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