Probable cause dismissal of red light camera video evidence?

[flyingracquets]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

I received two red light camera tickets (a week apart) for making right hand turns on red at Rt 70W and Springdale in Cherry Hill, NJ. After receiving the second ticket, I called the Cherry Hill police department to find out what I was doing wrong. I was told that the camera triggers if you do not stop for 4-seconds behind the threshold before proceeding. When I stated that the rules must have changed since I took my driver's test, the officer said they did not. There is no 4-second rule in any statute. I asked if it was him, what would he do? He said he'd plead not guilty due to the trigger criteria for the camera.

Is the non-legislated 4-second trigger for the camera sufficient to have the video evidence dismissed for lack of probable cause to take said video? Can the police department simply put up a red light camera that effectively monitors all cars making right hand turns? (FWIW: The last time I was at the intersection with my new found understanding of the 4-second rule, the car behind me honked when I hit 3 as I was counting off the seconds. This is NJ after all...)

I have my day in court on June 5th. If they dismiss one of the two tickets, I'll call it a day, but if I must defend, I'd prefer a reasonable argument not based upon silly technicalities.

 

[Proseguru]

Silly technicalities? Many cases are won due to these .. MN knocked out cameras because of the silly technicality of due process; other states have effectively knocked out cameras due to the right to confront technicality; so these silly technicalities are hardly silly...they go to the core of our rights.

But if you want to argue facts (and the camera evidence is considered to be correct until YOU prove its wrong).

Good luck with that.

 

[flyingracquets]

Obviously, I have no interest in arguing the facts captured on video tape. I wish to have the video tape declared inadmissible on the grounds it was recorded without probable cause. Because of the triggering criteria, the camera is for all intents and purposes recording everyone turning right on red whether said turn was proper or not.

I am simply trying to find out if my question of probable cause has any merit or not.

 

[davew128]

Obviously, I have no interest in arguing the facts captured on video tape.

I wish to have the video tape declared inadmissible on the grounds it was recorded without probable cause. Because of the triggering criteria, the camera is for all intents and purposes recording everyone turning right on red whether said turn was proper or not.

And your legal problem with that is what exactly?

I am simply trying to find out if my question of probable cause has any merit or not.

It does not.

 

[Proseguru]

then you can object to the timing evidence (the photos don't need a foundation) .. or the entire ticket for lack of foundation and not being able to confront the witness. Since you cannot start arguing how the system works (unless you have documentation like a foia request showing how it works) this may be an avenue to consider.

 

[demurringdude]

"Probable cause" is something needed for making an arrest, or for searching inside something. But the police don't need "probable cause" to record what's going on in a public street. You don't have any expectation of privacy there. I've never heard this argument advanced for a red light camera. Did you read about it somewhere or is it your idea?

 

[flyingracquets]

Did you read about it somewhere or is it your idea?

When I spoke to an officer with the Cherry Hill PD, he implied there was a legal defense available because the triggering of the camera was not based upon any actual traffic statute. He didn't outright state what that defense is, only that if he was in my shoes, he would plead not guilty and challenge the tickets. Honestly, that was a lot more than I ever expected him to say.

So it may not be "probable cause" that I'm looking for -- just my best uneducated guess based upon the conversation.

 

[HighwayMan]

I wish to have the video tape declared inadmissible...

WHY? If you did stop then the tapes will exonerate you.

 

[Proseguru]

WHY? If you did stop then the tapes will exonerate you.

Does not matter anyway...SCOTUS has said again and again that video & pictures require little foundation to be admitted; they are nontestimonial.

Right turns account for quite a bit of red light camera tickets and right turns account for almost zero collisions and injuries.

OP should contact her state reps and champion for no red light cameras. But the OP likely supported these cameras initially.

 

[flyingracquets]

@HighwayMan -- You caught me! If I had stopped according to strict legal definition, I would not be asking these questions, now would I?

As I have now learned, strict legal definition requires stopping at the intersection threshold (the "Stop Here on Red" sign or the broad white stripe) before moving forward to check for traffic and continuing with the right turn. All this time, I thought the sign and stripe were advising you where to stop if you were planning on stopping and staying to keep the intersection clear. Live and learn.

According to NJ driving standards, I stopped to have breakfast in the intersection. In actuality, I never came close to a stop at the threshold and then continued with a very, slow crawl through the turn, which as we all know in strict legal terms would never be deemed a stop. However, I am confident no NJ officer observing my turn from his patrol car would have looked twice let alone cite me. There was no traffic in the intersection either time, but my car.


@Proseguru -- I was never in favor of red light cameras. The potential for abuse is overwhelming. It would be very interesting to see what percentage of citations are for blowing straight through the intersection vs. turning right on red. Many intersections in this area have yield signs for right turns conditioning drivers to the rolling stop for right turn on red.

 

[HighwayMan]

Ah, so you didn't stop after all. That explains why the camera caught you.

However, I am confident no NJ officer observing my turn from his patrol car would have looked twice let alone cite me.

That depends - and does not make what you did acceptable or legal. Generally, because so many people fail to stop when making right turns on red lights or at stop signs we only go after the worst offenders. But if I'm sitting on a particular intersection doing enforcement then it's more likely that EVERYONE will get written if they fail to stop. It all depends on the situation.

There was no traffic in the intersection either time, but my car.

You do realize that this is not a justification for not stopping, right? The stop is not a discretionary requirement based upon traffic, time of day, or anything else. You must stop at the required stopping point. Period.

 

[FlyingRon]

You have now realized your were mistaken. You must top before the stop line/stop here sign. That is there for good reason. I can't tell you how many times i've been nearly run down by people like you who have their eyes on the "lack of intersecting traffic" but roll right through the crosswalk I am legitimately in.

 

[racer72]

then you can object to the timing evidence (the photos don't need a foundation) .. or the entire ticket for lack of foundation and not being able to confront the witness. Since you cannot start arguing how the system works (unless you have documentation like a foia request showing how it works) this may be an avenue to consider.

Camera tickets are civil, not criminal in nature so the whole "confront your witness" thing won't work.

 

[flyingracquets]

Thanks for the great discussion, folks...

I'd still love to know to what the Cherry Hill PD officer was hinting when he recommended I plead not guilty, but given everything that has been posted, I'll show up at my appointed court time, honestly admit I learned from the citations, beg forgiveness, and hopefully have one of the two tickets dismissed. If they're in a mood to prove a point, so be it.

Thanks again, everyone...

 

[Cali408nia]

Thanks for the great discussion, folks...

I'd still love to know to what the Cherry Hill PD officer was hinting when he recommended I plead not guilty, but given everything that has been posted, I'll show up at my appointed court time, honestly admit I learned from the citations, beg forgiveness, and hopefully have one of the two tickets dismissed. If they're in a mood to prove a point, so be it.

Thanks again, everyone...

Well you were talking to him on the phone, he was probably trying to get rid of you. Even if it sounded sincere, it might not have been. Besides, did you mention that you didn't actually stop before the threshold? Take it as a lesson learned and hope that you get some leniency at court.