Has anyone fought a ticket issues by Cary Camera?

Shouldn't you be able to face your accuser in court? Demand the camera shows up and explains iteself. :lol:

The only advice I have is that you ask your friend to pay the ticket/fine if it is not going to alter your insurance rates or license points.

 

I am a little surprised that my advice elicited such a sarcastic response. Some of your analogies are a far stretch. You seem to be a bit defensive about the subject, but you had to know that you would get many opposing views when you posted on 4042. By all means, fight the ticket, but I personally stand by my opinions about breaking rules. That's just who i am, a rule follower and consequence taker. If you're issue is with the system, join the class action law suit. I respect that.

 

The sarcasm wasn't directed at you personally I just don't totally agree w/the way the camera system works in this case. When an officer give you a ticket, you have the right to go to court to argue your case. For the exact same violation, if a camera is the accuser, they don't even bother to ticket the correct individual. I just can't understand why a private company, armed with cameras, has more authority than the police department.

I enjoy reading others thoughts on the matter ... even when they don't agree w/mine. I can't say my opinion on this subject has been changed "yet" ... but every now & then folks are able to provide enought reasoning to sway my opinion ... and I truly appreciate everyone's points of view.

 

This is totally un-researched and without any anecdotal evidence, but I believe you still have a sixth amendment right to face your accuser even in such a "minor" infraction (emphasis intentional...) as this.

I suspect that the letter you got from the friendly folks in Cary includes instruction and/or a court date for this so-called ticket. Show up, say a few words to the DA and I bet it'll be dismissed- although likely as not they'll hit you up for court costs regardless of the outcome.

All perfectly legal- and all perfectly WRONG, but such is the world we live in...

BOHICA

 

You: Your honor, other than a picture of my license plate when I was committing the traffic violation I contend that since I am unable to ask for proof this issue should be thrown out. While we are at it, I request that all survelliance cameras be disconnected as the constitution states we have a right to face our accuser. I also request that all speed radar be eliminated because there is no burden of proof. Etc. Etc. Etc.

See where we are going with this?

Now, ever heard of being responsible?

 

5th amendment

Where are we going with this? Do we now assume that individuals are guilty until proven innocent?

 

Give me a break, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

As she stands before them and they look at the footage, they will see it is not her.

Maybe http://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/ is a better place to ask this question, Melynda.

 

The ticket says I can
1) Mail a check to "Safelight Cary" or pay by credit card to www.photonotice.com

2) Identify another driver - but responsibility can only be transferred if the driver I identify accepts the responsibility. Vehicle owners are responsible for violations unless they can show that someone else was in the "care, custody or control" of the vehicle when the violation occurred. The owner must provide this information, including an affidavit, within 30 days of receiving notice of the citation.
I'm supposed to provide Name, Address, DL#, DL State & DOB of the actual driver. I am also instructed to have this paperwork signed by a notary of the state.

3) Right to a Hearing. If you choose to have the matter reviewed by the Town's Hearing Board, You Must Submit a $50 Bond Payment prior to scheduing a hearing. To schedule a hearing you must contact the Safelight Cary Photo viewing office and the photo viewing representative will schedule a date and time for you to appear. (Not really sure exactly what the Town's Hearing board is ... hopefully they are impartial ... but I doubt it)

The ticket appears to be signed by an individual identified as a "Cary Police Representative" who says "This violation was not committed in my presence" but that he had reviewed and inspected the video. There is no badge #, so I don't know if this representative is acually a police officer or not.

The wording of a similar ticket can be viewed HERE: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/Minutes/Senate/Exhibits/his65a04.pdf

 

Sure I am. I think it's a dumb arguement that she is being a bit childish about; and I have nothing better to do .

Any questions?

 

If this were the very first time this issue made it to the court I would bother with this, but since this is a topic that has been beaten into the ground and the court has stood up for the cameras it's basically a waste of time...............don't you think?

Hell, Newtons law is being used as a defence in Cary against these red light cameras.

 

Unfortunately, the footage doesn't show the driver at all.

