there was a short report stating that the speeding cameras are unconstitutional and are mearly a tax on speeders. they also stated that they should have had this issue voted upon before putting it into full effect. i tried to look for the entire story on thier website but i failed. bottom line, its under investigation by the supreme court. if you caught the news tonight, chime in as it caught my eye at the last minute.
anyone else watch the news tonight on abc 15..?
foundubbedriver
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Joined
·
11,786 Posts
there was a short report stating that the speeding cameras are unconstitutional and are mearly a tax on speeders. they also stated that they should have had this issue voted upon before putting it into full effect. i tried to look for the entire story on thier website but i failed. bottom line, its under investigation by the supreme court. if you caught the news tonight, chime in as it caught my eye at the last minute.
Re: anyone else watch the news tonight on abc 15..? (foundubbedriver)
i am glad the removed the ones on the east side of the 101. been up and down there a few times in the last few days and was happy to not see any cameras. but i still kept it under 70mph.
sounds to me like they need to make more jobs for cops instead of putting up the cameras.
i am glad the removed the ones on the east side of the 101. been up and down there a few times in the last few days and was happy to not see any cameras. but i still kept it under 70mph.
sounds to me like they need to make more jobs for cops instead of putting up the cameras.
Joined
·
11,786 Posts
Re: anyone else watch the news tonight on abc 15..? (VR6 NRG)
they removed the cameras in scottsdale on the 101 because the company that controls the notification/fines wanted a ridiculous 70/30 split of the profits. scottsdale wasn't having that.
cameras also don't catch murderers, rapists, child abductors, etc..
they removed the cameras in scottsdale on the 101 because the company that controls the notification/fines wanted a ridiculous 70/30 split of the profits. scottsdale wasn't having that.
cameras also don't catch murderers, rapists, child abductors, etc..
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
Re: anyone else watch the news tonight on abc 15..? (foundubbedriver)
Unless the suspect abducted a child, raped someone, killed them, and than drove really fast!
| Quote, originally posted by foundubbedriver » |
| they removed the cameras in scottsdale on the 101 because the company that controls the notification/fines wanted a ridiculous 70/30 split of the profits. scottsdale wasn't having that. cameras also don't catch murderers, rapists, child abductors, etc.. |
We talked about it in a business law class I had last year. The teacher said that it was unconstitutional because if it is a criminal ticket, you have the right to question your plaintiff. She said the ultimate test would be to get caught criminal speeding, with a can of beer in your hand, and see if they tried to get you for a DUI. But they couldn't because there is no way to prove you were drunk, or that their was alcohol in the can at the time.
Re: (kxpedder7)
i saw the news report. basically they were saying that it is a tax on speeding, and in order for them to have used all the money to put the cameras up - it should have been brought to the floor of the legislature and voted on. because it wasn't, it is therefore unconstitutional. any measure (including those pesky speed cameras) whose purpose is to tax or gain revenue has to be voted on. period.
edit: they didn't say the speedcameras were unconstitutional, just the way in which they are being used (if they vote that its a way to tax people, then they will stay).
this state is wackadoo.
what about invasion of privacy? can't wait til someone sues the state because of this.
Modified by dublenz at 5:54 AM 11-26-2008
i saw the news report. basically they were saying that it is a tax on speeding, and in order for them to have used all the money to put the cameras up - it should have been brought to the floor of the legislature and voted on. because it wasn't, it is therefore unconstitutional. any measure (including those pesky speed cameras) whose purpose is to tax or gain revenue has to be voted on. period.
edit: they didn't say the speedcameras were unconstitutional, just the way in which they are being used (if they vote that its a way to tax people, then they will stay).
this state is wackadoo.
what about invasion of privacy? can't wait til someone sues the state because of this.
Modified by dublenz at 5:54 AM 11-26-2008
Joined
·
16,807 Posts
Re: (Spd33)
this is funny, talking to someone this morning I asked the same thing (though ignorant on the subject) "shouldn't these have been voted on?". Though a vote could have occurred and I would have no clue.
I also said that the rebelious side of me wants to form a rebel group that spray paints or destroys the camera's for the good of the people.....then the logical side of me says "is it really that hard to just drive the speed limit? or within 5 MPH of it?" I will survive if they stay but will feel a bit of joy if they do have to tear them down http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and though I wouldn't be affected by it, that would be sweet if they had to pay people back for the tickets
![Image]()
![Image]()
this is funny, talking to someone this morning I asked the same thing (though ignorant on the subject) "shouldn't these have been voted on?". Though a vote could have occurred and I would have no clue.
I also said that the rebelious side of me wants to form a rebel group that spray paints or destroys the camera's for the good of the people.....then the logical side of me says "is it really that hard to just drive the speed limit? or within 5 MPH of it?" I will survive if they stay but will feel a bit of joy if they do have to tear them down http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and though I wouldn't be affected by it, that would be sweet if they had to pay people back for the tickets
Joined
·
3,347 Posts
Re: (BlckBadged_SwissChee)
I know a few people that have received photo tickets in the mail and contested that it was not them driving. Every time it comes back to them stating. Dismissed with prejudice. One of the guys I work with has done it at least 3 times.
