Anyone ever (successfully...) disputed a red light camera ticket?

I would argue that it's not really a "trap" even without the sign posted because the cops aren't actively trying to entice you into speeding or running red lights.

 

You're supposed to still stop behind the line, then you can start to creep up to see if you can turn.

 

i think the rule is totally bogus, ima.

and if you don't get some cool rules yourself, like pronto, then you'll just be bogus too.

 

Well said. STOP COMPLETELY (comply with the law), then move slowly to check. Nicely said, sir. REPUTATED.

 

We're talking about red light camera situations here. Traps have nothing to do with this issue. But, here's your sign: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/redlights/rlclaunch.htm .

 

Eh...

The role of a jury is not to interpret the law, it's to determine your innocence or guilt based on facts presented. If they think you did in fact run the red light, it is not up to them to decide whether that is a good law or not. They are impaneled and give a charge, let's say "failure to come to a stop at a red light." The law is given to them. Their job is to determine whether you violated the law, not whether or not your violation of said law was really a big deal.

 

Yeah, whatever, like the jury doesn't actually interpet the law for themselves.

Come on Just......you know the truth...I have sat on jury's before and we always do exactly that....it is why the forefathers put in the jury, to make sure that justice is done, and sometimes, the law can not account for it...so that is what the human beings are tasked with doing.

DD

 

Can you provide some evidence that the founding fathers actually put trial by jury into our constitution so that juries could acquit people that were demonstrably guilty of breaking the law?

 

Yeah, I was talking to George MOTHER****ING Washington just last night.



Seriuosly, though.......there are lots of cases of jurys ignoring the letter of the law and doing the right thing.

Thus interpetting the law.

And you know what, they will continue to do it, just as George MFing Washington told me.....

DD

 

I meant evidence more along the lines of quotes backing up your claim. However, if you invented a time machine and traveled back to talk to Washington, that's good enough for me.

 

Camera opponents lash out at city
They accuse administration of failing to defend red-light vote
By BRADLEY OLSON
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Nov. 30, 2010, 9:46PM

Houstonians may not have had the final word on the city's red light camera program, which voters rejected in a Nov. 2 referendum.

A lawsuit filed by the city grew more complicated Tuesday when opponents of the devices attempted to intervene in litigation between the city and American Traffic Solutions, or ATS, the Kansas-based company that operated the cameras.

Paul Kubosh, an attorney who along with his brothers bankrolled the effort to convince voters to shut down the camera program, accused Mayor Annise Parker's administration of purposefully offering a weak defense of the referendum.

Such a strategy could result in allowing the cameras to remain in place and operational, he said.

"It appears to us that the city of Houston is laying down cover for ATS because the citizens don't like to have their vote challenged by an out-of-state corporation," Kubosh said. "The city is trying to hide behind a federal judge to keep the cameras up because they need the money."

The vote created an immediate $10 million hole in the Houston Police Department budget, city officials have said.

Defending the outcome
City Attorney David Feldman emphatically denied Kubosh's charge, saying the city filed a suit preemptively in order to defend the outcome of the election.

Feldman noted that City Council in August voted to put the referendum on the ballot based on his advice that Kubosh had followed the correct guidelines under state law for doing so.

"We will be on the side, ultimately, of preserving the will of the people," Feldman said.

On Nov. 15, the city filed a preemptive lawsuit in federal court asking a judge how it should proceed after voters rejected the program. ATS filed a countersuit on Nov. 24 seeking to nullify the referendum.

Since the camera program's inception in 2006, the city had collected $44 million in fines from more than 800,000 citations issued with the devices, splitting the revenue between the police department, Texas hospitals and ATS.

On Nov. 15, when the city certified the Nov. 2 election results, in which 53 percent of voters rejected the devices, Parker said the cameras had been turned off.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ordered last week that the cameras not be taken down until the litigation between the city and ATS is concluded.

A spokesman for ATS promised after the election that the company would not seek to nullify the outcome of the referendum, but that's exactly what their countersuit is seeking.

"After the election the city asked us to stop issuing violations and we complied with their request," company spokesman Charles Territo said in a statement. "It was only after we were sued that the issues discussed in our response became relevant. The core of this lawsuit is not about getting the cameras turned back on; this is about whether or not a contract with the city of Houston is worth the paper that it's written on."

In College Station
ATS similarly challenged a 2009 referendum in College Station and camera opponents also accused that city's attorney of mounting an intentionally weak defense of the public vote. A judge ultimately ruled in favor of ATS, although the College Station City Council voted to terminate the contract after the public vote.

David Furlow, a lawyer representing the Kuboshes, said there are many reasons to be suspicious of the city's lawsuit against ATS. The suit "gratuitously" raises the question of whether the referendum was valid, something that undermines its own case, he said.

"The Kuboshes have a reasonable fear that someone needs to speak on behalf of the people who have opposed red light camera systems, rather than the city, who has continually drawn tens of millions of revenue from them," he said.

Kubosh also noted that many City Council members expressed an unwillingness to put the matter on the ballot. Parker, he said, has also criticized the method used to put the question to voters.

Feldman said he raised the question of the referendum's validity in anticipation of ATS' argument. He also noted that the city's suit specifically seeks a judge's opinion on how the city should proceed after terminating the contract with ATS in light of the referendum.

The camera opponents should respect the process and the judge's ability to decide the matter, he said.

bradley.olson@chron.com http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7318259.html