Mo. Supreme Court to consider red-light cameras

Adolph Belt Jr., a former Missouri patrolman, was ticketed for running a red light in Springfiled back in 2008. His case, which the Missouri Supreme Court will consider tomorrow, focuses on how the city handles the ticket. It's treated as an administrative matter, not a crime or a municipal violation, the News-Leader says. Belt argues that it's really a criminal matter, though.

"What we have here is a case where motorists in the city of Springfield are being charged with a crime and fined without the traditional presumptions of innocence or the other protections that criminal defendants have," said Jason Umbarger, Belt's attorney. "This is a criminal case, it's a criminal action, everything about it is criminal in nature, except the city's willingness to honor defendants' rights."

Comments

[scum]

i wonder if he was in a patrol car he would have got the ticket?

[Pat the......]

I think anything of a legal nature should be voted on BY THE PEOPLE, not some bought and paid for politician.

How would you vote?

[CD]

Get the camera's out of here. Then the cops will have to do their job again. It is not like a bunch of crimes have been solved or stopped because they did not have to worry about catching red light runners.

[IPOD]

I would vote against them, for sure.

[Jeff]

I like the cameras. They provide a nice source of revenue to cities and polic departments and have shown to reduce the accident rate.

Second if you cant see the big sign that says RED LIGHT CAMERA 100 yards before the intersection and you still run the light your an idiot and deserve a ticket.

People just slow down.

[AJ]

Actually Jeff you are wrong. While accidents in intersections do decrease the number of rear-end accidents has skyrocketed. So their case that these cameras to prevent accidents is shot out the window!!! But you are correct about people being idiots!!!

[TechJunkie]

Another classic case where government decides what's best for us and we, the people, get to pay for it... without a vote or any say in the matter. This is just another form of covert taxation and by our constitution, which says 'no taxation without representation', should be illegal. Not to mention; they aren't ticketing the driver, they are ticketing the owner of the vehicle. How can you be legally found guilty when they can't prove you committed the crime?

[TechJunkie]

Do you want to stop this kind of govermental abuse? Do like I do - keep a notebook and put all of the information about this and any other issue you don't agree with in it. Including who voted for it. Then when election time comes, support democracy and vote these idiots out of office!

[quixotic]

Actually AJ, you overstate the case. While rear-end collisions do increase at intersections with cameras, right-angle crashes (typically with more severe damage) decrease. The net effect is a reduction in damages overall.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm

Interestingly, this study also found reductions in both kinds of crashes at nearby intersections that didn't have cameras - kind of a spillover effect.

[Nemesis]

I think the retired state trooper is correct that the city cannot handle a criminal matter administratively. The city has an legal obligation to follow due process for all criminal proceedings regardless of how minor the infraction. Unchecked a city will be mailing tickets for other infractions too, all without due process.

[Al]

Not a fan of big brother.

Be aware of what's going on around you and accidents won't happen, regardless of how fast you or other drivers are going.

[RedHead]

I for one am tired of the worn out excuse about the rear-end accidents. If you weren't trying to run the light in the first place and following too close in the second place, then you wouldn't get a ticket in the third place.

[Brad]

I like the timers on the crosswalk signals.
*sarcasm font off*

They let you know how much to speed up to make it.
*sarcasm font on*

[scum]

I just get someone i dont like plate and run all the lights and then give it back to them...

[EdinKC]

If running red lights didn't cause so many injury accidents, and wasn't increasing at alarming rates, I wouldn't like the cameras, but the fact is, a big enough proportion of drivers have started viewing traffic signals as mere suggestions that some form of automatic enforcement is warranted.

No one's private lives are being intruded upon, so I say yes, install more!

[146]

All of you that fall into the (it's for your safety) category are a joke. If it was only about (your safety) it would be handled criminally. It's about the all mighty dollar for sure:)

You (it's for your own good) people are the reason the government gets away with this crap.

[sickoftheidiots]

They already are starting you use cameras for speeding tickets in some places. Same bullcrap rationale: "it's an administrative action and not criminal, so we don't have to prove you were actually driving the car."

This garbage originated with parking tickets which, to some extent makes sense. Parking tickets are never moving violations and the fines are usually relatively low.

Now, they can zap you for running a red light, which can be a significant fine and, if this goes unchecked, look forward to receiving your speeding tickets the same way. Those are always a significant fine.

So, where does it end. It's always a slippery slope when the government starts infringing on basic Constitutional and due process rights. Shall we classify, say, robbery or possession of child pornogaphy as admin actions so we can avoid all those pesky due process requirements?