Maricopa County Judge: Photo Enforcement Unconstitutional


gavel-slamIt looks like the courts are finally beginning to catch on.

According to Judge John Keegan, the law violates the U.S. Constitution because it denies equal protection under the law.

He says it also crosses a clause on equal privileges and immunities in Arizona’s state Constitution.

Go read the story…

About these ads

61 Responses to Maricopa County Judge: Photo Enforcement Unconstitutional

  1. Doc says:

    CHUGGACHUGGACHUGGACHUGGACHUGGACHUGGA!Wow! We must be th’ “Little Engine That Could”…

    Dear Redflex Corp., We regret to inform you that your services are no longer needed in the United States of America. However, Good News! The Peoples Republic of China would like to employ your services in THEIR brand of Communism. Good Luck! Now, Get th’ F*#@ OUT!
    Sincerely, the Intelligent, Freedom Loving Citizens of America P.S.-Please don’t come back!

  2. PhotoRadarScam says:

    SWEET!!!

    I can’t wait for an agency to take this on. I bet they never do.

    That’s why it PAYS to fight your ticket folks!

    http://PhotoRadarScam.com

  3. Helldigger says:

    This is good reason for people who get served to go to court and argue on constitutional grounds.

    If you loose, the next step is to appeal and get a higher court to confront the issue.

    In the end, once the courts come around to justice, they can do nothing else but decree the camera fraud system is unconstitutional.

    That includes all tickets from freeways to intersections.

    Thanks Judge John Keegan, you have a new fan.

  4. PhotoRadarScam says:

    SWEET! It PAYS to fight your tickets!

    It will be interesting to see if any cities want to take up this issue and fight it. We NEED a supreme court decision on this to make it official.

  5. RPr says:

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/01/28/20090128photoruling0128.html

    Judge John Keegan estimates he has thrown out 300 to 400 photo-enforcement tickets since December.

  6. camerafraud says:

    Hey, where’s all the pro-camera apologists on THIS thread?

    • Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! These tickets are a clear violation of our civil rights! And it is Bullshit on top of that! Look, if everyone is going 10 miles over the speed limit, then you are going to go 10 miles over the speed limit too. It would be irresponsible driving if you didn’t. so these fucking cameras are just ticketing EVERYONE passing by! This cannot be legal!!!

  7. I'm Back says:

    I wonder is this will mean that we can eventually ask for our money back. I’d like to get the $135 that I paid for a ticket back in ’05.

    I probably wouldn’t do it unless I knew the money came straight from Redflex’s/ATS’s assets. I wouldn’t want our cash strapped state to have to fork over any more money despite the fact that our politicians are probably guilty of being in on the scam.

    Of course, they are innocent until proven guilty, unlike the targets of photo radar who are guilty until proven innocent.

  8. RPr says:

    Minnesota refunded 2.6 million just last week

  9. Ed McCaffrey says:

    Get ready state legislators… You’re going to be called out by name in the next election season.. I’m already right proposition ads.. You will be personally called out..

  10. PhotoRadarScam says:

    I think now we all have the perfect defense for any speeding ticket – cop or photo.

  11. Ed McCaffrey says:

    Can we please organize another event in front of Redflex Australia’s branch office in Scottsdale?… I really wanna be there!!!

  12. Joe says:

    CameraFraud said:

    “Hey, where’s all the pro-camera apologists on THIS thread?”

    They’re all over on azcentral.com, saying that JP decisions carry no weight and mean nothing. I mentioned that his decision could be used as a precedent and it set a bunch of them off. They all said that no other court would accept his decision. I pointed back that the “other courts” are all JP courts as well, and that it was perfectly within their discretion to accept such a finding.

