Fireflies aren’t flies at all. They’re actually beetles. Most of us know that peanuts are really legumes, not nuts. Did you know that lead pencils don’t contain any lead? They’re made of graphite, which is safe to handle and write with. The point is that many things are not what they appear to be. Never has this been truer than in the case of camera tickets.
If you receive a notice in the mail informing you that you (or someone driving your vehicle) have been caught on camera committing a traffic infraction, it may seem like you have no option. Pay the fine, or you won’t be able to renew your vehicle’s registration. But is that true?
Defendants can challenge the state’s “evidence” by focusing on four critical legal concepts: chain of custody, calibration, a competent witness, and due process.
Let’s look at each of those elements:
Automated traffic enforcement systems—like red‑light cameras, speed cameras, and school bus “stop paddle” enforcement cameras—generate what they call evidence, but the process doesn’t include a human witness.
Without a witness to testify against you, there’s no expert with firsthand knowledge who can verify that the chain of custody standards have been met and that the equipment has been properly calibrated. What does that mean? It means the material they wish to refer to as “evidence” is not truly evidence because it isn’t admissible. Only material that is admissible can be considered evidence.
Despite all of this, courts accept the photo or video “evidence” at face value… unless the accused vehicle owner knows how to argue these facts and state their objections properly.
As stated above, the pivotal element of due process will be discussed in the next installment.