And You Think You Have Problems With Traffic Wardens...

[FalcoColumbarius]

As I said earlier: There is absolutely no reference to "photo radar" of any kind in any part of the Constitution as it had not been invented yet. Try Googling "habeas corpus" or "habeas corpus Canada" and see where that takes you.

Lest We Forget.

Falco.

[Green1]

I didn't ask you to find "photo radar" in the constitution, I asked for you to explain how it violates habeas corpus. I don't see how it does, unless you contend that all other video or picture evidence of any crime should be inadmissible as well.

[jessef]

the crime is owning the vehicle and nothing to do with driving.

So it's now a crime to own a vehicle that was caught via photo radar and the act of driving over the speed limit or driving through a red light is not a crime anymore ?

How interesting.

[Mr. Flibble]

the crime is owning the vehicle and nothing to do with driving.

So it's now a crime to own a vehicle that was caught via photo radar and the act of driving over the speed limit or driving through a red light is not a crime anymore ?

How interesting.

Double Facepalm! Oh, that is a great Demotivational Poster, I have not seen that one before! Full points for locating that one.

I didn't ask you to find "photo radar" in the constitution, I asked for you to explain how it violates habeas corpus. I don't see how it does, unless you contend that all other video or picture evidence of any crime should be inadmissible as well.

Part of Habeas Corpus is the right to confront one's accuser. Since you can't examine the camera, and you can't bring the camera to court - this is a violation of Habeas Corpus in the strict letter of the law. Since the law functions on strict rules (unless you are in Quebec I guess, and have Civil law banning RHD...) by the letter of the law this is a violation of Habeas Corpus.

[Green1]

Part of Habeas Corpus is the right to confront one's accuser. Since you can't examine the camera, and you can't bring the camera to court - this is a violation of Habeas Corpus in the strict letter of the law. Since the law functions on strict rules (unless you are in Quebec I guess, and have Civil law banning RHD...) by the letter of the law this is a violation of Habeas Corpus.

You can examine the camera just as much as you can examine any security camera used to detect any crime, should all of those be ruled inadmissible as well?
If you want to question the camera, you can subpoena the calibration logs, the manufacturer's specs, the maintenance tech, and the peace officer who signed off on the ticket, that is no different from what you have access too if a cop actually pulls you over. (how do you think the camera is any worse this way than a normal radar/laser gun?)

So it's now a crime to own a vehicle that was caught via photo radar and the act of driving over the speed limit or driving through a red light is not a crime anymore ?

Those are also crimes, just not the ones that you are being accused of by photo radar.
If you think we should only do something if the driver is identifiable, I would ask if you felt the same way if someone parked a truck across your driveway and you were told that nothing could be done because the driver wasn't present.

[FalcoColumbarius]

Part of Habeas Corpus is the right to confront one's accuser. Since you can't examine the camera, and you can't bring the camera to court - this is a violation of Habeas Corpus in the strict letter of the law. Since the law functions on strict rules (unless you are in Quebec I guess, and have Civil law banning RHD...) by the letter of the law this is a violation of Habeas Corpus.

Well put, Mr. Flibble.

You can examine the camera just as much as you can examine any security camera used to detect any crime, should all of those be ruled inadmissible as well?

Cameras are not infallible. As a matter of fact they are excellent tools when creating an illusion. I know this because it is a big part of how I make my living. When I was in court for my photo radar ticket they didn't bring the camera for me to inspect, nor I suspect would they.

Falco.

[Mr. Flibble]

Part of Habeas Corpus is the right to confront one's accuser. Since you can't examine the camera, and you can't bring the camera to court - this is a violation of Habeas Corpus in the strict letter of the law. Since the law functions on strict rules (unless you are in Quebec I guess, and have Civil law banning RHD...) by the letter of the law this is a violation of Habeas Corpus.

