Hacker News Reader

Comment by aggie | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. It's unobtrusive surveillance in a public setting, so there's no expectation of privacy. It's punishing people for breaking a public-safety law. In most cases they even have signs alerting you to the presence of an enforcement camera.

Now I can definitely see how automated enforcement ripe for abuse when there are revenues to be had, and it's concerning when operations like this are given to private companies with little to no transparency. But given those concerns can be resolved, what's the problem at a constitutional level?

View on HN

Perhaps not the strongest possible, but I've heard the argument in the past that it violates the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment – that you are unable to face your accuser, since your accuser is simply a timed camera.

OTOH, since you can sue property (for example in asset forfeiture cases), that might not hold any water.

The camera isn't your accuser. The municipality is your accuser, using the evidence from the camera as proof of the law being broken.

If you break into a building and get busted by an automated silent alarm, the alarm isn't the one accusing you.

If i get pulled over by a cop and he doesnt show up to court, my ticket is dismissed.

When i get mailed a ticket from a corporation, who is expected to show up in court to be my 'accuser'?

A local prosecutor, at least at the one RLC challenge I ever saw in person in Denver. Going by memory, the guy ended up getting out of the ticket because the law required cammed intersections to be clearly labeled, and the sign was obscured by a bush, a tree, or something else.

Some cursory googling turns up this as pretty common, occasionally it will be a police officer.

Aren't RLC tickets civil (unless served by a LEO) in CO?

> I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional.

Most of these cameras can't demonstrate that the owner of the car was the one driving at the time. In a criminal court that'd be plenty of reasonable doubt, but red light tickets (at least around here) are handled as civil manners that go to collections agencies if unpaid to circumvent that issue.

> why you think it's unconstitutional

They didn't say they thought it was unconstitutional. They said they thought it should be unconstitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

I don't get that argument. How is a red light camera different than surveillance footage that show a murder? It's not a witness, it's evidence.

A murder case would require proving that the person on camera is the accused.

A red light camera generally can't prove you're the person driving your car - they usually don't have the resolution nor the angle to show the driver.

the surveillance footage is evidence, not an accuser.

in your murder example, you would still need to be arrested by a physical person in a police uniform, you would have some interaction with an agent of the state.

when you get a ticket in the mail, who is your accuser? Whose name is on the ticket? what is their badge number? how do i lodge a complaint against this officer? Who is expected to show up in court to prosecute this case?

So if the only evidence linking me to a midnight bank robbery is camera footage clearly showing me breaking in and stealing money, I'm in the clear?

A camera isn't a 'witness', it's evidence, and the relevant authorities can serve as a witness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com