I think a moving violation is the act of violating a traffic law while in motion? But whatever the case, I think there’s always grounds for a defense in never having been served the citation, ticket, civil penalty, fraudulent enforcement, crock of ish...or whatever you want to call them. Not to mention I’m living proof that there’s no penalty for ignoring them.
Red light traffic cam
- Thread starter EightySix
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I think a moving violation is the act of violating a traffic law while in motion? But whatever the case, I think there’s always grounds for a defense in never having been served the citation, ticket, civil penalty, fraudulent enforcement, crock of ish...or whatever you want to call them. Not to mention I’m living proof that there’s no penalty for ignoring them.
Call it a moving violation, a citation, a traffic ticket, or whatever else tickles your prostrate. The people who give them out call it a notice of violation resulting in a civil penalty. And you aren't served with it. You get it in the mail. If you think it's a defence to say you didn't get it, the ordinance in Baton Rouge disagrees with you. "e.A notice of violation under this article is presumed to have been received on the fifth calendar day inclusive of weekends and legal holidays after the date the notice of violation is mailed." And it's a pointless defense. You can't contest the thing with "I didn't get it" because you wouldn't know to contest it if you never got it. You'll throw up that defense when you see a boot on the car or when you see the car in the impound lot. Nobody will care at that time. You'll have to pay to get your car back and then fight it later. If you want to ignore them, go right ahead. There are possible consequences that may or may not come about.
It’s prostate...
Prostrate is a lying position
You are so certain that everyone thinks like you do that you missed the point entirely but ok. I’ll entertain this. ‘You wouldn’t know to contest it if you never got it’ as you put it: of course you wouldn’t. And you better remember that... pretty sure I don’t have to tell anybody that tho.
In your scenario, you assume that if fate did indeed catch up to a person who (pay attention from here forward) unwittingly has their photo taken while driving down the road, was sent notice but never received notice for whatever reason was indeed not served, as in did not receive service of any notice of any penalty from any enforcement entity.... even if that person did receive it, there’s no proof... so why would the person admit to even knowing about it up front? (Unless they think like you) Not trying to insult you but you kinda lost us there. The problem with your theory is you’ve assumed that person would immediately assume that the photo ticket has caught up to them and jumped the gun, so to speak.
I’m thinking there’s a very good defense here. Neither of us are attorneys tho are we.
So, if my car was booted and none of the keys I have worked, I don’t think I’d have to play dumb until someone told me that it was for some previous violation, then I’m pretty sure I could just shake my head and play dumb with the best of them. Are you saying that an attorney could not find a reasonable defense in saying that you were never made aware of the photo ticket?
As for me, like I said, I was informed, made my own decision to ignore what I received in the mail and here we are some years later and still nothing. Maybe you can tell us the statute of limitations on these penaltyticketcitations..
Last edited:
Gator 45/70
Well-Known Member
Something called officers discretion....Yalll may not be allowed to think for yalls selves over on the east side of the river,
Over here,It became a common goal to not pay these non-entities...By any means necessary....The cops hated these cameras.
No, I am not an attorney. So I am not speaking from the experience of an attorney. I am, however, speaking from the experience of someone who has watch your hypothetical situation play out in real time. I have watched people tell the guy at the impound lot the notice was never received. I have watched the guy at the impound lot explain to the person the options are to leave the car there building up a per day storage fee while the person wants to fight the thing or they can pay the fine and get their car out of the impound lot. Provision for the person not receiving the notice are not built into either option.
So let's say you decide to keep the car there while you fight the notice under the guise of never having received the notice. It doesn't matter that you never received the notice. You not receiving the notice does not change the circumstances that generated the notice. So it doesn't matter if someone didn't receive the notice or if someone is pretending they didn't receive the notice. The end result is the same.
I'm saying that an attorney could not find a reasonable defense in saying that you were never made aware of the photo ticket because the events that took place that resulted in the photo ticket do not depend on the receipt of the photo ticket. The fine is not because you got the notice. The fine is because of the events that resulted in the photo ticket.
tl;dr
city-"Here is the evidence you violated a traffic law."
you-"I never received the notice."
city-"That doesn't change the evidence."
Last edited:
So your contention is that because the troopers at Troop I don't like the traffic cameras, they will disregard the traffic law that requires a license plate to be visible?
I am slightly confused at these answers?!? There are Sheriff's, D.A.'s, Police Spokesmen, and even news segments; that have stated on record (in so many words); if you feel as if you are not in a safe intersection (particularly late at night), and it is clear and safe to proceed, you should not feel obligated to stay there for the light to turn. Now perhaps this was signaled and imparted to women as an unwritten directive, but I do remember it.
The inanimate camera does not take a danger factor into consideration.
What about not stopping on the side of the road in sparsely populated areas if you are being pulled over, and just slowly proceeding on to a highly populated, highly lit area where you feel more safe? I've heard a variation of that at least a dozen times from the "athorities" on the subject.
I would not want my wife to stop at an intersection she felt unsafe at at 12:20 in the morning.
Last edited:
I stopped complaining about getting tickets a long time ago. It started for me right after I stopped earning them!
Truth be told, I ain't stopping anywhere near where this shitbag lived:
Last edited:
Gator 45/70
Well-Known Member
Well,They are not alone,Wife was jumping the curb in the Jeep at the old K-mart parking lot to get on I think Plank road?
LPD stopped her,LEO asked her about the tag cover,She explained that I had put that on there to combat the traffic cameras.
Hes like hang on,Called another LPD to come have a look-see.
Both got behind the Jeep....Kinda grinning to each other and talking,
The one that stopped her approached the Jeep and warned her to stop jumping curves or what ever its call since she was putting a lil mud on the road.
No tickets were issued and No S**ts given about the plate cover....
I love it when LEO's can think for themselves !
Was the plate visible? If it was, it is not an example of the police disregarding the traffic law that requires a license plate to be visible.
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
People can turn right on red at an intersection with a camera without getting anything in the mail. The key is they must come to a stop first. No California stops. So some systems or some cameras ignore movement into the intersection if the thing comes to a stop before entering the intersection.
Unless there is a person in the road at the time you get to the intersection with a red light, stop for the red light. Any person in the road should show up in the pictures. If you access the situation after stopping and determine it to be unsafe, that's a different story. I actually talked about this action in an earlier post when I discussed the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. But if you go in and say "I made no attempt to comply with the law because things I can't show you were in the area creating the possibility there could be an issue," you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work.
The electronic enforcement system would need to be pretty complex to make a determination regarding stopping on the side of the road in sparsely populated areas.
- - - Updated - - -
I noticed that on page 3.
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
Nope wasn't confused there. May have been confusing to others but it all made sense to me.
Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
But for real which is it. Looks like the statute you quoted doesn't allow for anything that obscures the tag.
Gator 45/70
Well-Known Member
The plate is always visible from strait on as I stated earlier in this thread,The LSP conclusion is and was due to the fact they can read the plate while directly behind the vehicle.
Wait, leave my car where? What?
I said I could play dumb, didn’t say I was dumb. If I was so unfortunate to haven’t car towed for whatever reason of course I’d do what I needed to do to retrieve my car ASAP. I’d worry with any other concerns in court. So far, I’m still thumbing my nose at the few warnings I received. I got the exact response, if not a lesser one, that I was told I would.
Like I said, actually almost 5 years since the first one (I looked in my records) and just before Christmas of 2015 was the second of the two Photo Enforcement tickets that I decided to ignore and still nothing. Nada. I’ve never gotten a red light camera ticket because I’ve never run a red light, but I’m assuming they are handled in the same manner as the speed camera tickets.
A number of police share the same mentality. Some of the covers obscure the plate from any position other than directly behind the vehicle. Those are questionable.
When I posed my question, I may have merged some posts in my head. I thought you were saying Troop I was ok with putting the plate behind a tinted window. But that was someone else who said that.
57 replies later and no one has told you to contact an attorney. I think that'd be a good start. Everything else is people's opinions.
If it's a cheap, $25 ticket, just pay it. It's not even worth arguing over with anyone. If it's the $117 or whatever that was mentioned above...you be the judge of what you want to do with it. It's likely that nothing will ever come of it, but also possible that something could. All the game of risk.
If it's a cheap, $25 ticket, just pay it. It's not even worth arguing over with anyone. If it's the $117 or whatever that was mentioned above...you be the judge of what you want to do with it. It's likely that nothing will ever come of it, but also possible that something could. All the game of risk.
In New Orleans, the cars are towed. In Baton Rouge, the ordinance calls for booting. The same would generally hold true for the boot. They have no incentive to hold an administrative hearing on the side of the road if your car has been booted. I don't know what Hammond does and I'm too tired to look it up.
I'm not saying someone should pay it or not pay it. I'm saying someone should explain all the pros and cons if they are going to suggest ignoring the notice.
Personally, I detest the system as it is currently being run. It is being used as a tool to make money and any safety that results is a good side effect. If they wanted to make the system about safety, reduce the penalties. A $20-30 fee is enough to get the attention of someone who just wasn't paying attention. And that will quickly add up for the repeat offenders.
Members online
- SurplusLover56
- Micahbarcelona
- cruton
- dwhaley929
- Tboy
- outlaw
- puritanize
- topgunz1
- Gust
- Tacobellgrande
- 700Camo
- WilsonCombatant
- jpso211
- silver_snipe
- Xeon64
- Company Man
- JR1572
- Loudog
- AndyG
- nomadicdread
- buzzworm
- OtterBob
- Fordfella
- southerner985
- CaymanSchaefer
- navops
- T-boy
- kz45
- eman2k5
- cjt0311
- Lbanks
- Specularius
- SauragePPD-31
- Denisbl0
- Dredd8
- cyclone1970
- michaelbitt
- shotgunjim
- Jiggy205
- BIGBORE44
- chips
- Bigbrigg
- Generalludd
- bkeaver
- jerme
- tekkaman_tnt
- pangris1
- Ranslem9849
- DBMJR1
- paddle007