You can examine the camera just as much as you can examine any security camera used to detect any crime, should all of those be ruled inadmissible as well?
If you want to question the camera, you can subpoena the calibration logs, the manufacturer's specs, the maintenance tech, and the peace officer who signed off on the ticket, that is no different from what you have access too if a cop actually pulls you over. (how do you think the camera is any worse this way than a normal radar/laser gun?)

You can subpoena all the logs and do all that stuff: but that takes time and violates other sections such as the right to a speedy trial (the latin escapes me at the moment). Either way, you can argue this point, but as the law is written and interpreted it has been shown to be a violation of Habeas Corpus in BC courts because your "accuser" is a machine and not a human. Ergo, you can use this defense in court and win with it, as has been done in BC. So as to my opinion of ruling inadmissible evidence, it is irrelevant. My opinion on the matter is invalid. The courts opinion on the ruling however is an entirely different matter. And, if a cop actually pulls me over, then the cop is the accuser in this case, and it does not Violate Habeas Corpus. However, if I get an automated ticket in the mail that was processed by a camera unsupervised by a human, then this - as has been ruled in BC - is a violation of Habeas Corpus.

[Green1]

So you are in favour of abolishing photographic evidence in all trials? does this include robbery and murder as well? or just traffic? and if just traffic, why? what's the difference?

Sure technology can fail, but so can the radar gun the cop points at you, yet you don't think that violates your constitutional rights, only the camera, there is nothing different here. You have the option to challenge either one in court, you can offer any proof you feel is relevant, including subpoenaing the maintenance records for the device, or the manufacturer's specs, you could insist on having the camera evaluated by a third party (independent) technician, I'm sure they'd allow it if you were willing to pick up the costs.

I know you don't LIKE photo radar, I'm not necessarily a fan myself, but there's absolutely nothing about it that makes it unconstitutional any more than any of thousands of other evidence gathering techniques used in many crimes. Unpopular does not equal unconstitutional, you can challenge them in court all you want, it would never survive a constitutional challenge, that much I would guarantee. The only way to fight something like that is politically, (as happened in BC where the unpopularity became an election issue and they were banned)

[Green1]

You can subpoena all the logs and do all that stuff: but that takes time and violates other sections such as the right to a speedy trial (the latin escapes me at the moment).

Not in the least, sure it takes time, but "speedy trials" are often years in the making and that has never been shown unconstitutional (and that HAS been challenged many times)

Either way, you can argue this point, but as the law is written and interpreted it has been shown to be a violation of Habeas Corpus in BC courts

No, it never was, show me a case and I'll look at it, but it was purely a political decision that took them out of BC, not a legal one. It was NEVER ruled uncosntitutional

because your "accuser" is a machine and not a human.

Your "accuser" is a human, the human operating the machine, just like a human operating a radar gun, or a human operating a surveillance camera, there is no difference here.

Ergo, you can use this defense in court and win with it, as has been done in BC.

show me a case file. Because I know for a fact that this never happened.

It's also interesting to note that for a province that supposedly ruled these "unconstitutional" they still use Red Light Cameras...

The courts opinion on the ruling however is an entirely different matter.

yup, and the courts have NEVER ruled it unconstitutional.

as has been ruled in BC - is a violation of Habeas Corpus.

This has never been ruled a violation of Habeas Corpus. It was simply politically unpopular. Show me a case.

[Mr. Flibble]

So you are in favour of abolishing photographic evidence in all trials? does this include robbery and murder as well? or just traffic? and if just traffic, why? what's the difference?

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you here. I am not including my opinion on this, only the legal facts as I know them. As it currently stands from a "lawery" perspective, traffic cameras violate Habeas Corpus. My opinion does not change the legal status of this.

Sure technology can fail, but so can the radar gun the cop points at you, yet you don't think that violates your constitutional rights, only the camera, there is nothing different here. You have the option to challenge either one in court, you can offer any proof you feel is relevant, including subpoenaing the maintenance records for the device, or the manufacturer's specs, you could insist on having the camera evaluated by a third party (independent) technician, I'm sure they'd allow it if you were willing to pick up the costs.

