Actually, some states (such as mine) do not allow these red light camera's for the very reason that 1) no officer actually witnessed the infraction, 2) the camera does not show who is actually driving the vehicle and 3) in our state at least, they are not allowed to issue traffic citations through the mail.
If your state allows these type cameras, it is just a money making gimmick. But, the probably rationalize it by the fact that the cameras used are 'official police' camera. YOU could take a picture with your Nikon, and no citations would be issues.
In some states you can, and I disagree with it. In the state in which I live, you can neither get a ticket based on a photo nor get a ticket through the mail.
Incontrovertible proof is always allowed. Victim's blood on a speeders hood is always proof (and you won't get just a minor citation, either).
But, going back to the original case: A law enforcement officer may not issue a traffic citation for a violation that he did not witness. Another officer witnessing does not suffice. And while some states may argue that an official law enforcement camera (i.e. red light camera) is considered 'witnessing a violation', a typical 'Joe Blow' taking a picture with his handy Moterola will not result in a traffic citation. In a felony case, though, images can be used as evidence, I believe (service station video, for example).
Simply stated. A law enforcement officer must observe a violation to be able to issue a citation.
LBMHBF can't seem to grasp this. Just as she can't seem to grasp anything resembling reality.
Yol Bolsum, Grendel.
"Timing has everything to do with the success of a raindance."
