[ QUOTE ]
1) it makes unfair assumptions as to who the actual driver of the vehicle is at the time of the violation. Essentially, the burden is shifted to the owner to prove that they were not the driver. This is, in my opinion, an inappropriate burden-shifting. The state should have to prove All elements of the crime/offense (in particular that the defendant actually committed the crime)
[/ QUOTE ]
You have some quaint notions.
Burden of proof?
[ QUOTE ]
Although the Red Bank City Court accepted proof that she was at work at the time listed on the photograph, Judge Gary Disheroon nevertheless ordered her to pay $50 for the violation she did not commit and another $100 for challenging the ticket in court.
[/ QUOTE ]
Got to love the additional penalty for exercising her right to due process.
Next you are going to want to cross examine the witness against you. That would mean reading the source code to look for bugs that could impeach the camera's credibility. Unfortunately, the source code is a
trade secret.
(In 1986 I worked on the software for a breathalyser like the one in the last link. I was not then qualified to write the software, and what I wrote was doubtless full of bugs. The company's skill was getting judges / politicians to mandate the use of their product, accuracy was irrelevant.)