US Supreme Court Upsets Speed Camera Industry

[StlouisX50]

US Supreme Court Upsets Speed Camera Industry
Red light camera makers fear high court Confrontation Clause ruling will create legal challenges.

Red light camera and speed camera manufacturers fear that last month's US Supreme Court ruling in the case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts could create legal turmoil for the industry. The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running issued a statement yesterday warning that the ruling has armed motorists with a greater ability to challenge the basis of automated traffic citations. Speed cameras, for example, depend heavily on legal faith in a certificate that claims to confirm the total reliability of a machine's speed reading. In the Melendez-Diaz case, the high court ruled that merely producing such a certificate in court is insufficient. Defendants have the right to cross-examine any individual who claims to have certified evidence.

"Violators often object that they cannot challenge their accuser if it is a camera," Leslie Blakey, executive director of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running said. "This new ruling may spur more court cases and lawsuits on the basis of the right to challenge the human elements of the evidentiary chain."

Blakey is principal of the Blakey and Agnew public relations firm that five of the top photo enforcement companies -- Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), CMA Consulting, Gatso of the Netherlands, Lasercraft of the UK and Redflex of Australia -- paid to create the National Campaign to lobby on their behalf. Each of these firms could face a tremendous challenge if their methods are brought into closer scrutiny, although Blakey believes that this constitutional protections may not apply in states where photo tickets have been made "civil" violations.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz, a 5-4 case that dealt with a laboratory analysis of drug evidence. The defendant argued that he had a right to question the lab worker who signed a piece of paper that certified the substance he had been carrying was cocaine. The majority agreed that despite the possible hassle involved in confirming each fact at trial, it is essential to the integrity of the court system that questioning of the evidence be allowed.

"The 'certificates' are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing precisely what a witness does on direct examination," Scalia wrote. "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."

Scalia further argued that the ability to confront witnesses is essential to ensuring that the potential for bias or error in scientific testing is uncovered.

"Nor is it evident that what respondent calls 'neutral scientific testing' is as neutral or as reliable as respondent suggests," Scalia wrote. "Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.... And because forensic scientists often are driven in their work by a need to answer a particular question related to the issues of a particular case, they sometimes face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency. A forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure -- or have an incentive -- to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution... the prospect of confrontation will deter fraudulent analysis in the first place."

These concerns are especially apt with respect to the photo enforcement industry. In April, for example, lawmakers in France began to raise questions after learning that the private, for-profit company that operates the speed cameras, Sagem, is solely responsible for calibrating the units and certifying their accuracy. The situation is the same in the US, where companies that are in most cases paid on a per-ticket basis, are solely responsible for determining the accuracy of their own machines.

Under the ruling, it becomes the burden of the state or local authority to ensure photo enforcement company employees show up to testify in court. Failure to testify would result in the evidence being excluded and a likely acquittal.

"We're concerned about the potential impact of this ruling on photo enforcement programs across the country," Blakey said. "We don't want to see anything jeopardize the public safety benefit of automated enforcement."

A copy of the supreme court decision is available in a 350k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (Supreme Court of the United States, 6/25/2009)

[Maestro]

Ah, this is what we all been saying all along... some good lawyer need to take this approach with RLCs and set some case laws that the rest of us can use. There is no way any person can walk in court and use this case to argue your right to cross examine the person who certify the ticket. Plus many of these tickets are civil these days different level or burden.

[Asleeper]

This is awesome news, I have speed camera ticket I got in DC a few weeks ago. I am very tempted to challenge it based on this ruling.

[snoopyc4]

Alright! That is a win for us

[Lucky225]

Ah, this is what we all been saying all along... some good lawyer need to take this approach with RLCs and set some case laws that the rest of us can use. There is no way any person can walk in court and use this case to argue your right to cross examine the person who certify the ticket. Plus many of these tickets are civil these days different level or burden.

So here's the bigger question, does this apply across the board? Can I now directly examine the person who signed a Lidar certificate to ensure that his certification was truthful? Can I also examine the engineer who signed a T&E survey to question it's authenticity?

[JDS]

This is great news, and a victory for our rights as citizens.

[Maestro]

Ah, this is what we all been saying all along... some good lawyer need to take this approach with RLCs and set some case laws that the rest of us can use. There is no way any person can walk in court and use this case to argue your right to cross examine the person who certify the ticket. Plus many of these tickets are civil these days different level or burden.

So here's the bigger question, does this apply across the board? Can I now directly examine the person who signed a Lidar certificate to ensure that his certification was truthful? Can I also examine the engineer who signed a T&E survey to question it's authenticity?

In PA there is case law on whether the state has to prove the person who calibrated the equipment was actually authorize to perform the calibration. The courts said the state is not require to prove that the signature of the person who calibrate the equipment was actually capable of doing it. They said the state is given the benefit of the doubt.

There is also a FL case which has not been settle yet on a similar topic which the lawyer challenge the authenticity of the cal cert he said he should be allow to cross example the person who cal the equipment.

I would guess if you wanted to bring in a lawyer and challenge every element of the ticket and the evidence against you, it can be done. But like PA many states have stated since there is no option of jail, you not afford all the same due processes.

I think this is how some good Lawyer win traffic tickets since they probably threaten the courts they plan to challenge every element of the ticket and the courts know it is not worth their time and either drop it or reduce the fine.

[JDS]

They said the state is given the benefit of the doubt.

Why don't I get the benefit of the doubt?

[StlouisX50]

Then again you have a city like Arnold, MO that keeps on ticketing when the supreme court said it was not a matter they needed to handle.

[proudNMAmember]

JDS worded it just right. We need not let our rights be taken away people.