Quote:
Originally posted by arz
. . . I was under the impression that there had to be an arresting officer who witnessed the infraction in order to issue a ticket to the infractor.
|
In Maryland they circumvent the need for an arresting officer to issue the ticket by classifying it as a non-moving violation. IANAL, but apparently this allows them to issue the ticket without requiring an officer to be present if the recipient decides to challenge it in court. Instead of an officer, the company that provides the equipment has an "expert" present to attest to the accuracy of the machinery.
Because it is a non-moving violation, no points are assessed -- just a fine. Also, as a result, the citation goes to the owner of the car, regardless of who was driving.
I gleaned this info while challenging a parking ticket, which required me to sit through a slew of these camera tickets. At the start of the session, the judge carefully explained how the equipment worked, what evidence was present for each citation (photos of the car going through the intersection with the car's license plate and red light showing, how long the light had been red before the car entered the intersection, the speed of the car when photo was shot, etc.). The judge then explained the law, and what the penalty was, and how to NOT tick him off by giving him a whole bullshit story about the equipment being faulty, some lame medical emergency, or an excuse about trying to stop, or that someone else was driving.
Sure enough, the first four people who stood before him did EXACTLY what he had just advised them not to do. And the blatant crap these people spewed! The whole courtroom was giggling under its collective breath. Result: guilty, with fines, court costs, and additional contempt fees for pissing everyone's time away. That's the first time I ever heard of average Joes
cheering when the Man put the hammer down on other average Joes.
I just hope they don't institute this type of thing for speeding, or I'm bankrupt.