The difference is that there is a human behind the radar gun, and it is that human using the gun as a tool - not the tool itself - that is responsible for accusing you. The difference is like splitting hairs, I know. However, this is the legal ruling on the matter here in BC. Again, my personal feelings on this issue do not change this.

I know you don't LIKE photo radar, I'm not necessarily a fan myself, but there's absolutely nothing about it that makes it unconstitutional any more than any of thousands of other evidence gathering techniques used in many crimes. Unpopular does not equal unconstitutional, you can challenge them in court all you want, it would never survive a constitutional challenge, that much I would guarantee. The only way to fight something like that is politically, (as happened in BC where the unpopularity became an election issue and they were banned)

The only thing that makes it legally unconstitutional (which is not really correct as that is more of an American term, but I digress yet again) is the strict letter-of-the-law of Habeas Corpus. Again, liking or disliking the law or the interpretation of the law is not relevant here, only the legal interpretation. I may like or dislike the fact that the Law of Gravity * causes objects to fall towards the earth, but this does not change the fact that it does. It is possible that the bill of rights may be amended to change this in the future.

* (The Law of Universal Gravitation is actually a *THEORY* not a law, but I call it a law here only for illustrative purposes and hyperbole.)

[Mr. Flibble]

You can subpoena all the logs and do all that stuff: but that takes time and violates other sections such as the right to a speedy trial (the latin escapes me at the moment).

Not in the least, sure it takes time, but "speedy trials" are often years in the making and that has never been shown unconstitutional (and that HAS been challenged many times)

Either way, you can argue this point, but as the law is written and interpreted it has been shown to be a violation of Habeas Corpus in BC courts

No, it never was, show me a case and I'll look at it, but it was purely a political decision that took them out of BC, not a legal one. It was NEVER ruled uncosntitutional

because your "accuser" is a machine and not a human.

Your "accuser" is a human, the human operating the machine, just like a human operating a radar gun, or a human operating a surveillance camera, there is no difference here.

Ergo, you can use this defense in court and win with it, as has been done in BC.

show me a case file. Because I know for a fact that this never happened.

It's also interesting to note that for a province that supposedly ruled these "unconstitutional" they still use Red Light Cameras...

The courts opinion on the ruling however is an entirely different matter.

yup, and the courts have NEVER ruled it unconstitutional.

as has been ruled in BC - is a violation of Habeas Corpus.

This has never been ruled a violation of Habeas Corpus. It was simply politically unpopular. Show me a case.

I can't show you a case. I am not a laywer and I don't have access to www.lexisnexis.ca. You may wish to check with a BC laywer (some of my friends are, I can ask on your behalf) to clarify. I can only add what I have heard from them in conversation over wobbly pops. It is entirely possible that I am mistaken in this case - however, my anecdotal evidence suggests that I am not. But in either case, when did this turn into a "burden of proof" type argument anyhow?

[Green1]

The only thing that makes it legally unconstitutional (which is not really correct as that is more of an American term, but I digress yet again) is the strict letter-of-the-law of Habeas Corpus. A

Because nobody in BC seems to know why they don't have photo radar, let me tell you a story...

In 1996 a fellow by the name of Doug Stead got a $100 photo radar ticket in BC. He chose to fight the ticket, over the next 5 years Mr Stead spent over $120,000 fighting this ticket. On the very same grounds that you are trying right now. he argued that it was unconstitutional, and a violation of habeas-corpus under the charter of rights and freedoms. The court didn't agree with him, in fact it went all the way to the British Columbia Court of Appeal who unanimously rejected Mr. Steads argument and ruled that Photo Radar was in fact fully legal, and constitutional. He then tried to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada, who refused to hear the case.
In 2002 Photo Radar became a political issue in a BC provincial election, the opposition promised to abolish it if they got in to power, they won the election, and in a rare case of politicians actually following their word, they abolished photo radar in the province of BC. Red light cameras are however still legal, and still used in BC.

But in either case, when did this turn into a "burden of proof" type argument anyhow?

