 | 
02-23-2007, 11:00 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2
| | | Red light ticket questionable in Arnold, mo
I recieved a ticket by a red light camera in Arnold, mo
it was a snowy night and the streets were Icey and I chose to safely run the light since it was late and there wasnt any traffic. I recieved the ticket in the mail and called city hall to explain, the lady said I would have to appear, get a court date to fight it and appear again during the day to plead my case. It isnt worht the $94.50 to try and fight it so I am challenging the legality of the system.
I called my lawyer and she said I could pay them to fix it because the system is technically illegal under missouri law. "it is illegal to ticket a vehicle's registration" I can understand that because the pictures only show the rear end of the car, not me! doesnt that bring in reasonable doubt because it could have been anyone. Can i print out a copy of the missouri law that says that and take it with me to court...Basically I dont want to pay $94.50 but I am not willing to take off work and waste a ton of time for that same $94.50
THanks for any help you can provide  |
02-23-2007, 11:21 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 456
| | | Sure...but the judge is not going to agree with you. Don't you think the police departments study the law before they put up red light cameras?
The best chance you have is to argue it was safer for you to run the light, but with out witnesses its a hard argument.
__________________
''It's as simple as this. You don't get on the stand and say, 'I'm sorry for not doing the right thing.' You testify, 'I did the right thing!' That's how you win lawsuits. You're right! Even when you're wrong.''-Denny Crane
|
02-23-2007, 11:22 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: "Harvey and Me"
Posts: 25,181
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by gary324  I recieved a ticket by a red light camera in Arnold, mo
it was a snowy night and the streets were Icey and I chose to safely run the light since it was late and there wasnt any traffic. I recieved the ticket in the mail and called city hall to explain, the lady said I would have to appear, get a court date to fight it and appear again during the day to plead my case. It isnt worht the $94.50 to try and fight it so I am challenging the legality of the system.
I called my lawyer and she said I could pay them to fix it because the system is technically illegal under missouri law. "it is illegal to ticket a vehicle's registration" I can understand that because the pictures only show the rear end of the car, not me! doesnt that bring in reasonable doubt because it could have been anyone. Can i print out a copy of the missouri law that says that and take it with me to court...Basically I dont want to pay $94.50 but I am not willing to take off work and waste a ton of time for that same $94.50
THanks for any help you can provide |
Attorney General Nixon has advised Arnold that such camera tickets are not legal. However, although the bill, sponsored by Istate Senator Crowell, was filed December 1, 2005, there has yet to be any action as of the last publication of RSMo 304.285. In fact, it is not included in the most recent publication of the RSMo.
Therefore, if you want to contest the ticket, you WILL be required to appear.
__________________
Just because I'm a miserable human being doesn't mean I'm not right... |
02-23-2007, 12:11 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Carver County, MN
Posts: 224
| | | Be aware, if you try to fight this, based on the assumption that it was not you driving, they may hold you in contempt of court, and lock you up, until you turn over the vehicle operator when this happened.
you broke the law, you got caught, now you want to get out of this ticket.
just pay the fine, and remember that Red means STOP, not "go when you think it's safe"
--Dave.
__________________
I'm not an attorney - I'm a professional Process Server who went to school for auto mechanics, and worked in a call center for years - I've also got some Pro Se expirence. Anything I say shouldn't be taken as "legal advice" but more as "something to think about"
|
02-23-2007, 01:33 PM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2
| | | the frustration is that if a police officer was there i would have easily got out of it, assuming i even got pulled over. It was obvious that what i did was safe. I understand that these cameras have SOME good statistics behind them. My frustration is that this is another instance of how "big brother" can look over us. especially this situation that doesnt take into account that sometimes there are outside ciscumstances that you need to consider. Besides its $94.50, i think thats unreasonable when the same fine in the area for speeding is close to $50, which is worse...
The whole thing is corrupt because the companies that install these systems present there "plan" to the municipality as it doesnt cost them anything. The presentation is simple, "If you let us put stop light cameras in your town we will install them for free, the only catch is we get 1/3 of the fines collected" That means it is in the companies financial best interest to have there cameras as strict as possible to write the most tickets and in turn make them the most money....
The light in question was timed by a local news crew as the shortest light in the city from yellow to red, but because of a law instituted by the municipality they can do that...again scandalous! |
02-23-2007, 02:28 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: MD, WV - formerly WA, UT, AL, MS and OR
Posts: 563
| | | You do have to appear - and Yes you can bring the law in with you and present your case to the judge. Beyond that you do not have to testify against yourself in criminal court or testify at all. You also have the right to question your accuser. Meaning you have the right to cross examine "the witness" against you or whoever presents the case for the prosecution and you can ask them directly "can you positively identify the operator of the vehicle from this photo?" If no then there is "reasonable doubt".
__________________
_____________________________________________________
“[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
| |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
|