  13. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    great…. a jp in surprise doesnt agree with the cameras and uses his authority to just throw out what he doesnt agree with… another reason why jp’s should have a degree in law….not vote in the local drunk!!!

    heedigger- is this how it goes in court..

    judge- sir..were you speeding
    lead foot- yes sir i was
    judge- so you say you are guilty but should not have to pay the fine
    lead foot- yes judge thats right..i should be allowed to go as fast as i want and put others lives at risk so that i can get from point A to point B faster than anyone else…. and your honor…. those cameras just are not fair!!!!

    your fight will end in defeat at the polls… and hopefully you people will be responsible enough to not have your protests on a freeway over pass or anywhere near a street!!! funny that nobody who helps organize these iresponsible protests has the guts to defend where they have been held….

    • ghastly44 says:

      Here is a Better Idea law-abidingcitzen- let’s force all the auto manufacturers to place speed limiters in all the cars they make? That way cars won’t be able to go faster than 55 MPH.
      This boils down to CONSTITUTIONALITY ! Period !

  14. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i would be proud to have the good folks in minnesota as the champions of “conspiracy theory” victories… the same folks that were the last state to lower the blood alcohol minimum ( or lose precious highway construction money)…. i guess their choice in that state is to be loaded and speeding…. i mean after all if you are going to kill someone , why be sober!!!!

  15. Malfeasant says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen: I’m not even going to address the bulk of your post, because it’s all been said before and it will fall on your deaf ears. But what’s this about “responsible enough to not have your protests on a freeway over pass or anywhere near a street!!! funny that nobody who helps organize these iresponsible [sic] protests has the guts to defend where they have been held”? Why do we need to defend our choice of location? Are you one of those people who thinks our presence somehow slows down rush hour traffic? The miles of traffic before and after our position has nothing to do with it of course…

    Sheep.

  16. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    can you really believe that an over pass is a good place to launch a protest? i mean… come on… it is a distraction and while it is not the protesters fault if someone takes a peak and rear ends someone… the location makes it irresponsible of you folks to have it there… i would have thought that one of you would have defended it…. makes you look guilty if you dont address it…. imho!!! or you just really dont give a rats ass about public safety!! i go with that thought!!

  17. Doc says:

    LAWAABIDING FREEK-You sir are a totalitarianist. This has nothing to do with speeding or safety, it has everything to do with F R E E D O M ! ! !But you know that already, don’tcha?!?

    Perhaps you’d like to relocate yourself & your family to Communist China, North Korea, Venezuela…or anyplace other than America.

    I suggested on another thread that redflex employees that are here in our country on a visa should be deported immediately. Please feel free to leave with ‘em! I gave ‘em th’ heads-up about how China wanted to put ‘em to work. You could join ‘em!

    Now, back to work, SLACKER!!! Redflex doesn’t pay their employees to get their un-intellectual asses kicked! You’re supposed to WIN th’ argument with lies & innuendo, IDIOT!

    As a metter of fact…You’re FIRED! GET OUT!

  18. I'm Back says:

    Oh right but he works in the “grocery business.” Leave him along or he might complain to admin. :’(

  19. Doc says:

    COMPLAINT FORM

    Please Write legibly on line below.

    -

    Your complaint will be addressed when we feel like it
    Management
    Now back to work…..SLACKER!!

  20. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    doc.. take a pill man!!! seriously…. is the ” i work for the enemy” really all you have? when you cant make an argument you resort to name calling? it appears the people at the top of this organization have a clue..even though i disagree with them.. they really should work on the screening process of who has joined the cause!!!! you two would be qualified for cleaning the horse crap at the stable!!!! and not much more!!!

    the initiative will lose and lose badly!!!

