Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: vcheng (May 13, 2009 5:19 am) “The protection guaranteed by the Amendments [the Fourth and Fifth] is much broader in scope [than the protection of property]. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth” "That such a surrogate technological deployment is not - - particularly when placed at the unsupervised discretion of agents of the state "engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime" (Johnson v United States, 333 US 10, 14 [1948]) -- compatible with any reasonable notion of personal privacy or ordered liberty would appear to us obvious. One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person's progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit's batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on. What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity, is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations -- political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few -- and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits. When multiple GPS devices are utilized, even more precisely resolved inferences about our activities are possible. And, with GPS becoming an increasingly routine feature in cars and cell phones, it will be possible to tell from the technology with ever increasing precision who we are and are not with, when we are and are not with them, and what we do and do not carry on our persons -- to mention just a few of the highly feasible empirical configurations." "This being so, the Court quite reasonably concluded that the technology "in this case" (Knotts, 460 US at 282 [emphasis added]) raised no Fourth Amendment issue, but pointedly acknowledged and reserved for another day the question of whether a Fourth Amendment issue would be posed if "twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country [were] possible, without judicial knowledge or supervision"> (id. at 283). To say that that day has arrived involves no melodrama; twenty-six years after Knotts, GPS technology, even in its present state of evolution, quite simply and matter-of-factly forces the issue." "An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. Automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of transportation to and from one's home, workplace, and leisure activities. Many people spend more hours each day traveling in cars than walking on the streets. Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes of travel. Were the individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed. As Terry v. Ohio ... recognized, people are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalks. Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles." "Technological advances have produced many valuable tools for law enforcement and, as the years go by, the technology available to aid in the detection of criminal conduct will only become more and more sophisticated. Without judicial oversight, the use of these powerful devices presents a significant and, to our minds, unacceptable risk of abuse." |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (May 13, 2009 5:45 am) But how do the businesses selling the photo/redlight/radar speed services to the political entities know which of the hundreds of intersections in a small town to have cameras at? They don't put cameras up at ALL intersections and stop signs or else they might actually have a chance of capturing pictures of the hardcore criminals like that. Of course, are we to believe that they pay the tickets for the camera businesses? Brooklyn Bridge for sale if we believe they do!!! Indeed this points all the more to having real policemen on the patrol to note the funny things that happen that make them suspictious so they stop a vehicle before the driver runs through a stoplight.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (May 13, 2009 6:13 am) OK, we all drive and encounter and notice someone running a red light - not yellow - after the offense was comitted. How can anyone, including a cop, possibly predict who will run a light and stop them before the crime. If vehicle is operating within law and appears legal, stop lights working, etc, cop has no authority to pull someone over. Also, consider efficiency. Can't possibly afford live police persons to catch all of the offenders. A combo of police and technology, with adequate controls and supervision, is most cost effective. As others have pointed out on this board, if you don't run red lights nor go more than 10 over limit, don't have to worry about photo radar.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (May 13, 2009 6:29 am) It would only be fair to note the several others have also pointed out the grave constitutional issues and violations of due process that these machines raise. "Don't have to worry" is simply WRONG. 
|
|
|
|
| But the point is that photo/redlight/radar are useless for catching real problems. Our small town must be really dumb. They use real policemen making stops for little infractions and they find all kinds of things. Often the original stop would not have been a citation-given stop. But they people with warrants, drugs, improper license plates, etc. | |
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (May 13, 2009 5:45 am) I would say in order to "grossly" violate a stop sign or stop light, there would have to be another vehicle around to which you were supposed to yield to. If there isn't another vehicle around, then running the stop sign is not "really" a violation in my book, but is certainly not a GROSS violation. I can admit I've ignored stop signs, but even at the signs I routinely ignored due to their uselessness, I still obeyed them if there was another vehicle coming from another direction and yielded the right away. I only ignore the stop sign if it IS SAFE to do so. That can never be a gross violation. SAFETY should be a forced and enforced CRITERIA of any supposed/alleged traffic violation. |
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (May 13, 2009 6:29 am) Except of course, when the human officer or photo radar malfunctions, which apparently is quite often and not unusual. Also, officer's can make up any excuse they want to pull anyone over. They have over 40,000 excuses written into our CA vehicle code. Why do you think the California VC needs 40,000+ entries? Do you really think that's necessary, or is it something to give a cop an excuse to pull anyone over? I'd go with the latter explanation. |
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (May 12, 2009 9:36 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: dbenson62 (May 14, 2009 6:14 pm) I dont' run stop signs when running that stop sign would potentially cause an accident. I only do so when it is SAFE to do so, and that means no accidents. Time has proven me right. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
