[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Hidden cameras to catch speeders



In article <42kof4$16j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> spierre@aol.com (SPierre) writes:
>rlooney@csc.com (Richard Looney) wrote:
>
>>Photo radar is being used not to supplement the observations of an
>officer,
>>but to REPLACE an officer. You are being accused and convicted by a
>machine
>>and there is nothing you can do about it. That is WRONG. Surveillance
>used
>>without just cause for suspicion is a tool of oppression.
>
>This really isn't a case of "surveillance used without just cause" at all;
>from what I understand of the systems, a sensor of some sort detects a
>violation, which at that point activates the camera and records the image.
> The sensor's detection, in essence, is the "just cause" that activates
>the surveillance. 

The presence of the sensor constitutes the surveillance used without
just cause.  This argument is the reason that police officers must
testify that they visually saw your car, had reason to believe that a crime
was being commited, then used radar to confirm it.  They cannot admit that
they blindly paint the highway with radar, even if that's what they do.
There must be probably cause for the use of radar.

Now we all know that the radar units are set to alarm if traffic is seen
to be exceeding a certain speed.  That's reality; you'll never find a cop
testifying that his radar unit was his first indication of your speeding.

>All avenues
>available to you had the violation been detected by an officer are still
>available; you can contest the citation and appear before a judge or
>magistate, etc.  Theoretically, you could appeal the conviction all the
>way to the Supreme Court

You wouldn't have to.  A lower court would recognize that your right to face
and question your accuser had been abridged.

-- 
John Kennedy                     johnk@secondsource.com 
Second Source, Inc.
Annapolis, MD


Follow-Ups: References: