Subject: Re: Hidden cameras to catch speeders

From: [email-masked] (David Murray)
Date: 4 Sep 1995 03:57:52 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Robert J Kaufmann) writes:

>   Hey everybody,
> what ever happended to police departments installing hidden cameras 
> [hidden in a tree, the cameras would take a picture of your license 
> plate, then the cops would mail you a picture of your car with a speed 
> the camera clocked you doing, plus a fine you had to pay] to catch 
> speeders?  This used to be a big controversy in the late 1980s and early 
> 1990s [especially in Florida where violators charged the various 
> departments with bypassing their due-process], but I haven't heard anything 
> since early 1992; when Fairfax County started installing these things 
> around the county.

In Maryland, the owner of a vehicle is not responsible for traffic
citations issued to any person driving that vehicle. Cases in which a
camera was used to photograph the license can't be prosecuted, since
the driver of the vehicle never was positively identified.

+-----------------------------------------------+
|                                               |
|  DAVID MURRAY                                 |
|  [email-masked]                          |
|                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------+

---

From: [email-masked] (Rick Nyman)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 02:02:45 GMT

>the driver of the vehicle never was positively identified.

I hear that there are some systems out there that actually get a
picture of the driver as well as the plate.  So they can give tickets.
I forget where that was being used, but not on the East Coast if I
remember.

--
Rick Nyman <[email-masked]>
A recent graduate of Virginia Tech's Mechanical Engineering department.
(Still looking for a job)
Home Page: http://sfbox.vt.edu:10021/E/enyman/index.html
My ASMEnet account: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Looney)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 09:52:52 -0400

>> since early 1992; when Fairfax County started installing these things 

I've heard that they are removing this system in Canada because it
didn't work, i.e. on roads where it was installed, traffic did not
slow down. Oh sure, no doubt some "perpatrators were apprehended",
but apparently the more enlightened Canadians kept in mind the 
real objective for implementation of this system. "Photo radar"
was discussed here not long ago; the following posts are of interest.

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] said:
>Ernie Pittarelli ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: [email-masked] (Persepolis) wrote:

>: monitoring devices to enforce the laws.  Whatever happened to privacy
>: and due process?  What possible chance do you have to defend yourself
>
>Do you feel the same way about surveilance camera's in banks and ATM
>machines? And how about a house or car alarm? baby monitor?

Surveillance cameras in banks and ATM machines are not there to enforce the
law. They are there because the owner of this private property wanted to
monitor that property. Same thing with house and car alarms.

To compare a baby monitor to photo radar is beyond ridiculous.

Photo radar is being used not to supplement the observations of an officer,
but to REPLACE an officer. You are being accused and convicted by a machine
and there is nothing you can do about it. That is WRONG. Surveillance used
without just cause for suspicion is a tool of oppression.

We have a traffic law/enforcement system now that is rife with abuse. To
make this system even more adept at treating motorists as cash cows is not
in the best interests of society. The current system fosters resentment of
and contempt for the police and the courts. And you want to make this worse?

>The only reason you
>are feeling a pinch on your privacy is because a percent[age] of the 
>population
>have taken liberties with am[b]iguous laws, and this in turns causes all of
>us to lose a little of our freedom.

I believe it was Ben Franklin that said "those who are willing to sacrifice
liberty in order to have security deserve neither" or similar wording. 
Excusing invasion of (other people's) privacy in order to enhance (your)
security is not acceptable in a free society.

> against a citation that allegedly occurred weeks or months before when you
> didn't even know that you had been observed speeding? Or are you just assuming
> that all of these photo radar machines will work flawlessly?
>
>With this line of reasoning, you should propose an alternate method of
>enforcing such law.
[snip]
>You see, there ARE NO devices which are error proof.  There will always
>be error and what we can do is to hope that we can advance technology
>to minimize error.  

That is why we have a court system where one can confront one's accuser.

Michael Johnson
Relay Technology, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (SPierre)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 14:15:00 -0400

>without just cause for suspicion is a tool of oppression.