I know a few people that have received photo tickets in the mail and contested that it was not them driving. Every time it comes back to them stating. Dismissed with prejudice. One of the guys I work with has done it at least 3 times.
Joined
·
4,696 Posts
Re: (IAmTheNacho)
I got tagged by one getting on the 10 heading east around the airport. What is BS is that they put it like 150 feet away from the on ramp, so if you are accelerating to get passed cars and into the fast lane you have no time to slow down before getting popped.
I got tagged by one getting on the 10 heading east around the airport. What is BS is that they put it like 150 feet away from the on ramp, so if you are accelerating to get passed cars and into the fast lane you have no time to slow down before getting popped.
Re: (muttonchops)
a couple of interviewed legislators said that if it were brought to a vote, there would have been a NO vote. why... there wasn't money to spend on these expensive cameras.
on a sad note, I learned yesterday that the state gov't sponsored scholarships for early graduates is no longer being funded.
![Image]()
a couple of interviewed legislators said that if it were brought to a vote, there would have been a NO vote. why... there wasn't money to spend on these expensive cameras.
on a sad note, I learned yesterday that the state gov't sponsored scholarships for early graduates is no longer being funded.
Joined
·
3,347 Posts
Re: (dublenz)
Way to go state of arizona http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif
Way to go state of arizona http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif
Re: (IAmTheNacho)
Just to play devil's advocate, I don't really mind the speed cameras (the stationary ones). IMO there is NO EXCUSE to get a speeding ticket by one because they're always in the same place. The morons that keep getting nailed by them can keep paying for improvements of my city/state as far I'm concerned. I speed almost everywhere and the only time I've been nailed is when I first moved back here and didn't know of the one on the 101/Scottsdale (now gone).
![Image]()
Just to play devil's advocate, I don't really mind the speed cameras (the stationary ones). IMO there is NO EXCUSE to get a speeding ticket by one because they're always in the same place. The morons that keep getting nailed by them can keep paying for improvements of my city/state as far I'm concerned. I speed almost everywhere and the only time I've been nailed is when I first moved back here and didn't know of the one on the 101/Scottsdale (now gone).
Re: (boraIV)
Good, get those ****ing things off the freeways, I'd rather go with the flow of the traffic then watch idiots slam on their brakes. Let the highway patrol do their job. This was always about the money, not safety. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif
Good, get those ****ing things off the freeways, I'd rather go with the flow of the traffic then watch idiots slam on their brakes. Let the highway patrol do their job. This was always about the money, not safety. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif
Re: (VR6inAZ)
Arizona Treasurer Calls Speed Cameras Unconstitutional
Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin wants a court challenge to the statewide speed camera program.
Another top elected official in Arizona has spoken out against photo radar in response to increasingly vocal resistance from the driving public. State Treasurer Dean Martin (R) on Monday wrote to the state's solicitor general instructing her to side with the League of Cities and Towns -- and against himself -- in a lawsuit brought against the state budget. As custodian of the state's monies, Martin is a defendant in the suit which argues that several of the revenue-raising provisions in the $9.9 billion budget adopted in June were unconstitutional.
"The governor and legislature cannot raise taxes or 'log-roll' provisions into the budget that violate the constitution," Martin explained in a statement. "These laws are unconstitutional since they did not receive the 2/3 majority vote of the legislature which is required to raise taxes."
At the direction of Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the budget included an amendment creating a $165 "civil penalty" that would apply to tickets issued by up to 200 speed cameras deployed on freeways throughout the state. The program was designed to generate $165 million in annual revenue and help bring the state's books into balance. Martin singled out this provision, which was adopted without debate in the legislature, as "a tax increase without a 2/3 vote" (view text of photo radar law). Article 9, Section 22 of the state constitution requires a super-majority vote on legislation that creates a net increase in state revenue from "any new state fee or assessment" or tax.
Napolitano has wasted no time in getting her photo radar plan operational. She ordered the first 42 mobile ticketing units stationed every twenty miles on Interstates 10 and 40 over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. This means that an out-of-state family, unaware of the new program, could be hit with a total of twenty tickets while traveling with the flow of traffic between California and New Mexico. With court fees, the total cost of the citations would $3700.
A copy of the letter to the Arizona Solicitor General is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Letter to Mary OGrady (Treasurer, State of Arizona, 11/24/2008)
Great article too:
http://www.clarksvilleonline.c...ssary/
![Image]()
Modified by dublenz at 10:18 AM 11-26-2008
Arizona Treasurer Calls Speed Cameras Unconstitutional
Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin wants a court challenge to the statewide speed camera program.
Another top elected official in Arizona has spoken out against photo radar in response to increasingly vocal resistance from the driving public. State Treasurer Dean Martin (R) on Monday wrote to the state's solicitor general instructing her to side with the League of Cities and Towns -- and against himself -- in a lawsuit brought against the state budget. As custodian of the state's monies, Martin is a defendant in the suit which argues that several of the revenue-raising provisions in the $9.9 billion budget adopted in June were unconstitutional.
