RLC Camera suit to be filed in Houston

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/head...o/4580963.html

<quote>
The bail bondsman who intentionally ran a camera-monitored red light
months ago to gain legal standing to sue the city says he plans to file
his lawsuit in state district court early this week.

Michael Kubosh said Sunday that he will argue the city cannot impose a
civil penalty on drivers who run red lights.

"The city has gone outside their legislative authority,"

<snip for brevity>

State lawmakers debated for years whether municipalities should be able
to issue civil citations to red-light runners using camera technology.
In 2003, they amended the traffic code to permit the civil enforcement
of vehicle safety standards under state law or municipal ordinance.

Kubosh called that an "obscure provision" that does not allow the city
to go ahead with its program.

City Attorney Arturo Michel responded that argument won't hold up in court.


<snip for brevity>

Kubosh ran the light at Milam and Elgin in September, and later
contested the ticket so he would have legal standing to sue the city.

He argues the city cannot issue civil citations to offenders because
that conflicts with state law, which defines running a red light as a
misdemeanor criminal offense. Offenders caught by police can face a fine
up to $200.

Getting caught on camera, however, is a civil violation that carries a
$75 fine. The ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle, or the last
person to register it, not necessarily the driver. Those who are
ticketed are expected to pay the fine or contest the penalty in court.

"The city's administrative enforcement procedure deprives traffic-ticket
defendants of their constitutional rights, such as the right to trial by
jury, the right to remain silent, the right to confront witnesses
against them, and the right to have their guilt proven beyond a
reasonable doubt," reads a draft of the lawsuit.

Those rights are reserved for criminal offenders, not civil.

Studies reviewing crash data at camera-monitored intersections elsewhere
show mixed findings.

A 2005 report by the Federal Highway Administration showed that in seven
communities where red-light cameras were being used, right-angle crashes
decreased 24 percent while rear-end crashes increased 15 percent.

</quote>

"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:

> http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/head...o/4580963.html
>
> <quote>
> The bail bondsman who intentionally ran a camera-monitored red light
> months ago to gain legal standing to sue the city says he plans to file
> his lawsuit in state district court early this week.
>
> Michael Kubosh said Sunday that he will argue the city cannot impose a
> civil penalty on drivers who run red lights.
>
> "The city has gone outside their legislative authority,"

That should be funny.

Maybe he thinks all laws are 'illegal' too ?

Graham

On Feb 26, 7:59 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:

> Maybe he thinks all laws are 'illegal' too ?
>
> Graham

There's a definition problem there...

But the OP might have a point. It isn't too difficult to twist the
legal system, either by OJ or by a government.
Changing the rules by declaring an offense to be "civil" instead of
"criminal" might not be fair.
I remember hearing about drug laws doing this. If they think you are
violating a law, the authorities can seize your property/money, and
you have to sue to get it back and prove your innocence. Anecdotally,
this has include seizure of homes and farms. I can't vouch for the
veracity of what I have heard, but it rings true, and it isn't right.

Still, you shouldn't get involved with drugs, and you shouldn't speed.

Eeyore wrote:

>> http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/head...o/4580963.html

>> Michael Kubosh said Sunday that he will argue the city cannot impose a
>> civil penalty on drivers who run red lights.
>>
>> "The city has gone outside their legislative authority,"

> That should be funny.
>
> Maybe he thinks all laws are 'illegal' too ?

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US, local laws do not
take precedence over state law. In Texas, moving violations (such as
speeding and disobeying a traffic control device) are considered
misdemeanors AFAIK. A county or municipality does not have the
authority reclassify a crime as a civil infraction.

Of course I could be wrong, and IANAL.

wrote in
ps.com:

> On Feb 26, 7:59 pm, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe he thinks all laws are 'illegal' too ?
>>
>> Graham
>
> There's a definition problem there...
>
> But the OP might have a point. It isn't too difficult to twist the
> legal system, either by OJ or by a government.
> Changing the rules by declaring an offense to be "civil" instead of
> "criminal" might not be fair.
> I remember hearing about drug laws doing this. If they think you are
> violating a law, the authorities can seize your property/money, and
> you have to sue to get it back and prove your innocence. Anecdotally,
> this has include seizure of homes and farms.

Make that AUTOS,homes and farms.

> I can't vouch for the
> veracity of what I have heard, but it rings true, and it isn't right.
>
> Still, you shouldn't get involved with drugs, and you shouldn't speed.
>
>
>

Nonsense,SLs are often set too low(intentionally),and conditions vary.
Open roads,low traffic density;speeds can run higher than at peak traffic
times,SAFELY.

The 55 NMSL was repealed because people voted with their throttle and
ignored the 55 MPH SL.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

> The 55 NMSL was repealed because people voted with their throttle and
> ignored the 55 MPH SL.

'People Power'. We need more of that !

Damn the politicians. Most of them don't want real democracy at all.

Graham