This really isn't a case of "surveillance used without just cause" at all;
from what I understand of the systems, a sensor of some sort detects a
violation, which at that point activates the camera and records the image.
 The sensor's detection, in essence, is the "just cause" that activates
the surveillance.  I know this is how the systems set up to detect
red-light runners are set up, and am fairly certian the speeding systems
work the same way.  While a sensor may activate in error, so too can real
live police officers make a mistake.  

Also, it is specious to argue that "You are being accused and convicted by
a machine and there is nothing you can do about it."  All avenues
available to you had the violation been detected by an officer are still
available; you can contest the citation and appear before a judge or
magistate, etc.  Theoretically, you could appeal the conviction all the
way to the Supreme Court if you had a valid avenue of appeal.  The fact
that the evidence is strong and makes it hard to contest a citation does
not mean that you are being denied your constitutional rights, and
certianly does not constitute a "tool of oppression" (at least among the
non-paranoid).

S. Pierre Paret
Washington, D.C.  "Through Reason, or By Force."
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Landau)
Date: 6 Sep 1995 20:03:11 GMT

SPierre ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Also, it is specious to argue that "You are being accused and convicted by
: a machine and there is nothing you can do about it."  All avenues
: available to you had the violation been detected by an officer are still
: available; you can contest the citation and appear before a judge or
: magistate, etc.  Theoretically, you could appeal the conviction all the
: way to the Supreme Court if you had a valid avenue of appeal.  The fact
: that the evidence is strong and makes it hard to contest a citation does
: not mean that you are being denied your constitutional rights, and
: certianly does not constitute a "tool of oppression" (at least among the
: non-paranoid).

Our Constitution gives the accused in a criminal proceeding the absolute 
right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him [and] to have 
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."  In other 
words, in this great country of ours someone accused of a crime cannot be 
convicted without being given the opportunity to confront his accuser and 
to force his accuser to testify to facts which may be in his favor.  This 
has nothing to do with your opportunity to appear before a judge or 
magistrate or the Supreme Court; they are not your accusers.

That's why, no matter how dead-to-rights a cop had you when he stopped 
you, the case will be thrown out summarily if he doesn't show up in 
court; a conviction without that opportunity to confront would be a 
direct violation of the Sixth Amendment.

To say that when the evidence against you has been collected entirely by 
mechanical means, with no human being involved, "all avenues available to 
you had the violation been detected by an officer are still available" is 
truly specious.  Can you cross-examine a camera?  Can a machine be 
required to answer your questions truthfully, under oath?  Can an 
electronic device be held in contempt of court, or prosecuted for perjury?  

--
Eric Landau, APL Solutions, Inc. ([email-masked])
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger." -- Abbie Hoffman

---

From: [email-masked] (SPierre)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 09:45:39 -0400

>electronic device be held in contempt of court, or prosecuted for
perjury?  

I'm afraid you just don't a basic concept:  not all evidence must
presented by a living human "witness".  If evidence IS provided by a
witness, then of course you have certain rights, such as
cross-examination, etc.  

Under your mistaken understanding, though, it would be impossible to
convict someone, for example, for most white-collar crimes (well, no one
actually SAW him sign that check/illegally transfer those funds/etc.); or
how about a bank surveillance camera recording someone breaking in?  In
these cases, you cannot obviously cross-examine the fraudulent check or
the surveillance camera.  Yet documents, videos, skid marks (ever try to
cross-examine a skid-mark or a blood stain??) are considered evidence. 
Sorry if this comes as a suprise.  It would be a sad day for justice if
only personally-presented evidence (in the form of cross-examinable
witnesses) counted.

This is a completely different subject than the original (also incorrect)
argument about "just cause".  I suppose you couldn't refute my argument on
that issue, so you moved on to an equaly incorrect argument about
confronting the witness.  Keep trying -- try another issue.

S. Pierre Paret

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Landau)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 22:04:02 GMT

: I'm afraid you just don't a basic concept:  not all evidence must
: presented by a living human "witness".  If evidence IS provided by a
: witness, then of course you have certain rights, such as
: cross-examination, etc.  