  21. Doc says:

    I don’t need pills. I simply love F R E E D O M, & you obviously…don’t. Name calling, well, if the names I call you, such as totalitarian, and SLACKER fit, then I believe I do you no injustice. & my Victory’s stall requires no cleaning, perhaps you could go & clean yourself the way my cat does…now, off to China with the likes of you! Don’t call or write, we here in America, land of the FREE, know you’ll do just fine over there with the communists!
    Remember…F R E E D O M ! ! !-Doc from Prescott

  22. No One says:

    L.A. Citizen-

    I first want to tell you that I neither organize nor have attended one of these protests, so am not speaking for anyone other than myself. But, on the choice of protest locations, I am going to ask you a couple of things. Ready? OK. First, if it is so unsafe than why is DPS, the Department of Public SAFETY, who is present at these events, not shut them down? Second, the issue is the cameras, specifically the ones operated by the State. Where do these cameras primarily operate? On the freeways. Where better to have a protest than in the very place affected? Third, you say that the protest is unsafe, yet (on the other thread, where the cameras are specifically placed on the overpass) you imply that the cameras’ position is not. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways!

    And on the JP issue, please point to any reference material you have indicating this judge is “the town drunk”– otherwise your objections to namecalling means that your hypocrisy is truly showing.

  23. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    no one says… first thank you for not accusing me of anything or calling me names. now off to the fair questions that you asked.

    1. i dont know why they dont shut them down… maybe because they are respecting your right to gather and protest.. but just because they are not stopping you does not mean that it is safe… in fact i saw the protest on the news.. they interviewed the dps spokesman.. his last sentence was ” there were no accidents reported near that part of the freeway during the protest”. clearly they are monitoring that…and i am no lawyer.. but if a fatality occurs sue to the location of a protest… they a liable as much as i feel the organizers are.. i think you will soon see the protests not allowed on the over pass.. and that will be great for camera fraud as they can then claim that they are being repressed!!! just because its allowed doesnt make it right.. isnt that what your cause is all about?

    2. i agree.. it what a great place to have a protest.. lots of people pass by… and they are at the heat of the debate… good marketing by the organizers….you wouldnt put a drug rehab center in the middle of known trafficers would you? i mean that would be a great place to show the addicts who they really are… and that the buyers are just like them.. but it would be a distraction would it not?

    3. after looking at the picture i think that i see the cameras off to the right and at the edge of the over pass.. am i right/ its hard to tell… the article makes it sound like the cameras are pointed straight forward into the driver… when that is not true… the article also implies that it is a huge blinding flash!!! i have seen the cameras flash at night, it is in no way blinding!! the cameras are positioned so they are in the peripheral vision of the driver… there are many things in a drivers peripheral vision…. and if you had the protest to the right where the cameras are i would still have a problem… a group of people holding signs during the day is a distraction.. a stationary camera that does not move is not a distraction..

    yes you have me on the hypocricy… i do not know he is the town drunk nor do i know if he is mentaly unstable… nor do i know if he is just some red neck hillbilly… nor do i know if he even finished high school… i do know that he has not passed the state bar and therefore is not a lawyer!!! i assume he can breathe which means i too can run for justice of the peace here in gilbert… i will refrain from name calling…

  24. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    yes doc you are a great american …. a great patriot!! freedom is your battle cry….do you know why you are free? if i did not like freedom i would not be here but in a country that opposes freedom…. or i would be in jail… i am neither i am right here… we are all free … and a camera on a freeway is not taking away your freedom… in fact it is not even taking away your ability to break the law… it is just going to capture you in the act of breaking the law!!!

  25. I'm Back says:

    How can you say that when it clearly violates our Constitution?

  26. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    your constitutional rights are not being violated… and if they are please explain… and if you are going to say…. 24/7 camera.. stop right there… we have cameras in federal buildings, we have cameras in court rooms and cameras in other government offices ..that is not an argument …. that is a you problem …. not a we problem… the LAW A. Biding citizens dont have a problem with cameras capturing me doing nothing wrong!!!

  27. I'm Back says:

    The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as held in the Bill of Rights.

