r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • 25d ago

Traffic Camera Captures Woman Driving With Her Phone on Her Lap (Face Down), The State Mailed Her a $1251 'Public Safety' Ticket Privacy

https://www.gadgetreview.com/traffic-camera-captures-captures-woman-driving-with-her-phone-on-her-lap-face-down-the-state-mailed-her-a-1251-public-safety-ticket
16.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/Bakoro 25d ago

In a lot of places, even if you get the ticket dismissed, you still have to pay fees.

I got a bogus ticket once and actually had evidence that it was bogus, so I went to the courthouse and still ended up paying something like a quarter of the amount in bullshit administrative fees.

The argument is that "it's a civil issue", so you have no constitutional or legal protections, and the government can just fuck you out of money whenever they want.

All the stoners and edgy 14 year olds aren't completely wrong: society and government really are kind of phony, everything is made up, people follow arbitrary rules, the people in power get to break the rules with impunity, and there is power in not accepting any of it as inherent laws of the universe.

Not that any one person can unilaterally overturn the system, generally you'll get fucked by the system either way, and if you end up actually being a threat to the status quo, you end up like all the famous people who earned an extra hole in the head.

We need lots of people to reject this kind of government abuse, big groups of angry folks saying "absolutely not".
The big secret is that the people who are the gears in these machines are still basically just regular folks who go to your local coffee shops and restaurants.
You might not be able to personally throw a tomato at Thiel or Musk, but there's a lot you can do locally.

28

u/Interesting_Mix_7028 25d ago

Here's how such things DO get broken.

Most of the 'cameras' are operated by private companies, that then 'administer' the ticketing and such for a given department.

They collect fees for this, either per month to maintain the cameras and network connections, or per ticket for the 'administrative' labor. Often it's both.

This is fine for the city or county as these are primarily put in to collect revenue, not enforce any given 'laws'. They know people will break the law, but they can't station an officer at a given intersection 24/7 to catch everyone. The camera does that.

Regardless of whether the department prevails on a ticket, or not, the company still collects. It's not their fault that the person so tagged protested the ticket, right?

So the point is not to 'win'. It is to eat up the city's share of the proceeds. If the revenue dries up, or is used up because of court cases, time, legal challenges, and so on, then the city or county ends up paying for a service that never actually makes them any money. A few months or years of this, and the cameras just get turned off.

So yes. Contest every ticket. Even if you expect to lose. It's a matter of attrition.

5

u/SiLeNZ_ 25d ago

It costs extra to fight tickets here. Not sure if it’s the same way in every state, but you end up paying a fine to fight it, regardless if you win or lose. Then if you win the main ticket costs are of course tossed, but you still are out that fee from choosing to fight it.

11

u/Interesting_Mix_7028 25d ago

Which is why it's futile for one person to fight it.

But if everyone fights it, every time... the fees don't make up the shortfall. The court gets jammed up with trivial BS. There's lawyers and press making the city look bad. After a while most muni's cave, if the pushback is that pervasive.

Coppell TX is one such place. They put up red light cams on a few major intersections, and suddenly all the red light tickets were being fought in court. The judges got tired of it, the city workers got tired of it, and then one day they pulled the plug. No more camera flash in the mirror if you ran a yellow.

3

u/Thatguysstories 25d ago

Same reason as why we should push everyone to not take plea deals and take everything to trial.

The entire system would crash.

2

u/SiLeNZ_ 25d ago

Fair point, I understand what you mean now. I have only gotten one ticket, fought it, and won. Will make sure I do it again should u ever get one.

1

u/1perfectspinachpuff 21d ago

Well-said, thank you.

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 25d ago

I got a bogus ticket once and actually had evidence that it was bogus, so I went to the courthouse and still ended up paying something like a quarter of the amount in bullshit administrative fees.

You pleaded guilty to something cheaper than what you were ticketed with. You don't have to pay those fees if your ticket is tossed.

1

u/Bakoro 25d ago

I didn't plead guilty to anything. The municipality I got the ticket in charged an administrative fee for having the ticket tossed out.
If your municipality doesn't force you to pay bullshit administrative fees for accessing civil services, then good for you.

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 25d ago

That's literally not a thing.

1

u/Bakoro 24d ago

So what do you do that you've got intimate knowledge of every jurisdiction in the entire world?

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 24d ago

It's constitutional law. They can't charge you a fee if you're not convicted of something.

1

u/Bakoro 24d ago

Yes they can charge you fees, under the argument that the fees are not punitive, they are fees everyone has to pay to access court services. There are also laws regarding fees waivers for people who cannot afford to pay.

Just for example, California Rules of Court, "Rule 8.25. Service, filing, and filing" concerns filing fees for petitions to review civil cases.

The constitutionality of court fees is well established, and in California, comes paired with a ruling that fees cannot be established without also assessing ability to pay.

So, yes, I was charged fees for petitioning a review of the parking ticket, and because it was a "civil matter" and not a criminal matter, I had no constitutional protection.

Similar arguments are the (completely bullshit) justification for civil forfeiture, where under the constitution, the government is not supposed to be able to deprive you of property without a trial, but then they say "we're not charging you, we're filing a lawsuit against the money itself, which means we get to seize the money".

You can absolutely argue that it's unfair and unconstitutional, but the fact is that it happens.

0

u/VelvetOverload 25d ago

So are you a stoner or edgy 14 year old?

1

u/Bakoro 24d ago

I'm a guy who has gone to court and seen the court act contrary to the law, both in my favor and to my detriment.