I believe I have enough "basic concept" to know the difference between an 
accusation of a crime and the evidence used to support that accusation, 
enough to know the difference between witnesses and evidence.  Under what 
"basic concept" is the right to cross-examine one's accuser taken to mean 
the same thing as the right to "cross-examine" their evidence?

: Under your mistaken understanding, though, it would be impossible to
: convict someone, for example, for most white-collar crimes (well, no one
: actually SAW him sign that check/illegally transfer those funds/etc.); or
: how about a bank surveillance camera recording someone breaking in?  In
: these cases, you cannot obviously cross-examine the fraudulent check or
: the surveillance camera.  Yet documents, videos, skid marks (ever try to
: cross-examine a skid-mark or a blood stain??) are considered evidence. 

Checks, cameras, documents, videos, skid marks, blood stains, etc. don't 
just walk into court and get themselves admitted into evidence.  They 
must be introduced in support of testimony given by a human being, and 
will be admitted into evidence by a judge only if he or she finds that 
they do in fact support that testimony.  No check, camera, document, 
video, skid mark or blood stain has ever "accused" anybody of anything, 
at least not in any court in this country.

As others have already pointed out, you can't be convicted because a 
radar gun "says" you were speeding.  The radar read-out can only be used 
to support the testimony of the policeman who says he saw you speeding.  
Under our Constitution, unless the policeman testifies that he actually 
saw you break the law, you can't be convicted no matter how many radar 
gun read-outs you are "accused" by.  That's why the policeman has to 
show up in court; under your "rules" he would be allowed to mail in the 
evidence and let you confront it instead of him.

I "cannot obviously cross-examine the fraudulent check;" I cannot, 
even subtly, cross-examine any check.  But until a check stands up in 
the witness box and testifies "I am fraudulent," I have no need to.  I 
do have the absolute right under the Sixth Amendment to cross-examine 
the person (witness) who makes the claim that the check (evidence) was 
written fraudulently.

: Sorry if this comes as a suprise.  It would be a sad day for justice if
: only personally-presented evidence (in the form of cross-examinable
: witnesses) counted.

Sorry if this comes as a surprise, but it's that day already.  Only 
"personally-presented" evidence (presented in conjunction with and in 
support of the testimony of cross-examinable witnesses -- I remind you 
again that evidence and witnesses are not the same thing) does count.  If 
it isn't in support of testimony, it will not be admitted.  It isn't just 
"evidence" because it's there, it has to be evidence OF something.  It 
has to be evidence of something which has been asserted by a witness.

But it will be a sad day indeed when a person can be convicted of a crime 
based on an "accusation" made by evidence standing alone, rather than 
based on an accusation made by a person and supported by their evidence.  
It will mean that our Constitution and the entire canon of English common 
law on which it is based no longer have any force.  It will mean that you 
and I are no longer living in a country with a meaningful Bill of Rights.

: This is a completely different subject than the original (also incorrect)
: argument about "just cause".  I suppose you couldn't refute my argument on
: that issue, so you moved on to an equaly incorrect argument about
: confronting the witness.  Keep trying -- try another issue.

Well, I didn't propound "the original... argument about 'just cause';" 
that was someone else.  Nor did I "move on" to my defense of the Sixth 
Amendment; it just came to me when I read your original post.  Keep 
trying -- try addressing my arguments instead of disparaging someone 
else's; I'm the guy who's arguing that there's a distinction between 
witnesses and evidence.

---

From: [email-masked] (SPierre)
Date: 8 Sep 1995 09:29:28 -0400

[email-masked] (Eric Landau) wrote:

>they do in fact support that testimony.

Sorry if I misunderstood your argument.  I just assumed the photoradar
evidence was presented by a police officer or photoradar technician,
rather than just floating into the courtroom alone and unaided.  If this
is in fact the case (as I assume it must be), we are in agreement -- that
physical or mechanically-collected evidence (such as a photo of a skidmark
or a radar photo), if presented by a cross-examinable person, is valid
evidence.  

