simply because they are afraid.

But from where does this fear originate? It must be a gross misunderstanding of the
extent in which our government is involved in this invasion of our liberties. For I
cannot stomach the idea that flag-flying Americans would allow their government to
become so insidious. Or maybe it’s ignorance of the law as to why some people
scoff those, who are working so tirelessly to preserve the few personal liberties still
afforded American citizens.

What pushes those against the red light scammeras to continue their fight? They
stand on the side of the Constitution itself and will not compromise to those trying
to violate it at every turn.

As far as enforcement of the law and running red lights are concerned, there is no
dispute on either side there should be consequences for people who break the law.
However, the consequences should fit the crime committed. Sending an
unenforceable ticket to a license owner is not the correct response.

When a continual problem occurs at an intersection where people persist in running

the light, it should be the responsibility of the local police department to monitor
that intersection. To rely on a camera is a flagrant injustice, as it breaches the
Constitutional rights of each person traveling through that particular crossroads.
Beside the fact the cameras are continuously recording traffic at the intersection,
(documenting the innocent along with the guilty) when an offense transpires a
camera cannot be called as a valid witness to testify against the accused. This in
itself violates the 6th Amendment.

“to be confronted with the witnesses against him”

This means the accused has the right to cross examine the witnesses brought
against him. Video and photographic evidence can be used in a case, but not as the
sole evidence to convict a person. There has to be corroborative evidence such as
eye witnesses, humans, or other forensic evidence.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Melendez-Diaz v.
Massachusetts “that merely producing such a certificate in court is insufficient”. The
high court ruled in this manner because although it may be difficult to have
witnesses present to testify, if this premise were not upheld it would greatly weaken
the integrity of the court.

Judge Scalia says it this way, “"The 'certificates' are functionally identical to live, in-
court testimony, doing precisely what a witness does on direct examination.
Respondent and the dissent may be right that there are other ways -- and in some
cases better ways -- to challenge or verify the results of a forensic test. But the
Constitution guarantees one way: confrontation. We do not have license to suspend
the Confrontation Clause when a preferable trial strategy is available."

He goes on to say, “"Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of
manipulation....”

And why is photo manipulation a concern? Because the companies that monitor the
cameras and send out the tickets are also responsible for the calibration, accuracy
and timing of the systems. Those same companies, whom our governments have
charged with our protection, have profited by the millions of dollars, under the guise
of ensuring the public’s safety.

Let’s look at the safety aspect of the red light cameras.

When a red light camera ticket is issued, it is not recorded as a moving violation.
The reasoning behind that variation is due to the fact both the photo enforcement
industry and the government entities know they cannot enforce the ticket as a
moving violation because of the lack of a human witness.

Since in Missouri, these tickets are issued as “civil” violations, points do not
accumulate on a person’s driver’s license. Unlike a ticket issued by a police officer
at that same intersection for the same offense, which would be considered a
moving violation. Without points being accumulated on a license, that person
cannot have their license suspended or revoked. Because of this, offenders do not
receive the punishment to fit the crime. But more so, it allows repeat offenders to
remain on the road, therefore the safety of others is in jeopardy. There is no safety
factor in issuing a ticket for a moving violation if the perpetrator will simply be let
off with a slap on the wrist.

The truth of the matter is those in government and employed by the photo
enforcement agencies are only interested in one thing. Money. These cameras
make millions with the potential to make billions of dollars.

If the argument was sincerely about the safety of intersections, and they were
making intersections safe, would it not be assumed then the presence of cameras
would result in lower ticket counts over time? Logically, you would think that would
be the case. But it has been shown that the number of tickets issued never drops by
any significant amount. It is a variable number that rises and falls without rhyme or
reason in a similar pattern as the price of oil.

The people in opposition to the red light cameras aren’t those who don’t want to
pay the consequences for their actions, they simply want to hold those in office
accountable to the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution.

And it appears some legislators are hearing the cry of the oppressed. Across the
State of Missouri, towns are abandoning their camera generating revenue.

Charlack in north St. Louis took down their speed camera off I-70. Supposedly
because they had slowed traffic in the area. But St. Louis County Police Chief Tim
Fitch believes traffic has simply slowed in the area monitored by the camera, but
once past it, drivers assume their previous speeds. Fitch said in a statement, "I
think public opinion is what has caused the cameras to come down, not that they
necessarily reduced accidents on that section of I-170.”

The City Council in Washington, Missouri recently decided not to renew their
contract for the red light cameras in their town on the basis they did not see a
reduction in accidents at the intersections monitored.

MoDOT is scheduled to review the use of traffic cameras at their meeting in

Jefferson City. But who are they to make the rules, the laws. They do not consist of
people elected to the position by the people and therefore have no authority to
deem the use of cameras valid or invalid.

Before the current session of Congress began in Jefferson City, Representatives Tim
Meadows and Jim Lemke had been active in discussions to ban the cameras
statewide. According to Rep. Meadows, up to 65% of his constituents told him
before the last election they did not want the red light cameras. Meadows’ area
includes most of the city of Arnold, which has had four intersections monitored by
red light cameras since November 2005. Both Meadows and Lemke will be actively
pursuing bills banning the cameras.

So, for those Americans, who continue to hand over their rights on the simple basis
of safety, you will be sorry one day. For every time we allow a government agency
of any kind to assume they have the right to invade our privacy, our unalienable
rights, all in the name of safety, they grow in arrogance and power. And one day
there will not be the phrase, “innocent until proven guilty”, but the common idiom
will become “guilty until proven innocent”.

Here’s what we, the American people need to do. Quit handing over our liberties!

Ben Franklin had this to say about liberties. “Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
The American people deserve neither liberty nor safety if we do not resist this
atrocious assault being perpetrated on the people of this nation by our government,
at both the local and federal level. We have become a country of complacent
people, not willing to work to preserve the freedoms given to us long ago. It’s easier
to allow the government to take care of us, to keep us safe than to stand up for
what is right and just. But know this, while you are lounging on your Lazy Boy
watching yet another immoral television show the people in power are working
diligently to take everything you have so that they can have it all.

Those charged with our protection have fallen short of fulfilling their duties, as well
as those charged with preserving our freedoms through the Constitution. It is time
we demand they begin doing the job they were elected to do.