Thanks for pointing me to the other board ... maybe I'll be able to find someone else who had faced a similar situation. I think I visited that site once a l-o-n-g time ago ... but I had forgotten that it even existed

 

I "snatch" a grape all the time in the grocery store before buying them to make sure they are ripe...just sayin:twisted:

 

:lol: Did you borrow a car b4 your grape snatching spree? :lol:

 

Nope, not me...I have a hard enough time figuring out the buttons in my car, much less a borrowed one!

 

I win!!!

Just FYI ... the case has been dropped. First I mailed in the "bond" and requested a hearing. This was done via certified mail so they couldn't claim they didn't get the payment or my desire for a hearing. Next I sent a notorized statement saying the person who received the citation was not driving the vehicle at the time and location designated in the citation and that we would like the case dismissed & the money returned. I just received a call from Cary Safelight/Red Flex Traffic saying that they will be returning my money within 4 weeks & the case has been dropped. Along w/my letter I also sent a copy of Sec. 34-303 of the Cary Code of ordinances (see below) so they could be reminded of what the law actually said ... rather than the misinformation they were spewing.

The following lie/misinformation is taken from Cary's website:
http://www.townofcary.org/Departments/Police_Department/Red_Light_Signal_Cameras.htm#Contesting Citations
Vehicle owners are responsible for violations unless they can show that someone else was in the "care, custody or control" of the vehicle when the violation occurred. The owner must provide this information, including an affidavit, within 30 days of receiving notice of the citation


I made numerous calls to let Safelight Cary know the wrong driver was cited ... and I was told repeatedly that it didn't matter. They said the law requires the owner of the car was responsible even if they weren't the drive. I'm sure they hate that the internet makes the law available for everyone to actually read so their lies can be uncovered. They probably wouldn't make as much money from the traffic tickets if they told the truth and quit trying to bully folks into believing they have to pay. I'm not fond of bully's or liars. In any case, I hope this info helps if you ever find yourself in the same situation.

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Excerpt from Cary Code of ordinances[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Sec. 34-303. Offense.
[/FONT][/FONT]

(a) It shall be unlawful for a vehicle to cross the stop line at a system location when the traffic
signal for that vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red light.
(b) The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible for a civil violation under this section, except
when said owner can provide evidence that the vehicle was in the care, custody, or control of another
person at the time of the violation, as described in subsection (c).
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the
violation if, within 30 calendar days after notification of the violation, said owner furnishes the officials
or agents of the town:
(1) An affidavit stating the name and address of the person or company who had the care,
custody, and control of the vehicle; or
(2) An affidavit stating that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen. The affidavits must be
supported with evidence that supports the affidavit, including insurance or police report
information.
(3) An affidavit stating that the person who received the citation is not the owner or driver of the
vehicle, or that the person who received the citation was not driving a vehicle at the time
and location designated in the citation.
(d) Subsection (b) shall not apply, and the registered owner of the vehicle shall not be
responsible for the violation, if notice of the violation is given to the registered owner of the vehicle
more than 90 days after the date of the violation.
(Code 1982, § 12-243; Ord. No. 02-004, § 1, 2-14-2002; Ord. No. 04-002, § 2, 3-11-2004; Ord. No.​

2011-Code-01, 2-10-2011)

 

Good for you!! I was wondering what ever happened in your case. Glad to hear it ended up in your favor.

 

Great detective work on your part! Glad things went your way.

Glad also to know that I can run as many red lights as I want, since our cars are in DH's name! :jester: Seriously, I am kidding...I never run red lights, but one could interpret it that way. I am thinking of teen drivers who most likely do not own the car they are driving, if I read that correctly.

 

Any government who uses traffic cameras or any other type of constant surveillance against average citizens (i.e. not specifically targeting known felony suspects) is not deserving of any respect by freedom loving people.

Here are some great videos of other people who seem to share my sentiments:

Exploded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z71n_kD-LUE&feature=fvwrel

Set on fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dq_uCsTiKE

Hooked to a train
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgesAK5H3iU&feature=related