Miami, Drivers find little justice in red-light cameras

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/03/1758444/drivers-find-little-justice-in.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=7654531#Comments_Container


DANIEL SHOER ROTH | VIEW FROM EL NUEVO HERALD
Drivers find little justice in red-light cameras
 .By DANIEL SHOER ROTH
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The U.S. judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence: You are innocent until proven guilty.

Yet, when it comes to red-light cameras, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. How absurd!

When city governments installed the cameras in the name of public safety, one of the public's concerns was that the violations would be detected by a machine and not by a human being capable of discernment. Officials said the fines, if wrongly applied, could be appealed before a special magistrate.

In the past few months, though, hundreds of drivers have failed to dispute their fines because winning is almost impossible.

The problem with disputing this technology is that videos are often played in very slow motion at the hearings. Many drivers miss the yellow light by a fraction of a second -- virtually undetectable to the human eye.

Besides, daring to challenge the alleged violation has turned out to be expensive. If you lose the case, you must pay as much as $75 in addition to the original fine. Little wonder that cities have shown so much enthusiasm for multiplying these geese that lay such golden eggs.

This hidden threat turns away drivers who believe they are not guilty of a traffic violation and who would rather pay the fine than endure a possibly futile effort to prove their innocence. The violation does not add points to their licenses.

``If it were my own ticket, I would pay it rather than dispute it because [the process] is so expensive and nonproductive,'' said Harry M. Hausman, a Pembroke Pines attorney who handles traffic tickets.

GUILT IS ASSUMED

Carol Moss was fined after a camera at Hallandale Beach Boulevard and U.S. 1 caught her making a right turn on a red light. She claims she had stopped her vehicle and that the evidence was in the photographs. Yet when she stood before the city-appointed magistrate, she said, she was not given a chance to present her evidence. She was found guilty and charged $50 in hearing fees.

``They assume you're guilty and you must prove your innocence,'' said Moss, 67. ``There's no justice.''

Outraged, she went to a Broward County courthouse to appeal again. The clerk told her that it would cost her $401 to file an appeal in Circuit Court.

It seems that most of the people busted are drivers who make a right turn on a red light apparently without coming to a complete stop, even though they cause no accident.

Now that the state of Florida has stuck its nose into the camera business, drivers who want to appeal will have to appear before a traffic court judge. Lawyers still don't know how these cases will be handled.

What they do know is that if you lose the appeal, you will have to pay the ticket, an additional fine plus court costs, which are more pricey than the city hearings. This way, hardly anyone will bother to challenge infractions, and the private companies operating the cameras will toast with champagne.

``By threatening people with significantly higher penalties, they discourage people to exercise their rights,'' said attorney Bret Lusskin, who made headlines earlier this year by winning a lawsuit against the city of Aventura over red-light cameras.

CLAIM QUESTIONED

The system was conceived to pressure people to pay up. That is why I question the claim that the cameras are there to protect public safety.

When a police officer witnesses a traffic infraction, he can use his own judgment in deciding whether to write a ticket. A camera does not have its own judgment, and apparently neither do some of the special magistrates who don't even listen to drivers appealing their tickets.

Lusskin says he is ready for the next step: to prove that the state law, which took effect July 1, is unconstitutional.

Many, many residents have their fingers crossed, hoping he will win this legal battle.
 

Comments   (0)

Write comment
smaller | bigger
password
 

busy

Find Info

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Latest Comments

Member Login

Join today to become a contributor! It's free, and you can even use your Facebook or Twitter account for instant access!