Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras

caffiend666 writes "According to a Dallas Morning News article, any 'Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law ... Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.' Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"

Comments

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[cluckshot]

This brings up a very simple fact in the US Constitution. It says plainly "No warrant shall issue without probable cause." Now this may not seem simple to people but it really is. It means that nobody shall be arrested (Yes traffic offenses too!) without probable cause. Probable cause is the obvious to all reality that someone has been or is most likely going to be injured at any moment as a result of the behavior of the party being arrested. There is absolutely no way on this earth that this determination can be made by a traffic camera. How on earth does a camera at an intersection know if the Police officer is doing his job properly and safely or not? How on earth can it judge if the risk he has taken in running the red light is one which is not relative to the situation? It cannot. Thus all warrants by traffic cameras are by definition void because they did not have probable cause. Merely speeding or passing a red light is not probable cause. That requires a determination of valid purpose etc.

This all applies to citizens as well!