"The governor and legislature cannot raise taxes or 'log-roll' provisions into the budget that violate the constitution," Martin explained in a statement. "These laws are unconstitutional since they did not receive the 2/3 majority vote of the legislature which is required to raise taxes."
At the direction of Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the budget included an amendment creating a $165 "civil penalty" that would apply to tickets issued by up to 200 speed cameras deployed on freeways throughout the state. The program was designed to generate $165 million in annual revenue and help bring the state's books into balance. Martin singled out this provision, which was adopted without debate in the legislature, as "a tax increase without a 2/3 vote" (view text of photo radar law). Article 9, Section 22 of the state constitution requires a super-majority vote on legislation that creates a net increase in state revenue from "any new state fee or assessment" or tax.
Napolitano has wasted no time in getting her photo radar plan operational. She ordered the first 42 mobile ticketing units stationed every twenty miles on Interstates 10 and 40 over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. This means that an out-of-state family, unaware of the new program, could be hit with a total of twenty tickets while traveling with the flow of traffic between California and New Mexico. With court fees, the total cost of the citations would $3700.
A copy of the letter to the Arizona Solicitor General is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Letter to Mary OGrady (Treasurer, State of Arizona, 11/24/2008)
Great article too:
http://www.clarksvilleonline.c...ssary/
Modified by dublenz at 10:18 AM 11-26-2008
Joined
·
4,696 Posts
Re: (dublenz)
That is friggin awesome!! Thanks.
That is friggin awesome!! Thanks.
| Quote, originally posted by dublenz » |
| Arizona Treasurer Calls Speed Cameras Unconstitutional Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin wants a court challenge to the statewide speed camera program. Another top elected official in Arizona has spoken out against photo radar in response to increasingly vocal resistance from the driving public. State Treasurer Dean Martin (R) on Monday wrote to the state's solicitor general instructing her to side with the League of Cities and Towns -- and against himself -- in a lawsuit brought against the state budget. As custodian of the state's monies, Martin is a defendant in the suit which argues that several of the revenue-raising provisions in the $9.9 billion budget adopted in June were unconstitutional. "The governor and legislature cannot raise taxes or 'log-roll' provisions into the budget that violate the constitution," Martin explained in a statement. "These laws are unconstitutional since they did not receive the 2/3 majority vote of the legislature which is required to raise taxes." At the direction of Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the budget included an amendment creating a $165 "civil penalty" that would apply to tickets issued by up to 200 speed cameras deployed on freeways throughout the state. The program was designed to generate $165 million in annual revenue and help bring the state's books into balance. Martin singled out this provision, which was adopted without debate in the legislature, as "a tax increase without a 2/3 vote" (view text of photo radar law). Article 9, Section 22 of the state constitution requires a super-majority vote on legislation that creates a net increase in state revenue from "any new state fee or assessment" or tax. Napolitano has wasted no time in getting her photo radar plan operational. She ordered the first 42 mobile ticketing units stationed every twenty miles on Interstates 10 and 40 over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. This means that an out-of-state family, unaware of the new program, could be hit with a total of twenty tickets while traveling with the flow of traffic between California and New Mexico. With court fees, the total cost of the citations would $3700. A copy of the letter to the Arizona Solicitor General is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below. Source: Letter to Mary OGrady (Treasurer, State of Arizona, 11/24/2008) Great article too: http://www.clarksvilleonline.c...ssary/
Modified by dublenz at 10:18 AM 11-26-2008 |
16 4runner, 18 ram 2500, 84 jetta aba, 85 jetta td, 00 cabrio
Joined
·
3,706 Posts
Re: (muttonchops)
i heard that the woman that will most likely take napolitano's place if she goes got into some sort of argument with the company that produces those cameras and pretty much told her to kick rocks so she's out to get rid of them.
i heard that the woman that will most likely take napolitano's place if she goes got into some sort of argument with the company that produces those cameras and pretty much told her to kick rocks so she's out to get rid of them.
Joined
·
3,347 Posts
Re: (urbancynic)
I see we started drinking early this holliday. Cheers http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
| Quote, originally posted by urbancynic » |
| i heard that the woman that will most likely take napolitano's place if she goes got into some sort of argument with the company that produces those cameras and pretty much told her to kick rocks so she's out to get rid of them. |
Joined
·
106 Posts
Re: (dublenz)
Just moved from Colorado, a guy out there sued the state because his wife opened the letter for a photo ticket. Found a picture of him and his ex together when he should of been at work. In the end they got divorced. Anyways now tickets from cameras can not count as points and can only be a fine, plus it can only show the plates and driver not the passanger.
Just moved from Colorado, a guy out there sued the state because his wife opened the letter for a photo ticket. Found a picture of him and his ex together when he should of been at work. In the end they got divorced. Anyways now tickets from cameras can not count as points and can only be a fine, plus it can only show the plates and driver not the passanger.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