    Confrontation
    See also: Confrontation Clause
    The defense must have an opportunity to “confront” and cross-examine witnesses. The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay, that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of a person for the purpose of proving that the statement or observation was accurate. The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person actually making the statements. Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule have been permitted; for instance, admissions by the defendant are admissible, as are dying declarations.[11] Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not exactly the same as the confrontation clause; hearsay may, in some circumstances, be admitted though it is not covered by one of the long-recognized exceptions; for example, prior testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is unavailable.[12] Yet in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court increased the scope of the confrontation clause in trials. Justice Scalia’s opinion made any “testimonial” out-of-court statements inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser. “Testimonial” becomes a term of art here, meaning any statements that an objectively reasonable person in the declarant’s situation would have deemed likely to be used in court. The most common application of this would come after a declarant made a statement to a police officer, and then that officer testifies about that statement at trial.[13]

    How can you confront or cross-examine a camera?

    Your knee jerk reaction type posts are very alarming.

  28. Doc says:

    L.A.C.-
    SIEGHEILSIEGHEILSIEGHEILSIEGHEILSIEGHEILSIEGHEILSIEGHE
    May I suggest that you examine the U.S. Constitution, & the Bill of Rights. If, then you still don’t get it…well, you can lead a horse to water, butcha’ cain’t make it drink.

    Now, either load your WOTHRLESS a$$ on th’ slo-boat 2 china, or getchur SLACKIN’ A$$ BACK TO WORK! How many times do I have to tell you that your bosses @ ats don’t pay you to get your un-intellictual a$$ kicked by us scofflaws here @ cameraFRAUD.com, DAMMIT!!!

    yA’ KNOW WHAT…Never Mind…yer fired!-SLACKER!

  29. Joe says:

    “How can you confront or cross-examine a camera?”

    I think the confrontation clause is rather specific to criminal cases:

    The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

    We’re talking about “infraction” cases. Now if we were talking about extremely fast driving, IE “criminal speeding”, then we have a better constitutional argument. I think it’d be easier to make a link between these cameras and taxation without due process than it would be to make a serious constitutional argument. I’m with ya bro’, but that word “criminal” is indeed there in the constitution.

  30. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    very comical doc!!!! for those of you that feel i work for redflex or ats and dont believe me when i say i dont.. please check the times of my posts… they are all accross the board…. so i either dont work for them or work a hell of a lot of hours and get to post messages all day long!!!!!

    yes…. and the constitution has been interpretted in many way…. isnt that one of the things the supreme court does… so if i get this right… you throw the 6th amendment as your battle cry that the cameras violate the 6th… dont you think that they knew what your argument was going to be and they didnt think it would hold water anyway? maybe they are waiting for a legal challenge that forces the supreme court to rule on it… and what will be your battle cry be when the voters say the cameras stay!! WHAT THEN PEOPLE.. WHAT THEN!!

    • ghastly44 says:

      Law-abiding~ do you think all the laws that have been written by legislators pass the constitution test? Laws were written outlawing blacks and women to vote. Constitution overturned them.
      The constitution is there to protect our rights and when you take away someone else’s right you basically take away one of your own.

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        first of all … how long did it take for those laws not allowing blacks and women to vote to be overturned? its 100 years give or take a few… the surpeme court, ever heard of them? they make the final ruling as to what is unconsitutional or not…. of course theose laws have to climb the court ladder and pass through appeals courts.. if the cams are ruled against the constitution that can be appealed all the way to the supreme court… i would also expect that the anti crowd will also push it that far should they lose… this issue will not be gone in the next few years….it is going to take awhile and the supreme court in the land is going to get to have the last say!! not you or me or CF !! until then, nobody is right and nobody is wrong… just opinions!! and yes… i think our elected officials do test the constitutionality of a law before it is passed… they are called lawyers and it is not just one of them.. but many that give an opinion…

  31. Joe says:

    The question is: Does the sumpreme court interpret the word “criminal prosecution” as broadly as speed camera cases or other traffic infractions? 230 years ago, they may well have meant “all” cases against citizens, as I doubt the “infraction” cases existed yet.