>has to be evidence of something which has been asserted by a witness.

I believe I misunderstood your use of the word "witness" to mean a person
that actually saw the crime occur, rather than someone appearing in court,
and that led me to my previous line of reasoning.  

I think it is reasonable to assume that law enforcement organizations will
provide a witness (in the form of an officer or technician) in cases in
which a person contests a photo radar ticket.  Thus, all the same legal
avenues *are* available to the person contesting -- my original assertion.

S. Pierre Paret

---

From: [email-masked] (John Kennedy)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 14:27:35 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (SPierre) writes:
>the surveillance. 

The presence of the sensor constitutes the surveillance used without
just cause.  This argument is the reason that police officers must
testify that they visually saw your car, had reason to believe that a crime
was being commited, then used radar to confirm it.  They cannot admit that
they blindly paint the highway with radar, even if that's what they do.
There must be probably cause for the use of radar.

Now we all know that the radar units are set to alarm if traffic is seen
to be exceeding a certain speed.  That's reality; you'll never find a cop
testifying that his radar unit was his first indication of your speeding.

>All avenues
>way to the Supreme Court

You wouldn't have to.  A lower court would recognize that your right to face
and question your accuser had been abridged.

-- 
John Kennedy                     [email-masked] 
Second Source, Inc.
Annapolis, MD

---

From: [email-masked] (SPierre)
Date: 7 Sep 1995 15:43:16 -0400

>There must be probably cause for the use of radar.

I fail to see any real difference between an officer using his sensory
abilities to determine just cause and a sensor doing the same thing.  Yes,
you can use semantics to differentiate the two situations, but the fact
remains that the evidence in both cases is collected by a mechanical
device, which is deemed to be as or more reliable than an officer guessing
at a vehicle's speed.  

>and question your accuser had been abridged.

Gee, you'd think someone might have tried this by now.  If your statement
were true, these devices would be useless and no force would employ them.

S. Pierre Paret

---

From: Rick Nakroshis <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Sep 1995 13:32:03 GMT

>electronic device be held in contempt of court, or prosecuted for perjury?  

A truly stirring speech, more appropriate for the soapbox than the courtroom, I'm afraid.  It 
is but another variation on the "checkbook defense":  make sure you bring your checkbook when 
you use this defense.  You're gonna have some fines and court costs to pay.

You are welcome to test your theory and let us know how it went.

-- 
                            _\\|//_
                            ( O-O )
-------------------------o00--(_)--00o---------------------------
   Rick Nakroshis                          [email-masked]

   And remember, another day ends:
       All targets met...
       All systems working and customers satisfied...
       All staff eager and enthusiastic...
       All pigs fed, watered, and ready to fly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (tmh)
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 08:19:26 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Eric Landau)
wrote:

>truly specious.  Can you cross-examine a camera?

    Sure, if you are a technician, trained in those systems. When it comes to
cross examination of a _person_ that technician is called a lawyer. If the
_accuser_ were a camera, I'd call in another type of specialist.

>Can a machine be required to answer your questions truthfully, under oath?

    Can it lie? Misinterpretation doesn't count. That would be the fault of
other _human_ components of the system.

>Can an electronic device be held in contempt of court, or prosecuted for
>perjury?  

    Since it can't lie, it can hardly perjure itself. And it cannot disobey.
The information may be used improperly, but that could go double if the 
_accuser_ were a person.

    The real crux of the complaints here are that people feel that there is
less opportunity to obfuscate and/or _get off_ somehow when they are
unequivically caught in the act by direct objective observation (the famous
tapes of the Rodney King beating aside). If people were being caught and
convicted for crimes they did not commit there would be a point here. What
people are really complaining about, though, is a restriction on their ability
to break certain laws with impunity. This is BS. If you disagree with the
_law_, work to _change the law_. Allowing an unpopular law to stand while
expending all of your energies in an effort to cripple the enforcement of that
law is just plain stupid, and its not the best way for a democracy to address
its problems.

        -- Joe