People may be able to see me, but I still retain the right to secure myself, my papers and property against unlawful, unreasonable search and seizure.
Not that I can see. It appears in general to be a gross violation of the 4th, and clearly an unreasonable search of my person which I am most certainly allowed to protect against such things.
Probable cause is ALWAYS needed for the government to act.
.
.
.
.
Damn idiot drivers.......
.
.
.
You just changed the entire scenario. How intellectually dishonest of you.
THAT article you posted makes the city department of transportation responsible for creating hazardous driving conditions... in THOSE 6 CITIES.
The red light camera, in an of itself, is not the cause of the less safe conditions at the intersections that have had yellow light duration shortened.
No.....you placed all the blame on the "idiot drivers"......I threw in the enlightenment for free......
Those 6 Cities......where the yellow light times were looked at.
Of course.......even if the yellow light time was 1 second.....its all the "idiot driver's" fault.
.
.
.
^^ There is the soundbyte again.
Yet still no explanation to what Ikari THINKS this means, in a legal sense.
Also, I noticed you added the word "unlawful" to the text of the 4th amendment.
Its not a search of your person......
I think the argument you were actually looking for was "It is an unreasonable seizure"
Do I have to make your arguments for you?
Hint: Probable cause is not always needed for the government to act. The text of the 4th says "unreasonable search and seizure" then mentions that no warrants shall be issued except upon probable cause. Don't string the two together. For a police officer to make a traffic stop, he/she requires "REASONABLE SUSPICION" (opposed to "unreasonable" which would be a violation of the 4th).
Ive arrested over 200+ DWI Offenders. Ive NEVER had someone be charged nearly 10,000 bucks.
One's private attorney fees are not the problem of the state.
Official Website Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
Those are DUI Laws for Florida. To me, it seems too lenient. I do not want drunk drivers around me. People drive like idiots enough as it is! I live in a college town and know plenty of people who drive after drinking. I won't drive around 2 am on a Friday or a Saturday. Any day that is a drinking holiday, such as cinco de mayo and st patricks day, I won't drive at any time. I think we should do anything we can to keep drunks off the road. I also agree that people shouldn't text while driving but that is harder to control. Someone could be looking at their GPS or ignoring a call or heck even just looking down at your lap momentarily.
.
.
.
.
Damn idiot drivers.......
.
.
.
Actually you can contest a violation.
Red-light Safety Camera Program | City of Fort Worth, Texas
Contesting a Violation
If, after viewing your video at www.ViolationInfo.com, you feel a violation does not exist, you may contest the violation in writing by completing the coupon on the back of your notice and returning it back by the due date. All contests must be made in writing.
The vehicle owner will be notified in writing of the date, time and location of the hearing. If the vehicle owner is found liable or fails to appear, the civil penalty must be paid within 30 days. No additional fees will be added.
If you receive a notice of violation for a vehicle you do not own or was reported stolen at the time of violation, submit an affidavit of non-liability by the due date. Affidavits are available at www.ViolationInfo.com and must be completed, notarized, and mailed to:
Violation Processing Center
P.O. Box 59995
Phoenix, AZ 85076-9995
If you have sold the vehicle, visit the Texas Department of Transportation Web site to ensure your vehicle's title was properly transferred.
I think there are legitimate reasons to run a red light. If the person behind you isn't going to stop or slow down and you think you may get hit, then going through the light while it is almost red (i.e. on yellow but towards the end of the yellow, where you would end up in the middle of the intersection when the light turns red). People often get tickets for making a legal right turn as tessa mentioned. There are a few other reasons as well. When the camera takes a picture of you and you get a ticket a few days later you may not remember what happened and even if you do, how can you prove it. Now I am in favor of speeding cameras and DUI checkpoints(although I haven't given much thought to this one, so my opinion might change). To the person who said that it proves your car ran it not you... If someone is driving your car, it is your responsibility. Period. Thats the way the law works and don't loan your car to someone you don't trust. If they run a red light make them pay it.
Now to the apps, I am on the fence about it. I know for red light cameras at least in this area, there is a sign that says that this intersection is photo enforced or something like that. I think it even says it on my GPS. I don't think people should be drinking and driving so anyway cops can get people that are doing it, I say go for it. Banning these apps though seems wrong but I can't explain why I think that.
I have two issues with this post. First, no law that prevents citizens from sharing locations of a checkpoint or camera. Maybe not particularly in this case, but there was a speed trap on a road and my mom tried to alert other drivers by flashing her lights. A cop saw her and gave her a ticket. I would think the same law she broke would apply in this situation as well.
Second, the money grabbing. If you choose to break the law, you should pay. People keep complaining that the state has no money and they keep cutting important programs but no one is willing to find ways to gain money or cut anything. What is wrong with charging people that break the law more money to deter them from continuing to put other people in danger?
Doesn't putting reflectorized tape over thenumbers on the plate make this a moot point? If the camera can't see the number it can't send the violation.
Whoa and if you get caught doing that...........
Caught doing it? It is invisible at street level but makes the numbers unreadable from above.
Who says you can't put a layer of tape on your plate to protect it from the elements? I beleive the law says that nothing can be on the plate that obstructs the view of the numbering. The tape doesn't.
Besides if the govt is going to use tactics such as this, they should not be surprised when people try to protect themselves from it.
You are searching my person if you want to determine that I am drunk. If I show signs of being drunk observed by the police, that's one thing. They are well within their power to pull me over. If I do not, then they have no rightful reason to pull me over.
You don't have to make my arguments for me because then the arguments would be dumb. So please keep your hands off. Jesus, now the police even want to take our ideas and thinking processes.
Doesn't putting reflectorized tape over thenumbers on the plate make this a moot point? If the camera can't see the number it can't send the violation.
You are searching my person if you want to determine that I am drunk. If I show signs of being drunk observed by the police, that's one thing. They are well within their power to pull me over. If I do not, then they have no rightful reason to pull me over.
You don't have to make my arguments for me because then the arguments would be dumb. So please keep your hands off. Jesus, now the police even want to take our ideas and thinking processes.
That's because you want to be dishonest about it. Even without attorney, you can get up to 6 or 7 thousand dollars. While an attorney may not be the "problem of the state", it is still money which is spent by someone arrested for DUI. Try a bit of honesty please.
Then you really aren't about safety. Texting and driving IS more dangerous than drunk driving.
Once again, drunks may cause 29% of traffic accidents - but sober idiots cause the other 71% - including people who text while driving.
The fact that you dismiss texting and driving because "it's harder to control" proves you're only out to get some people because propaganda has declared them criminals, while you dismiss people who are more dangerous (and probably more prevalent) because you think that law would be inconvenient.
Get those people (you disdain them); but those more dangerous people, well...we don't have time for them. Besides, they're like the people I know, so they can't be criminals (until they kill someone).
Drinking and driving is bad. Yes. No one denies that. But your attitude and our present laws don't reflect a true concern for safety...
Doesn't putting reflectorized tape over thenumbers on the plate make this a moot point? If the camera can't see the number it can't send the violation.
Police Officers don't have their vehicle's on autopilot.... we have to be able to control our vehicle safely as well. This can't be done if we are trying to stare at Hugetits McGee over there to see whether she is texting or dialing 911.
Then you really aren't about safety. Texting and driving IS more dangerous than drunk driving.
Once again, drunks may cause 29% of traffic accidents - but sober idiots cause the other 71% - including people who text while driving.
The fact that you dismiss texting and driving because "it's harder to control" proves you're only out to get some people because propaganda has declared them criminals, while you dismiss people who are more dangerous (and probably more prevalent) because you think that law would be inconvenient.
Get those people (you disdain them); but those more dangerous people, well...we don't have time for them. Besides, they're like the people I know, so they can't be criminals (until they kill someone).
Drinking and driving is bad. Yes. No one denies that. But your attitude and our present laws don't reflect a true concern for safety...
How do you suggest we stop people from texting and driving? So we make a law that says you cannot text and drive. How do you enforce this? How do you know if someone is texting versus calling 911 or watching their GPS. You give me a legitimate way to enforce this I will whole heartedly jump on your side of this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?