Federal Court Upholds Illegal Traffic Camera Evidence
Printable View
So the court concluded do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't hurt anyone, so run red lights as long as you don't show injury? Speed as long as you don't actually hurt anyone? Nice precedent, opens the door for all the nut jobs to start impersonating officers as long as they only give warnings too. Practice medicine without a license so long as you don't make anyone sick, fix the plumbing in peoples homes if it doesn't leak you're all set.
Did I read that wrong?:confused:
The court basically said that since the traffic violations are civil in nature, there is no 'harm' to the injured party by the illegal evidence being admitted in court. Basically this was a federal case, and it's a STATE issue, so there is nothing illegal at the federal level, and thus the plaintiff had no standing to SUE ATS/Redflex. The federal court wants to see a FEDERAL injury, before they'll award money damages, they're not saying ATS/RedFlex shouldn't obtain a license or isn't required too, they're just saying them not obtaining a license did not raise a FEDERAL question or bring FEDERAL harm to the plaintiff, and I agree, this is a STATE issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motor On
No the court saying the as long as the matter before the court is not a criminal case how evidence was gathered is not subject to the same rules as criminal cases which kind of true.
If you think about it, only law enforcement is bound by very strict rules of evidence, private citizens can pretty much do whatever they like and it sounds like the court is saying that since these tickets are civil not criminal they do not have to follow the same rules.
Now you know what most towns use these system as a civil infraction verse criminal it allows them to skirt all the rules and laws. These Red Light companies have lawyers advised towns how to write the laws and rules such they can get around all this.
negative, Texas STATE LAW bars evidence illegally obtained to be used in ANY court against you, he would have to sue in State court to get a judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
EDIT:
FROM THE ARTICLE;
" Texas Code Section 1702 states. "A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing... information related to... crime or wrongs done; or... engages in the business of securing... evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee... furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the publi
Lucky,
If you remember the case this guy got his red light ticket tossed due to fact the photo used in court was from one of these companies and his whole defense was they did not have a license to collect evidence. It sounds like the it was appealed all the way to the federal level and they are saying since the ticket is a civil matter it does not matter who or how the evidence was gathered.
The guy is not suing those companies.
READ the article, this was a LAWSUIT, not an appeal of his redlight ticket, the fact that he got the ticket tossed out is yet another reason he had no standing to sue;Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
FROM the article;
Federal Court Upholds Illegal Traffic Camera Evidence
Quote:
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that municipalities in most states may use evidence illegally collected by photo enforcement cameras. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made its decision in the case of Stephen Bell who sued both American Traffic Solutions (ATS), an Arizona-based red light camera operator, and Redflex Traffic Solutions of Australia for violating Texas statutes requiring companies involved in private investigation to obtain a license. The three-judge appellate panel determined that there was no problem with companies offering unlawfully obtained evidence in civil court cases.
Edit:
-- I.E. no FEDERAL ISSUE raised, in the FEDERAL court.Quote:
On the substance of his complaint, Bell convinced a number of judges. Last April, Dallas County, Texas District Court Presiding Judge Craig Smith ruled that a photo ticketing company "is required to obtain a license under the Texas Occupations Code." A federal district court judge also essentially agreed with Bell, assuming the need for a license in a ruling. But Judge Smith, the district judge and now the appellate panel agreed that on technical grounds, Bell had no standing to sue because he had not suffered injury to a "legally protected" interest. The appeals court cited the Texas Appeals Court case Hudson v. Winn in which an unlicensed private investigator lied to gain entry into a home. The court found that the victim in the case had no standing to sue for negligence.
I have a question. Was this ticket in a state that requires consent from both parties to have your photo or video taken. Under the wire tap law?
Negative, Texas is a one party consent State. Mass. is the only State I know that has the 'all party consent' statute that has actually been somewhat upheld in court, Pennsylvania officers will often try it, but I believe that was struck down recently, Maestro can chime in on this, but it's never been an issue in other all-party consent States like California where the Rodney King beat down was video taped, etc.. most states that have all-party rules make it very specific that the consent is only required in CONFIDENTIAL communications, things you do in a public place are NOT confidential.Quote:
Originally Posted by StlouisX50