When you decided to tell me that your "proof" (of which you have none) is better than my logical arguments.


Photo Radar remains hated throughout the entire world, however no court in North America has ever ruled it unconstitutional, nor could they without ruling thousands of other types of evidence collection, used in thousands of other types of crimes unconstitutional as well.

[Mr. Flibble]

The only thing that makes it legally unconstitutional (which is not really correct as that is more of an American term, but I digress yet again) is the strict letter-of-the-law of Habeas Corpus. A

Because nobody in BC seems to know why they don't have photo radar, let me tell you a story...

In 1996 a fellow by the name of Doug Stead got a $100 photo radar ticket in BC. He chose to fight the ticket, over the next 5 years Mr Stead spent over $120,000 fighting this ticket. On the very same grounds that you are trying right now. he argued that it was unconstitutional, and a violation of habeas-corpus under the charter of rights and freedoms. The court didn't agree with him, in fact it went all the way to the British Columbia Court of Appeal who unanimously rejected Mr. Steads argument and ruled that Photo Radar was in fact fully legal, and constitutional. He then tried to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada, who refused to hear the case.
In 2002 Photo Radar became a political issue in a BC provincial election, the opposition promised to abolish it if they got in to power, they won the election, and in a rare case of politicians actually following their word, they abolished photo radar in the province of BC. Red light cameras are however still legal, and still used in BC.

But in either case, when did this turn into a "burden of proof" type argument anyhow?

When you decided to tell me that your "proof" (of which you have none) is better than my logical arguments.

Why didn't you say that up front? That is pretty cool. I will have to run it by my lawyery friends, it seems to make sense.

[Green1]

Why didn't you say that up front?

I did.

BC didn't pull the photo radar units because they were unconstitutional, they pulled them because they were politically unpopular.

[FalcoColumbarius]

If the politicians pulled photo radar because it is not popular ~ then why are we still paying taxes?

Doug Stead was prepared to take it to the Supreme Court Of Canada:

• "He spent five years and $100,000 fighting a $117 photo-radar ticket that he got in 1996. The legal battle ended up in the B.C. Court of Appeal. He attempted to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court of Canada, but when Gordon Campbell’s Liberals won the 2001 election and declared that they would end photo radar, Canada’s top court refused to hear Stead’s case."(BIV Daily Business News ~ Tuesday, 11 August 2009).

If you check this link you will hear a CBC interview with the VPD Superintendent John Lucie who explains how photo radar works (November, 1987).
http://archives.cbc.ca/clip.asp?IDLan=1 ... DCatPa=262

Mr. Flibble is right, photo radar removes an individual's right to habeas corpus. Doug Stead's primary argument was that it put the onus on the individual to prove his/her innocence, which is contrary to "The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms: 11(d) "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;.

Here's a question: Let's say I am in court arguing a speeding ticket that I got in my Delica. During that time my neighbours see two complete strangers on my patio; when one pulls out a knife and mortally wounds the other person, who dies in a pool of blood on my patio. The killer has disappeared without a trace. Are you following me? Now we have a dead body on my patio but no killer. Does that make me responsible for his death because the murder took place on my patio?

If an automated photo radar camera happens to catch your license plate allegedly exceeding the speed limit: Does that for certain make you accountable? What if your vehicle was stolen? Even if Constable John is in his cruiser with his large double-double, perusing the pages of Western Sportsman Hunting & Fishing magazine while he guards the expensive hardware from being stolen ~ is he making a note on every offending vehicle passing by or is it only the machine recording this data? Photo radar automatically assumes that you are the smoking gun.

As far as the stop light cameras go: I am in two minds:

• (1) The cameras (two) take the pictures if a motion sensor recognises a vehicle crossing the third line* when the light turns red. If the front wheels have cleared the third line or the vehicle is seen as turning right then the vehicle is presumed legal in it's actions. Fair enough.
  (2) By accepting the stop light cameras we are setting a precedent ~ that slippery slope...

Falco.

*The third line: one stop line and two pedestrian crossing lines.