31 July 2009
the newspaper.com has an article about the recent united states supreme court decision in melendez-diaz v. massachusetts. the the case turns on the constitutional right to confront your accuser in court.
Red light camera and speed camera manufacturers fear that last month's US Supreme Court ruling in the case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts could create legal turmoil for the industry.
The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running issued a statement yesterday warning that the ruling has armed motorists with a greater ability to challenge the basis of automated traffic citations.
Speed cameras, for example, depend heavily on legal faith in a certificate that claims to confirm the total reliability of a machine's speed reading. In the Melendez-Diaz case, the high court ruled that merely producing such a certificate in court is insufficient.
Defendants have the right to cross-examine any individual who claims to have certified evidence.
US Supreme Court Upsets Speed Camera Industry
valiant lafayetter joel henderson testified to the committee and raised these same issues with them that the supreme court would agreed with him on just thirty-eight days later.
despite this, and common sense, nine australian redflex puppets on the committee voted to kill HB 480. this is the kind of criminals that we have running louisiana. they are not in the legislature to serve the people constitutionally -- they are there to serve special interests and lobbyists and government. we see this over and over...kinda like what we saw with the supreme court:
laboratory analysts who conduct routine scientific tests are not the kind of conventional witnesses to whom the confrontation clause refers. the judgment of the appeals court of massachusetts should be affirmed.
melendez-diaz v. massachusetts
decided 25 june 2009
the redflex label
in the footer of this post