Driving is not a
right it is a privilege. In order to
enjoy the privilege, you have to get a license, register a car, have it
inspected, insure it, and lastly obey the laws of the state of Texas. I am reminded of a saying by Abraham Lincoln
when dealing with people that say their Constitutional Rights are being
violated. He says “if a goat has 4 legs
and a tail. And if we call the tail a
leg, then how many legs does a goat have.
Ans: 4, just because you call a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.” The same is true with the Constitution. Just because you say your rights are being
violated doesn’t make it so. We have
judges well versed in the Constitution, and it is important that you respect
their ability to judge.
Article IV
The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Privacy: The
Supreme Court describes driving as “a regulated activity on public roads where
there is no personal expectation of privacy.”
7th circuit Idris, “nobody has the
fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a
public street.” “The fact that liability
through the use of photographs taken by Automated cameras rather than tickets
from absent police officers does not alter the constitutionality of the
procedure available to alleged red light violators.”
Guilt: 7th
Circuit Idris “ an owner cannot deny liability simply by claiming he or she was
not driving the car at the time of the red light violation.” “Issuing a
citation to a vehicle owner (or Lessees) instead of the driver is
constitutionally permissible.” “A system of photographic evidence reduces
the cost of law enforcement and increases the proportion of all traffic
offenses that are detected. These
benefits can be achieved only if the owner is held responsible.” “Owners will take more care in lending their
cars and often can pass the expense on to the wrongdoers.” Judge Easterbrook uses an example of you
going to a tax lawyer and him making a mistake on your taxes. The IRS still comes to you because you are
responsible to pay the proper tax. He also
uses the case of Van Harken vs. Chicago, stating that parking tickets are made
out to the registered owner not the driver.
I use the example of a Toll bill that arrives in the mail. It was my car license that was witnessed
using the road, therefore it is my responsibility and I can seek retribution from
the person that used the road with my car.
5th Circuit; (Arlington) “The governing body of a local
authority by ordinance may implement a photographic traffic signal enforcement
system and provide that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable to the local
authority for a civil penalty if the vehicle is operated in violation of the
instructions of that traffic control signal.”
Appellants have not alleged that they were improperly cited for traffic
violations by the City of Arlington instead they have claimed their violations
would not have been discovered were it not for ATS. This interest in evading the law cannot
create standing. A Plaintiff’s complaint
that the defendant’s actions “will make his criminal activity more difficult
lacks standing because his interest is not legally protected.
6th circuit “it is clear that the
type of evidence the hearing officer may consider when determining liability
concerns whether a violation was in the owner’s car, not whether the owner was
the person who committed the violation.
Thus an owner may be held liable for someone else’s actions.
Article V
No person shall be held
to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
First let me state the instead of “Himself” it should read “Themselves”. I state no authority in changing the
Constitution, but women were granted the right to vote in 1893 well after the
Constitution was written. Also notice
the word “Criminal Case.” A red light
ticket has been determined to be a civil offense by the state. If you were testifying against yourself you
would be stating that you ran the red light.
In this instance you are testifying for yourself stating that you didn’t
run the red light, Big Difference! The
reason for not testifying yourself in a CRIMINAL trial is so that a lawyer
doesn’t get you on the stand and let you talk yourself into a jail cell. But you do have the right to testify on your
own behalf if you feel compelled to do so.
I will discuss due process in Article 14. But I want to talk about the “taking of
Private Property without just compensation,” in this case $75.
The 6th circuit states rules that, “The citation informed
Plaintiffs of 4 methods to resolve the issue.
1. “to admit” the violation of
which involved paying the fine. 2. The
instructions “to deny” permitted them to check a box to indicate whether they
desired a hearing, 3. wanted to demonstrate that the vehicle had been stolen or
4. wanted to demonstrate that the vehicle was not in their custody, care or control
at the time of the infraction. (Under
their control would require producing the individual that was in control of the
vehicle.) In other words they had plenty
of options that they did not pursue. So
the government was proper in taking their $75.
Supreme also ruled that the taking of property
is just when it is used in a manner that is unlawful. A car can be confiscated if used in a crime
like a robbery or the sale of drugs. It
can be confiscated without any compensation.
Article VI
In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have
been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses
in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Confronted by his accuser: State Transportation Code 707.014 a) A person who receives a notice of violation
may contest the imposition of the civil penalty…by filing a written request for
an adjudication hearing. b) The local authority shall notify the person
of the date and time of the hearing. c)
A hearing officer shall conduct the hearing. d) Issues must be proven by a preponderance of
evidence. e) The reliability of the photographic system
must be attested to by the officer. f) The officer must fill out an affidavit
attesting to the violation being based on the photographic recorded image: 1)
admissible in the adjudication hearing and in an appeal 707.016. 2)
Evidence of the facts contained in the affidavit. g) At
the conclusion of the hearing the officer must issue a finding in writing of
liability/no liability, signed and dated.
h) the finding will be filed.
State Transportation Code 707.016 a) The owner of a motor vehicle determined by a
hearing officer to be liable for a civil penalty may appeal the determination
to a judge filing an appeal petition with the clerk of the court… e) An appeal under this section shall be
determined by the court by trial de novo. (new trial)
I will discuss Article VII and XIV in the next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment.