Nope. You're wrong. If someone rents my house and murders someone in it by drowning someone in the bathtub, I am not liable unless I had a reasonable expectation that the house was procured for the purpose of murder.
If traffic cameras, are in fact, used as evidence for a civil case, then the aggrieved party much show damages as well as having standing. Without damages, there is no civil case.
As far as following the law -- I completely agree; let's start with the biggest law there is -- the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all else, not the least some financially challenged municipality looking for a revenue source using legal gymnastics to prosecute a "civil violation of a criminal law.." whatever the hell that means.
The other aspect of your comment: "you know they were speeding".. that isn't his problem. It's up to the state to prove that a crime was committed by a person charged. The city only has evidence that "a specific car was speeding." That's like saying a specific gun was used to commit a murder.. however that doesn't mean there is evidence that the owner committed the crime.. it doesn't even rise to the level of probable cause without other corroborating evidence.
Did the police actually investigate the speeding? Did they ask the owner who could have been the one driving the car? Was there an investigation at all? No. The police never charged, nor interrogated the owner of the car, nor did they consult with witnesses. The city failed to prove any case. The police officer even admitted to perjury. To be fair, I suspect the cop finds this whole exercise ridiculous as well -- he understands that he is being used as a revenue agent of the city rather than someone to protect people and property from harm.
The whole thing is a Kafkesque farce and I actually appreciate the taxpayer money that this law professor 'wasted' -- if everyone did this, the costs of maintaining an unjust system would outweigh the benefits.
If traffic cameras, are in fact, used as evidence for a civil case, then the aggrieved party much show damages as well as having standing. Without damages, there is no civil case.
As far as following the law -- I completely agree; let's start with the biggest law there is -- the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all else, not the least some financially challenged municipality looking for a revenue source using legal gymnastics to prosecute a "civil violation of a criminal law.." whatever the hell that means.
The other aspect of your comment: "you know they were speeding".. that isn't his problem. It's up to the state to prove that a crime was committed by a person charged. The city only has evidence that "a specific car was speeding." That's like saying a specific gun was used to commit a murder.. however that doesn't mean there is evidence that the owner committed the crime.. it doesn't even rise to the level of probable cause without other corroborating evidence.
Did the police actually investigate the speeding? Did they ask the owner who could have been the one driving the car? Was there an investigation at all? No. The police never charged, nor interrogated the owner of the car, nor did they consult with witnesses. The city failed to prove any case. The police officer even admitted to perjury. To be fair, I suspect the cop finds this whole exercise ridiculous as well -- he understands that he is being used as a revenue agent of the city rather than someone to protect people and property from harm.
The whole thing is a Kafkesque farce and I actually appreciate the taxpayer money that this law professor 'wasted' -- if everyone did this, the costs of maintaining an unjust system would outweigh the benefits.