cbs11tv.com - Judge Rules Against Red Light Camera Operators
Printable View
ROFL! PWN3D!!!
I want to kiss that guy! In a strictly non-gay way, that is.
That ruling ought to drive the stock price down!!!
Wow, only a $75 fine in Dallas .... they are $400 here once fees are added.
I can't help but wonder if some places don't keep the fines low to avoid pissing people off so much that they fight back, like this guy did. I mean, certainly they know that the taxpayers are solidly against this nonsense, but that the whole concept is on very shaky legal ground. Seems like not stirring people up too much would be prudent.
Of course, the government philosophy is usually that anything worth doing is worth overdoing. The bastards simply cannot resist the urge to overdo it and grab as much cash as they can before it all comes crashing down.
I can just see it now; All three companies go bankrupt, and the government bails them out with yet more of our money. :rolleyes:
Yes it's like $60 here and no points. They want to make it easy on you to just pay it and be done with it.
HAHAHHAHAHHA serves texas right!!! That's what they get for requiring a PI license for computer techs who do forensics, recovery, etc...
WINNNAH!!! Sticky this!!!
EDIT:
Additional Information:
Texas Occupation Code
§1702.101. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY LICENSE REQUIRED.
Unless the person holds a license as an investigations
company, a person may not:
(1) act as an investigations company;
(2) offer to perform the services of an investigations
company; or
(3) engage in business activity for which a license is
required under this chapter.
§1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person
acts as an investigations company for the purposes of
this chapter if the person:
(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing,
or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information
related to:
(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a
state or the United States;
(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation,
knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations,
associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character
of a person;
...
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts
employment to secure, evidence for use before a court,
board, officer, or investigating committee;
now, 1(a) may not apply because it is a crime against city ordinance, not specifically the State, but paragraph 1(b) and (2) definitely looks like it fits the bill.
I'd say they pissed off the wrong dude! :D
Gee guys, why didn't we find that loop hole. See what happens when you piss off a lawyer. This could be extremely costly to these companies. Hope he wins his class action law suite, this could put them out of business if the amount of tickets are high enough.
+1. Great story!Quote:
Originally Posted by djrams80
This works in Cali, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
California Business & Professions Code
7521. A private investigator within the meaning of this chapter is a person, other than an insurance adjuster subject to the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 14000) of Division 5 of the Insurance Code, who, for any consideration whatsoever engages in business or accepts employment to furnish or agrees to furnish any person to protect persons pursuant to Section 7521.5, or engages in business or accepts employment to furnish, or agrees to make, or makes, any investigation for the purpose of obtaining, information with reference to:
(a) Crime or wrongs done or threatened against the United States of America or any state or territory of the United States of America.
..
(e) Securing evidence to be used before any court, board, officer, or investigating committee.
7523. (a) Unless specifically exempted by Section 7522, no person shall engage in the business of private investigator, as defined in Section 7521, unless that person has applied for and received a license to engage in that business pursuant to this chapter.
7523.5. (a) The superior court in and for the county wherein any person has engaged or is about to engage in any act which constitutes a violation of Section 7523 may, upon a petition filed by the bureau with the approval of the director, issue an injunction or other appropriate order restraining this conduct and may impose civil fines not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
^ that would be good information to pass along to that website in CA that is dedicated to fighting red light tickets
highwayrobbery.net, and already sent it to them, I copied and pasted it right out of the email in fact lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
Will not help in CA, as it turns out only the police are allow to review the photos, the RLC companies are not allow to issue the the tickets nor are they paid on a per ticket basis.
However, this could work in other states since state tend to mirror laws, so other states probably have similar laws.
Incorrect, the RLC companies install the cameras and OPERATE them to obtain evidence which is going to be used before a court. They are in the business of collecting the evidence, which they then provide to the police. The police however are not the one's collecting the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
On highwayrobbery.net is show legislation that was passed that said the companies who install the systems are not allow to view the information and determine who should get a ticket. It also said they can not be paid on a per ticket basis. To your point the fact the RLC install and maintain the systems does that mean they are collecting evidences. Looks like a interesting point for the courts to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
Also, it does sound like some locations in CA are not following the laws and are letting the RLC do the work, so they are obviously in violation.
So did you hear anything back from highwayrobbery.net?
Yea, I got a reply rather quickly don't know if he's researching more to post or what
Well the battle goes on. This came out today.
cbs11tv.com - Judge Could Reverse Decision On Red Light Cameras
*yawn* @ propaganda
He's an attorney he doesn't have to pay somebody and has plenty of time. No matter what if they reverse it's because of corrupt gov. Obviously it's been beaten but they make some dumb excuse that they were able to get away with before total bs
No $hit. If we were sitting out in a van with a digital camera at an intersection trying to police a neighborhood and being paid by neighborhood residents to give sworn testimony to officers who then issued summons to cars running redlights, we'd get our pants sued off for doing PI work without a license, but Corporate america will just get a slap on it's wrists.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
I wonder if this PI defense will work on toll roads too :P
Yeah it might, but the ones around here are goverment funded and managed I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
We use Ezpass though??!?
Hrmm Texas has that TxTag thing I think which I believe you're correct is managed by TxDOT.. but in Cali I believe it's EzPass and FasTrak. I got a FasTrak ticket on the 91 express lane, ironically when I was working for a PI firm, that would have been funny to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by YTCD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
We can run them all the time we just get a 15 dollar bill in the mail. Which we never pay. NC has it nice enough that Im actually willing to pay it. Its 2.00 fine the same as what you have to usually pay.
:mad:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/Red...eraSystems.pdf
Who does DPS think they are to claim that the municipalities are the ones "operating" the cameras when they CONTRACT IT OUT. Shouldn't the CONTRACTORS be licensed as PI Licensing requires a high ethics standards, something REDFLEX certainly doesn't have, and the entire point of PI licensing. Yes Tx Transp Code AUTHORIZES Red light camera systems, but is it not the intent of the legislature that the people WHO it is contracted out to obey the law.
Ugh.. I want to see the Attorney General's opinion, not some agency who doesn't give a f*.
It sounds like someone paid the judge a visit and explained him how much money the towns will loose and probably include funds to pay him salary. Wonder if the judge is elected or appointed to his position.
If he is elected, sound like time for his voter to stand up and say he might be voted out if he over turns his ruling.
This was a state agencies OPINION, not a courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky225
I was not responding your posting but an earlier one that said the judge was going to review his previous ruling on the 17th of Dec to determine whether he missed ruled in this case.
grrrr...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
J.A.I.L.
:P
Quote:
Originally Posted by outrun
I like this judge someone appoint him to the appellate courts!
pwn3d again.
Strike 2.
Pawwwownd again x3!!!!
Lol, thats so funny
hey time to run some RLC and go to court and hand the judge that case.
Big questions does this also apply to RCL which are civil offense verse criminal. Remember the guy who fought his ticket in TX a while back and won, his was more of a civil matter and her did not have hearing with judge but with the company operating the cameras.
How does a decision like this affect those operations.
ALL RLC violations in TX are civil in nature, but the occupations code for private investigation says any company that collects evidence that will be used in ANY court (civil or criminal) must have a license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro