Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Les said:
Are you sure that no one stated or implied that somehow there is some connection between the presence or absence of a LEO and the intent of the tickets to generate revenue vs increase safety?
That's all I was trying to say, that such assertions don't make sense to me.
I got that assertion from the fact that you stated:
That was essentially what I had issue with.
As stated, the judge ruled that the absence of an LOE observing the infraction means they are revenuing bearing AND (therefore) illegal.
I took issue with that.
I'm not trying to word trap you.
If a moving violation lawfully requires a LOE to visually observe (based on current laws) and these infractions WERE moving violations ticked by camera are deemed moving violations THEN the judge ruled well. That still doesn't change the fact that I think the laws should be changed to allow technology, not just LOE to observe.
If, however, the judge ruled as he did and these were "code violations" that don't require LOE observation then I don't understand the basis for the judges ruling. Maybe he should be ruling that they are illegal because they SHOULD be moving violations, and therefore the infractions are not so much illegal, but void due to misclassification.
TJR
Tom, no one said it did.
Are you sure that no one stated or implied that somehow there is some connection between the presence or absence of a LEO and the intent of the tickets to generate revenue vs increase safety?
That's all I was trying to say, that such assertions don't make sense to me.
I got that assertion from the fact that you stated:
The judge indicated that since the cities are not requiring law enforcement to visually see the infraction, they are revenue bearing and are illegal.
That was essentially what I had issue with.
As stated, the judge ruled that the absence of an LOE observing the infraction means they are revenuing bearing AND (therefore) illegal.
I took issue with that.
I'm not trying to word trap you.
If a moving violation lawfully requires a LOE to visually observe (based on current laws) and these infractions WERE moving violations ticked by camera are deemed moving violations THEN the judge ruled well. That still doesn't change the fact that I think the laws should be changed to allow technology, not just LOE to observe.
If, however, the judge ruled as he did and these were "code violations" that don't require LOE observation then I don't understand the basis for the judges ruling. Maybe he should be ruling that they are illegal because they SHOULD be moving violations, and therefore the infractions are not so much illegal, but void due to misclassification.
TJR