“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
This is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, something that apparently some members of the SF city council are not aware of, even though they put their hand on a bible and swore to uphold it while taking the oath of office, but hey, details, details, details. Who needs the US Constitution when we can be safe?
“It’s unfortunate that the way it’s set up is in question, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that the corner is safer than it was before” said Council Member Vernon Brown. “It has saved lives.”
What was that famous quote by Benjamin Franklin?
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
And it rings true today. There are many things you can do in that intersection to make it SAFE and CONSTITUTIONAL. Something that should have been done from the beginning is to allow DRIVERS to fight their accuser in a court of law.
At least Bob the Builder gets it;
“I’ve long suspected we were over-stepping our bounds a little bit,” Litz said. “It was only a matter of time.”
And Greggo seems to be confused about the role of the Supreme Court;
Council Member Greg Jamison hopes the South Dakota Supreme Court can reverse the decision, but the city will have to live with the results if that doesn’t happen.
Good luck with that. Last I checked it was the SC’s job to uphold the US Constitution and State Law. Better start living with those results.
New City Council Member Michelle Erpenbach is more concerned about safety than dollars, however. She just hopes the city can continue to use the cameras.
“Maybe we’re not doing things exactly right, but if it needs to be tweaked in some way, we’d better do it,” she said.
Damn right you should be concerned about safety. Trampling citizens rights has always proven to be quite UNSAFE. The city council’s lack of constitutional knowledge makes me worry about my own safety.
“It’s unfortunate that the way it’s set up is in question, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that the corner is safer than it was before. It has saved lives.â€
~V. Brown.
Vernon. Is the corner $afer than it was before because of the red light camera? Or is it safer than it was before because of tweaks to the light timing brought about by results of a traffic study? In addition to making the intersection safer by adjusting light timing for “accepted” speeds, don’t you think the addition of the countdown timers had more to due with intersection safety than red light $afety?
Consider you have a council elected on what they will spend, not what they know and you should be able to make complete sense of everything.
Good question. But I have a feeling they don’t have a clue. Not about traffic studies or about constitutional law – just like the clowns in code enforcement.
Jim – Isn’t that the truth. It comes down to money, not safety or rights. The fucking rhinos at the Zoo have more rights.
Don’t forget the monkeys who will soon be relaxing in their own spa.
Maybe the council can join their own primates.
The constitutionality argument is simply due to the lack of a simple appeals process – and even that is debatable (which is why there is talk about appeal… it is nothing to do with arguing for the NEED of an appeals process, merely whether the existing process is sufficient). It would seem if they made some adjustments to the process it would be a non-issue.
I don’t see them tearing those cameras out anytime soon.
I still say that anyone who gets one of these tickets needs to subpoena the camera to appear as a witness in court.
After all, we have the right to face our accuser.
I see at least one person per day get caught at that intersection on my way to or from work. $afety must be a very lucrative business.
I don’t give a rats ass if the city makes a $3M a day from the things – they continue to catch violators and without them those people would just run red lights with no consequences just as they do at every other intersection around town.
When the cameras start taking pictures of people who are innocent or who are driving through green lights then by all means I’ll buy into the “profit” motive.
Costner, you need to read ‘1984’
Costner – Just look at how the revenue from the cameras is shared. Somebody has a big profit motive, but it ain’t the city.
Redflex makes profit I understand that, but who is really to blame for that arrangement… the private company who offers a product – or the city for taking the easy way out and signing the contract to let Redflex do all the work?
If you think about it, this isn’t that much different than outsourced law enforcement, and considering most people argue private industry is almost always more efficient than the public sector… is it really so bad?
I’m not really that concerned about it, because I don’t want the city to become dependent upon revenue streams that can so easily be eliminated, and I fully realize if 100% of the funds went into the city – they would just waste it on more idiotic projects anyway. Besides – in this case it is more about punishing the violator than it is bringing in revenue. In the spoke of things a few million dollars over the course of several years isn’t really all that much.
DL – the 1984 argument doesn’t really stand up to a reasonability test. People don’t have an expectation of privacy when driving on a city (read: taxpayer funded) street.
Cameras turning you in and being denied due process – sounds pretty ‘1984’ to me.
The constitutional provision you’re looking at might seem obvious, but you can only properly interpret the constitution by first obtaining a law degree, or even better by becoming a judge. If you did that, and reviewed the mountain of “caselaw” that ‘interprets’ the constitution, you’d understand it does not mean what it says, but what the judges say it does. Little by little, interpretation molds to the will of those in power. l3wis, you say 1984, and I say …
Funny how ‘caselaw’ and ‘coleslaw’ are similiar.
Please, tell us your feelings on the case. Do you think the city is overstepping their constitutional rights?
IMHO, it seems like there are due process problems – especially after reading the driveway-guy’s opinion, which was an important backdrop for this one. Above all I think the constitution was meant to give us a fair playing field – especially when the government is coming after us.
I liked your Ben Franklin quote and your final statement. Right on.
Cameras are evidentiary. They must prove who was driving at the time of the offense. A license plate is not enough. Calibration, time, and date can be contested in an appeal. The city is not constitutional democracy. Appeals are not allowed, only public executions.
A policeman at the scene is a witness courts accept. It would be much cheaper than unconstitutional litigation and a foolish state court appeal. Yes, the 5th amendment but also common sense. What does the mayor and council have against Sioux Falls police? Fire some assistant directors and hire more police. When citizens protest tyranny at city hall, you’ll need them for protection.
It would seem if they made some adjustments to the process it would be a non-issue. -Costner
REPEAL HOME RULE. It makes present litigation a non-issue. The council can speak all they want. They’re puppets with no power. Talk to Vernon Brown like the clown at a fast food drive-up. The mayor makes all decisions and decides everything unchecked for a 330 million dollar budget and 150,000 citizens plus surrounding demographic. It’s not democracy. It’s Iran or North Korea. Same form of government and lack of constitutional liberty.
Bring the troops home. There’s a battle for democracy here. They need not fight for freedom halfway around the world when it’s denyed in their home town.
“Above all I think the constitution was meant to give us a fair playing field – especially when the government is coming after us.”
This is exactly what this is all about. Should red light runners get tickets and held accountable. Hell yeah. No one questions that. But they should also be able to face their accuser.