The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what Camera Fraud has been saying all along – photo enforcement is unconstitutional! Although there are several ways in which photo enforcement is unconstitutional, in Thursday’s ruling in Bullcoming v. New Mexico the highest court in the land found that a defendant has a right to confront their accuser. The court case was with regard to a DUI offense, but the ruling has broad applications. In the case, the lab technician who analyzed the Bullcoming’s blood sample for alcohol content was not available to testify in court, so the state found a surrogate to testify as to the lab results, procedures and methodology This is the SAME THING that happens in photo enforcement hearings on a daily basis. If applied to photo enforcement, the state would have to provide or make available the machine operator and anyone who processed the evidence for the defense. The court ruled that it is not sufficient to provide a knowledgeable representative to testify about facts in a report that he did not generate.
Unfortunately, this ruling alone will do little to stop photo enforcement, as photo enforcement hearings are done as civil trials, rather than criminal. As such, the rules are different and the state must only show a preponderance of evidence rather than prove their case as they would do if you received a moving violation from a real officer. States are able to get away with this scam because of the lower burden of evidence. This is of course the answer the question we have been forever asking, “Why is a ticket from a machine treated differently than an officer-issued ticket?” The answer is the same as it’s always been: MONEY.