cameras illegal new thread

Post #3,463 by boxley 8/1/01 2:44:41 PM Reply	cameras illegal new thread Each of the above defendants was charged with a speeding violation based on a PHOTO RADAR citation. The original citations were mailed out by a subcontractor of American Traffic Systems who caused the citations to be printed on a computer generated form based on a list of alleged violators furnished to them by American Traffic Systems. The original citations were not signed by an enforcement officer nor were they sent by certified mail. Accordingly they were illegal at the outset and were not legally sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the defendants and had they chosen to ignore the citations nothing would have happened to them. [link\|http://www.sense.bc.ca/disc/moa96oct.htm\|http://www.sense.bc...moa96oct.htm] the point of the decision was that a trained officer of the courts had to be operating the devices as opposed to a hardware software solution that spits out lawbreakers. My view is the camera's in Tampa are illegal. Addison wanted a cite to that effect because his view is opposite and he has his arguments to that effect. So this is proof, not opinion of my argument. thank you verrry much, thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #3,465 by drewk 8/1/01 2:50:24 PM Reply	Sorry, it doesn't prove what you think That proves that a hardware/software solution is insufficient to automatically generate fines. It doesn't say anything about the legality of such a system existing, or of the police using it to gather information they can then use as the basis for further investigation. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #3,474 by boxley 8/1/01 3:32:33 PM Reply	"Accordingly they were illegal at the outset " end quote Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #3,481 by drewk 8/1/01 4:09:34 PM Reply	"They" refers to the citations, not the cameras This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #3,488 by Ashton 8/1/01 4:27:23 PM Reply	The problem evokes too many related questions ..for there to be a nice tied-up package resolution. For just one: it raises the issue of the "reserved powers" clause and, basic schisms about nothing less than "how one views" the US Constitution itself! Is it: some set-in-concrete list of Authorized / Not Authorized behavior? If it isn't explicitly permitted - it is implicitly denied? Anything not prohibited is compulsory? Or is it a still-Living prescription for ever-improving our understanding of the 'Rights' implicit - and in ever-altering context? Rights unspecified (for it being impossible to anticipate the future) - necessarily ephemeral ideas which peripherally involve facts.. but mainly are about, our emotional response to collections of those: the environment we have VS what we'd prefer to have (?) So IMhO - that's why this surveillance issue won't die with YAN cliche in apposition. It raises too many Big ideas to go quietly. It is only cut&dried for the already cut&dried. Ashton
Post #3,537 by addison 8/1/01 8:37:24 PM Reply	Re: cameras illegal new thread the point of the decision was that a trained officer of the courts had to be operating the devices as opposed to a hardware software solution that spits out lawbreakers. Not that the cameras - themselves - were illegal - but the system and automated mailing were, yes. My view is the camera's in Tampa are illegal. Addison wanted a cite to that effect because his view is opposite and he has his arguments to that effect. Your cite doesn't prove that. :) (Why is on a .ca server?) It proves that the speeding tickets (which granted, were what started the discussion in the first place (the UK ones) would be not legal - at least in alaska - but that's because of the law specifying speed determination. (In Alaska). (and I would guess that's likely to change soon, so keep an eye on the legiscritters). The camera observation, itself, wasn't illegal. Basically, they don't like the fact that nobody else is using them, for this reason, by my reading (so no "standard" to compare it to - check the DNA example). So this is saying that the UK system wouldn't be legal.. (wait.. you might also notice - isn't using radar to calibrate, one of the problems here - that the radar could be wrong... they're using distance... not radar). Hrm. We'll have to see what happens when somebody tries that in Alaska. :) Addison
Post #3,591 by boxley 8/2/01 8:14:58 AM Reply	not in Alaska specifically because of the idiots who brought the cameras in a ballot went out that stated only sworn officers of the law can issue any kind of citation and a hearing in front of a Judge and/or Jury will resolve any disputes. It passed with 98% of the vote. It ended the Pols career that brought it in and damaged the Mayor who implemented it. This stuff seriously pisses off people. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk

Welcome to IWETHEY!