|
|
FCRA CAMPAIGN TO BAN RED LIGHT CAMERAS
Join Our Campaign To Protect Motorists Rights
|
MEDIA CONTACTS
Florida
Civil Rights
Association
(FCRA)
J Willie David, III
State President
&
Attorney Alan Grayson
Chairman, Legal Affairs
info@fcranews.com
(407) 272-9254
National
Motorists
Association
(NMA)
Henry Stowe
Lead Activist, Florida
henry_stowe@yahoo.com
(407) 375-8445
|
|
|
J Willie David, III FCRA President (FL)
Linda Steward, Orange County Commissioner, District 4,
(RL) Lauren Rowe, Host, News 6 Flashpoint (C)
Chief Donald L. Carey, Melbourne Police Department (FR)
and Chief Michael McCoy, Orlando Police Department (RR)
Orlando, Florida - On July 20, 2007, Local News 6 Flash Point Talk Show invited the
President of the Florida Civil Rights Association, an Orange County Commissioner and two
area Police Chiefs to discuss the use of Red Light Cameras in Central Florida.
On July 16, 2007, the Florida Civil Rights Association announced that it has begun the
process to challenge the use of Red Light Cameras as an enforcement tool in
Apopka, Orlando, and Orange County, Florida.
J Willie David, III, FCRA President says, "We support local government efforts to protect the
public from red light runners as long as their tactics do not violate the registered owner's
civil rights." The Florida Civil Rights Association is asking the City of Apopka, Orlando and
Orange County to strike down the illegal use of Red Light Cameras in our communities.
Florida Attorney General, the Florida House and Senate (2005, 2006 and 2007) said, No to
Red Light Camera enforcement by local government. The Florida Civil Rights Association
will not rule out filing a Class Action Lawsuit against local governments.
April 5. 2007, the Minnesota Supreme Court State of Minnesota vs. Kuhlman) A06-568
slammed local government for enacting Ordinances that conflict with state law and
violated due process of registered owners.
The Minnesota court, in a unanimous ruling, ruled that the cameras violate the due process
rights of motorists by not affording them the constitutional right to face their accuser in
court. The court ruled that red light cameras create a new, and unconstitutional crime, the
offense of “owner liability for red light violations where the owner neither required nor
knowingly permitted the violation.’
In the most important part of the ruling affecting red light cameras in Balcones Heights and
elsewhere in Texas, the Minnesota court spelled out the inherent unfairness of ‘assuming’
that the ‘registered owner’ of the car is at fault.
“This eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden from that required by
the rules of criminal procedure,” the court wrote.
The court wrote that since a police officer can determine who was at the wheel of the car
when it ran the red light and the camera cannot, the cameras are unconstitutional.
“The ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance
violation (red light cameras) than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act
(arrest by a police officer). Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid,”
the court ruled.
The court further ruled that the presence of the cameras at just a handful of intersections
violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because it has the affect of
enforcing laws differently.
“A driver must be able to travel the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with
which he is not familiar,” the court wrote, ruling that motorists understand that running a
red light may make him or her subject to arrest by a police officer, but since cameras exist
at only scattered intersections and may involve different rules of operation, allowing red
light cameras to exist denies citizens the right to equal enforcement of laws.
|
|