  32. Joe says:

    “so i either dont work for them or work a hell of a lot of hours and get to post messages all day long!!!!!”

    We already know (from IP address information) that both ATS and Redflex essentially condone their employees to spend company time on this message board. A hell of a lot of profanity-laced messages have come straight from Redflex.

  33. Joe says:

    “maybe they are waiting for a legal challenge that forces the supreme court to rule on it… and what will be your battle cry be when the voters say the cameras stay!! WHAT THEN PEOPLE.. WHAT THEN!!”

    Supreme Courth decisions have nothing to do with “majority rules”.

  34. Joe says:

    Also, we have more than one constitution to work with here. Arizona’s just might give us the weight we need.

  35. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    but a supreme court decision can over turn a vote if it is determined to be unconstitutional!!!

    so by my ip address am i at work or at home… you have a 50\50 chance to get it right… and you know that redflex encourages it becasue you have a company memo, or email, fax, recorded message from their ceo? or is this just you guys throwing things out and hoping that we believe it just cause you said it!!

  36. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    a vote.. be carefull what you wish for!!!

  37. Joe says:

    Dumbshit: Each time that you and I visit this site, the IP address of our respective machines is logged (same goes for posting comments as well as emails). That number can then be entered into a basic utility such as “nslookup” and your location can be quickly determined. All the operator of this site has to do is give me your IP number and I can tell you your ISP and generally where you posted from. If you were a redflex employee, the employer name would come up right away (being that Redflex is such a network-heavy company, I’d imagine they would show up as being their own ISP).

  38. Joe says:

    Also Law, I do not see what constitutional challenge could possibly be at hand if the voters of AZ decided to ban photo radar. I’m not aware of many areas where governments are given protections against its citizens. Usually it works the other away around. Are you 12 years old dude?

  39. Joe says:

    Matt/Camerafraud: Show Law what I mean about IP addresses. Gimme his and I’ll demonstrate.

  40. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    do it….i dont know much about them but i can assume it will point to or show where the computer is located, maybe even an address…. so what you will find with my ip is a pc at a residential house in gilbert…. val vista between baseline and guadalupe!!

    when you knock at the door i will want to see the camera fraud badges with youe names and badge numbers!!!

  41. camerafraud says:

    Can’t release that info, but IP addresses are logged by every website.

  42. Joe says:

    I was not initially making this about you or your location. I could care less about where you live. You made it sound like we’d have no way of knowing if you worked for Redflex or not. I’m telling you that if you did, and were posting from there, we could tell, so long as you were not using a proxy service. So it’s not insane for us to state that we do know that ATS and Redflex people regularly post to this board. They absolutely do.

  43. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i can argue that taking away the cameras, thus allowing people drive down the road at speeds above the posted limit therefore possibly denying my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…

    if the people of az vote that the cameras go… then i am fine with it… i drove for 20 years with out them, i am sure that i could find the strength to do it again….

    when you use the word dude, you take away from any intelligent posts you may have made….

  44. Joe says:

    Law writes:
    “i can argue that taking away the cameras, thus allowing people drive down the road at speeds above the posted limit therefore possibly denying my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”

    You’d have to find a constitutional passage that guarantees your right to that specifically through a photo enforcement system. You do not have the right to sue the cops when they decrease activity in your neighborhood. That issue HAS been taken up by the high courts and settled. So your argument would not fly.

    The constitutional issues are essentially moot. I do not expect the Supreme Court to take on this issue. A federal appeals court has already essentially settled it:
    http://www.prosecurityzone.com/Customisation/News/Guarding_Equipment_and_Enforcement/Traffic_Control_and_Enforcement/Red_light_cameras_deemed_constitutional_by_US_court.asp

    However, this decision does not address 6th amendment grounds. In any case, there is a reason the attorney wrote a ballot proposition instead of a class action lawsuit based on constitutional grounds. We have the incentive and the momentum to get this ballot initiative passed, and with a clear majority.

