From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   BTR1701  wrote:   
   >Jan 31, 2026 at 10:22:48 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   >>BTR1701  wrote:   
   >>>Jan 30, 2026 at 11:04:22 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   >>>>BTR1701  wrote:   
      
   >>>>>A couple years ago I got a bogus ticket at a red light camera. The   
   >>>>>light was obviously malfunctioning. I sat through the entire cycle   
   >>>>>three times and never got a green arrow, so I just went through when   
   >>>>>it was clear, only to get a dazzling flash in my eyes as the camera   
   >>>>>went off and took my picture.   
      
   >>>>>A friend of mine sent me a news article from back in 2010 where a   
   >>>>>judge had ruled the county's red light cameras unconstitutional. He   
   >>>>>told me to just ignore the ticket since they can't legally enforce   
   >>>>>it. They just leave the cameras up because most people don't know   
   >>>>>they're unenforceable and will just pay the fine. So I ignored it and   
   >>>>>it's been two and a half years and nothing has happened, so I guess   
   >>>>>my friend was right.   
      
   >>>>Was it something sprcific to the county, or does the judge feel   
   >>>>automated law enforcement is generally unconstitutional?   
      
   >>>It was a violation of the right to confront your accuser.   
      
   >>Excellent. I've never understood how there could be any automated law   
   >>enforcement procedures that don't violate the confrontation clause, but   
   >>judges don't generally rule that way.   
      
   >The county tried to argue that the violations were civil, not criminal, so   
   >therefore there was no right being violated. The judge basically told them you   
   >call a zebra a pig, but it still has stripes.   
      
   Historically, why was the confrontation clause limited to criminal   
   matters? In a tort, the plaintiff argues that the defendant caused harm.   
   I guess discovery is the civil equivalent, but is this right weaker?   
      
   Decades ago, city of Chicago set up an entire department that hears   
   municipal code violations on behalf of other departments, including   
   traffic and parking violations. Previously, that all went to the   
   municipal department of state court for trial. It was costlier and more   
   inconvenient fr the city, the judges were friendlier to defendants, and   
   there was that pesky higher burden of proof.   
      
   For years, I've joked if felonies like murder didn't have to be heard in   
   state criminal court by state statute, Mayor Richard M. Daley would have   
   handled the cases with administrativ hearings and fines, 'cuz the city   
   truly wanted the revenue from fines and other penalties.   
      
   The difference I see is, in an administrative proccedure, the burden of   
   proof shifts to the person who was cited that the citation is   
   inapplicable. No, my car wasn't an overweight truck with bad air brakes   
   stopped in another state because the license plate was entered   
   erroneously. No, I did pay that fine 35 years ago, and the case never   
   got closed on the computer system, which didn't exist at the time, and   
   too bad for the accused that the paper records simply weren't entered   
   into the computer or no longer exist. It's too costly for us to enter   
   all historic records but we're falsely claiming unpaid fines because we   
   lost track of the payments.   
      
   If I'm cited and have to go to an administrative hearing, I cannot have   
   a supeona issued, right? Makes it difficult to defend.   
      
   We discussed a case, not an Institute of Justice case but clearly the   
   woman was being advised by attorneys in how to file paperwork, about   
   notice and mootness. I forgot the underlying issue but she never got her   
   hearing, just a lien they were trying to enforce on her property. The   
   municipal prosecutor was doing cute things with serving notice, using a   
   shipping service rather than US mail. The courrier ALWAYS marked   
   "served" even though they did nothing more than drop off the package.   
   She lived in an apartment which had letter boxes, too small for a   
   packagem, so the courrier left it in the lobby. She wasn't "served" and   
   never saw it and was out of town at the time. The courrier wouldn't have   
   the key to the letter box anyway.   
      
   The trial court judge was unsympathetic and said she missed her filing   
   deadline to respond, reversed on appeal.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)