Red Light Camera Due Process

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld local rule statutes that allow red light camera enforcement as a civil penalty, as not conflicting with State criminal laws. While accurate the ruling did not address the myriad of due process issues that remain. The link to the decision can be found on the right hand column of the blog.

Locally -

Can you challenge the technology in the Toledo appeal system? No. Is the video running at the proper speed? When was the last time it was certified/maintained? Was the yellow light time the standard time or was it reduced after the camera was installed? Does the video angle create an optical illusion and does it give a accurate representation of the incident?

If I was not driving, does the spousal privilege protect my right not to identify my spouse as the driver? If I was not driving, do I know actually who was, or must I assume it was my spouse/child? Do I have to conduct an investigation to find out if the vehicle was loaned to a friend, or if perhaps a friend was driving my spouse/child at the time?

If I conduct such investigation, does my testimony satisfy the rules of evidence - IE do I have personal knowledge of the event, or am I reciting to the hearing officer hearsay - what someone else told me happened in an event I did not witness? Should that burden of proof be mine?

Yes I want safe streets for my family, but if the systems do not increase that safety, do not have a deterrent effect (such as the presence of a marked patrol cruiser) and do not have the protections inherent in our system of criminal and civil justice - why use the that method?

The pro-law enforcement conservative A-Hole.