  45. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    well joe … you might say you do AND believe it… because if you said it but didnt believe it then the followers would drop off… i already posted why you would not win… it will come down to the turn out and your anti group that is out there .. well … they are not the type that are motivated to vote.. you may have 1400 here that are all for voting… but you will need more than 1400…

    cool lets blow off the supreme court, hell it takes them 10 years to rule on something anyway.. and thats when they put a rush on it… i am fine with the vote!! i will start planning the victory party now!! i think we will have it at a bar… i drink only… to get there we will drive down the 60 and have cars accross all the lanes in line doing 65 mph thus frustrating the leadfoots behind us… we will write victory slogans on our cars so there is no mistake why we are honking, hollering and making a scene!!

  46. Joe says:

    Just to help people out on how these cameras work:

    http://auto.howstuffworks.com/red-light-camera2.htm

    If you’ll notice that the speed cameras installed on the highways have cuts made into the actual pavement. They are not radar-based. They use electromagnetic fields and sensors to detect speed. They trigger the camera. The tali-vans, on the other hand, probably do involve radar (actually, probably a laser, not even radar).

    The interesting thing about hand-held radar/laser, is that police officers are trained to (technically) not aim the radar gun unless they have already “estimated” your rate of speed (to establish the probable cause needed to confirm your speed via the radar device. The radar device, according to how they’d been trained, was a form of “search” that required probable cause in order to employ. Of course, we all know that cops simply point the device at everyone, and then lie about having estimated speed if it goes to court. But I’m curious about how the probable cause element changed over the years. Now it is not even considered. Everyone is presumed guilty, as everyone’s speed is measured.

  47. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    and why you have to call me dumbshit? i already told you i didnt know anything about ip crap… i may be a dumbshit if i tried to act as if i did!! but really didnt!!

  48. Joe says:

    Law: I saw 1000 people during just 15 minutes of ONE protest (which lasted more than 2 hours). The east valley had it’s own protest going at the same time. People were lined up in their cars to sign the petition. The problem had more to do with having enough petitions for people to sign. They were running out. Too many anti-camera people showed. Not even a Ron Paul rally had this much interest.

    ATS can be a wishful as it likes with its faked poll, but I witnessed something far more powerful than their misinformation: Bodies.

  49. Joe says:

    Law, you got called dumbshit because you insinuated that we could not tell if someone was posting from a computer Redflex or at home. If they are at Redflex, we absolutely know.

  50. Doc says:

    sLACker-
    c o m m u n i s t
    c h i n a
    w a n t s
    y o u ! ! !
    cameraFRAUD.COM DOES NOT!
    F R E E D O M Lovers don’t!!
    Now git…yyyooouuu sLACker!!! Off to china you go! And take sleezy wife & bratty kids with you, stupid ats/redflex employee! You eat many pork fly lice, you plik!
    sLACkersLACkersLACkersLACkersLACkersLACkersLACkersLACk

  51. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    doc .. take a pill or have a drink….

    no i didnt joe… i think i asked how you could tell…

    joe… people at a rally does not result in votes at the polls…. what were the demographics? probably a lot of younger people… you know they dont have a good voting track record dont you…

  52. Sick of Government says:

    FYI, the DPS (marked) vans use K band radar and I’ve seen Scottsdale use both K & KA band radar (in vans & cars). The fixed units use sensors embedded in the ground which as we all know are prone to failure. I have yet to see any agency use laser, though YMMV.

  53. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    sick- did you sleep at a holiday in express last night?

  54. dgpjr777 says:

    Joe, where the hell did you get your info on using a radar gun. Probable cause for aiming it, I swear some of you people have no idea on how the law works or when Probable cause is needed.

  55. geez says:

    This story is silly. Never heard people whining about having to pay less.

  56. [...] the we-told-you-so department: Judge Dismisses Speed Ticket Case Against AZ GOP [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,338 other followers

%d bloggers like this: