a 1400% increase, that’s huge. I drive through about 5 of these cameras twice a day and here’s how it works. People speed and then they slam on the brakes when they get to the light and then they speed again. It’s not about safety, its about money. I was surprised to see how that money is divied up, apparently the state is pretty heavily involved in municipal speeding fines. So crooked. This comment was posted on a related page and I think its excellent: Posted by RGermann at 12:45 p.m. Mar. 18, 2013 Report Abuse

The enumerated reasons the Dayton Daily News lists here fails to get to the heart of why these cameras are and should be illegal.

Merely taking a photo of a vehicle owned by a particular individual does not prove guilt. It could have been a spouse, child, parent, or for that matter, anyone.. driving the vehicle. If this were a criminal case, such a tactic would not work, as there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of doubt the person who owns the vehicle is the guilty party unless they themselves are in the photo. The very 1st step of any criminal case, even traffic court, is that the person charged is identified by the accuser (usually a police officer).

(“6th Amendment – 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 defence.”)

But all this is mute, because to circumvent the abuses of civil liberties, the cases are tried in the civil arena, where the burden of proof is much less and one’s rights to be faced with an accuser are not spelled out by the Constitution. It’s not even important whether the accused was driving the car at the point of the offense, merely that they owned the car at the point of said offense. A private company sets up cameras, monitors them, sends it’s victims bills, sends a portion of the payments (commissions, essentially) made by such citizens to the localities, such as Dayton, that let it set up cameras.

The problem is when the city wants to use it’s police force to enforce the payment of these bills by impounding vehicles, etc. because now, we are again violating the 5th Amendment when it comes to being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The dispute over payments between Redflex and me is a civil matter, such that I may be sued by Redflex, not have my car towed away by the City of Dayton as if I was guilty of a crime. The city of Dayton hasn’t offered me the due process of law to be authorized to punish me. If Redflex want’s to file a lien on my house or my car with the court after establishing debt, so be it, but the current “system” is, as far as I’m concerned, blurring the lines between criminal and civil law. If I am guilty of a crime, then charge me, and let the system play it out in the criminal arena. Do not skirt around my legal rights by charging me in the civil arena, where the burden of proof is much less, and them mete out punishment or deprive me of property as if I was found guilty in a court of law.

It would be no different than me setting a camera up at the stop sign at the corner of my property and taking a photo of every car who passes without coming to a complete stop.. I then send them a bill for $100.00 as if I was the City of Dayton. If they pay, I send the City of Dayton their “cut.” If they don’t pay, I sue. If they still don’t pay, I call and have the police deprive them of their car.. until they pay.. then the city gets their “cut.” – Wow, talk about a system ripe for abuse.