Facing a budget deficit that could reach $800m, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) is looking at all options to bring the books back into balance. Bredesen’s former legal counsel, Robert E. Cooper, Jr. was appointed state attorney general two years ago. Last week, Cooper did his part by issuing a ruling designed to promote the use of photo ticketing by taking on constitutional arguments commonly leveled against such programs. “It is an accepted principle that enactments of the General Assembly are presumed constitutional,” Cooper wrote. “Whenever the constitutionality of a statute is attacked, courts are required to indulge every presumption in favor of its validity and resolve any doubt in favor of, rather than against, the constitutionality of the act.”
The legislature in 2008 embraced red light cameras while Bredesen officials were quietly exploring the possibility of adopting a freeway speed camera setup similar to that used in Arizona. Cooper cited the rational basis test as establishing the constitutionality of the legislature’s actions.
“If any reasonable justification for the law may be conceived, it must be upheld by the courts,” Cooper said, citing the Tennessee Court of Appeals. “Absent implication of a fundamental right, a legislative act will withstand a substantive due process challenge if the government identifies a legitimate governmental interest that the legislative body could rationally conclude was served by the legislative act.”
The appeals court made similar arguments in a July decision that stated there is no problem in allowing prosecutors to presume the owner of a vehicle is guilty. Shifting the burden of proof presents no constitutional difficulty as long as the state can establish that a vehicle committed a crime. According to Cooper, the only protection the legislature allows is that private vendors may not decide who is guilty.
“The statute makes no provision for a private company to monitor and control a traffic light or to issue a citation,” Cooper wrote. “Applicable law enforcement personnel are the only ones presently authorized to issue this type of citation. It is the opinion of this office that the statute prohibits private vendors from making the determination, based upon photographic evidence, that a traffic violation has occurred, since the statute specifically requires the applicable law enforcement office to make such determination.”
All cities with photo enforcement programs hire private contractors to operate every aspect of the ticket issuing process. Although these programs often claim a police officer personally reviews every photo, cross-examinations in court trials have shown this usually amounts to a “bulk approval” where the officer clicks a mouse button and the vendor attaches his signature digitally to every ticket before dropping it in the mail (view San Diego, California court decision). If Cooper is right, the “monitoring” of video footage cannot be outsourced and the bulk approval process would be illegal under Tennessee law.
This is from “government here to help us” chapter. based on my experience in NYC, you get a blurry picture with something resembling your ride and $50 ticket attached. There is no way prosecutor can present anything resembling lawful about it, but who would spend a day in court for $50? FYI, parking offense cost $186 in NYC.
I love how “bringing a budget back in line” almost always includes some way of getting more cash from people and rarely includes any sort of meaningful cutback in spending.
A-Holes
The appeals court made similar arguments in a July decision that stated there is no problem in allowing prosecutors to presume the owner of a vehicle is guilty.
Yes, everyone is guilty under tyranny. Where would be the fun and profit in having law-abiding citizens?
Keyword = Democrat. Get used to more of this, folks. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 55mph limit reinsated along with thousands of cameras on the interstate system to pay for that 700b bailout!
Scameras! That is just great!
golf4me
No this is a common problem on both sides. Reasons for big, intrusive, Constitution bending government:
Democrat: Everything needs to be safe all the time everywhere! We don’t want to hurt peoples feelings! There needs to be special exceptions for some people! Think of the children!
Republican: Terra! We’ve got to do something about those drug-crazed, pornography addicted, flag burning, pro-abortion criminals! Did I say TERRA!? And would you please think of the children?
Get used to it folks ! We (Uk) have had this for a while, as you know.
We are told that we are not allowed to question whether the equipment works – even though there are doubts. If it is “type approved” then no court will accept arguments questioning whether they work.
So the only defence is to prove that they are not calibrated or operated correctly. We even still have type approved equipment which is banned in the US.
And when they are installed they will argue that there is less of a need for traffic cops – you know, those people who catch dangerous people.
Here the speed limit on motorways is 70. I can drive perfectly safely on an empty one, in dry weather and good visibility at 80. I have done, and passed cops doing so – not been stopped, but a scamera would convict me.
At the same time I can drive like a complete loon at 65, highly dangerous and a scamera won’t even flash. Madness, unfortunately thats how Tony Blair liked it.
Some police forces in the UK no longer even have a “traffic” division.
“If any reasonable justification for the law may be conceived, it must be upheld by the courts,” Cooper said, citing the Tennessee Court of Appeals. “Absent implication of a fundamental right, a legislative act will withstand a substantive due process challenge if the government identifies a legitimate governmental interest that the legislative body could rationally conclude was served by the legislative act.”
Silly me, I thought due process was a “fundamental right.” In today’s world, it seems that the government can identify a “legitimate governmental interest” in just about everything. To make the further statement “that the legislative body could rationally conclude was served by the legislative act” means the legislative branch of the government determines what constitutes a “legitimate governmental interest” and basically throws out the constitution. The court system is then no more than a rubber stamp for every act of the legislative and/or executive branches of the government. Remind anybody of a previous cold war enemy of ours?
What you guy’s need is the photo and the ticket for a datsun 120y doing 120km/h in a 100 zone.
When questioned, she said the car was not capable of that speed, the authorities said “The camera system is working ok”. The owner of the car (and a tv station) hired a professional race driver to drive her car and he could only get it up to 80km/h. The goverment investigated and found that ALL of the cameras falsely triggering. The goverment then had to reimburse all of the fines gathered during the time the cameras were switched on. They then spent more money trying to find a system that (1) could actually calibrate the camera’s and (2) no false positives.
look up Melbourne’s Western Ring Road camera fiasco