Red-light camera controversy in Las Cruces moves to federal court
Print This Post
Red-light cameras that communities install to catch drivers speeding or running stop signs cause some people to see red.
In Santa Fe earlier this year, a 63-year-old became a statewide Internet video sensation when, clad in a nightshirt, he fired five shots at a speed camera set up on Bishops Lodge Road.
Last fall in Albuquerque, voters defied objections from Mayor Richard Berry and other city officials who insisted that red light cameras improve public safety when 53.4 percent voted to get rid of them.
Now, a lawsuit in Las Cruces calling for elimination of the cameras that originated as a local matter is heading to federal court because the city says the specifics of the case amount to questions of due process and civil rights.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit say the red light camera program — called the Safe Traffic Operations Program (STOP) — violates the US Constitution because the photos taken by the cameras amoun to hearsay evidence against drivers cited for running red lights.
From the Las Cruces Sun-News:
When a vehicle owner currently receives a STOP citation in the mail, the plaintiffs say the owner is required to say they were driving the vehicle, violating their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
The city counters that its municipal code is civil, and that therefore constitutional amendments’ regulating criminal protections are not applicable. The city’s attorney is also asking that the lawsuit be dismissed.
The case was originally filed in state court but has now been moved to US District Court.
This isn’t the first time the red-light camera issue has ruffled feathers in Las Cruces.
City officials received heavy criticism earlier this year when they threatened to shut off the water, sewage and gas of homeowners who had not paid the fines they had run up from red-light camera violations.
Oh, and if you want to re-live the actions of the night-shirted shooter in Santa Fe, here’s the video of the guy dubbed the Speedcam Commando:
Hat tip to Aaron Henry Diaz.
Posted under Blog.
Tags: Aaron Henry Diaz, Las Cruces Sun-News, red light cameras
4:49 pm on August 10th, 2012
Red light cameras do just one thing well: They record crash videos, which can be studied to find ways to prevent crashes. For example, a study sponsored by the TX DOT reviewed 40 crashes videoed by red light cameras and found: “With one exception, all of the right-angle crashes occurred after 5 secs. or more of red.” (thenewspaper daht com/news/02/243.asp )
A real late runner (5+ secs. late) doesn’t do it on purpose. He doesn’t know (most violations are by lost or distracted visitors – the mayor of Hallandale FL just revealed that 80% of their camera tickets go to visitors) or doesn’t remember (a distracted or impaired “local”) that a camera is up ahead, so the presence of a camera won’t stop him. To cut these real late runs and the crashes they cause, a city should identify its worst intersections and improve the visual cues that say, “signal ahead.”
A. Paint “signal ahead” on the pavement. A study sponsored by Florida’s DOT found that doing so could cut running by up to 74%.
B. Make the signal lights bigger in diameter or, add another signal head. A study by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) found that doing either one could cut crashes by 47%.
C. Add backboards to the signal heads, or enlarge those you have. The TTI study found that doing so could cut crashes by 32%.
D. For nighttime driving, install brighter bulbs in the street lights and put up lighted name signs for the cross street.
These things should be tried at a city’s worst intersections, and the before-and-after results published, before there is any consideration of putting in red light cameras.
8:23 am on December 14th, 2012
“Although the actual wording of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says a person shall not be “… compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, the right has been found applicable to civil actions as well.”
(http://www.abellawfirm.com/articles/invoking-the-fifth-amendment-in-civil-cases/)
“McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924). Privilege against self incrimination under
the Fifth Amendment “applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer
might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it.””
Butterfield v. State, 992 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Fifth Amendment privilege can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. The protection extends equally to
civil proceedings because the nature of the protection goes to the questions asked, not the proceeding itself.”
Gebhardt v. Gallardo, 891 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1995). A party does not lose his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination in a civil suit.” (http://www.sualaw.com/Appearances-Articles/Fifth_Amendment_Right_Against_Self_Incrimination_in_Civil_Cases.pdf)
As these and many of the other cases cited in the paper show the city of Las Cruces is blowing smoke.
The Fifth Amendment DOES apply to civil cases as McCarthy v. Arndstein was a SUPREME COURT CASE!!!
The power of the internet, got to love it.