- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,351
- Reaction score
- 29,639
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
These traffic enforcement cameras are actually private sector companies who run and operate them. Big time political contibutors.
Here in California a law enforcement officer will review the photo and or sign off or reject it. Most of the time they sign off on the photo and you get a ticket in the mail.
If you want to fight the ticket in the Great Socialist State of California, you have to post bail before you can even show up in court to plead not guilty and challenge the ticket. The bail is the fine and court cost if you are found guilty. A $100 ticket with a $350 court cost, it cost you in cash $450 to fight the ticket.
You have to pay the fine and court cost before you can contest the ticket.
If you do prevail and are found not guilty, you'll get a check in the mail returning your bail, 3 to 6 months down the road.
That's why I love Mexifornia so much. California didn't pull this #### thirtyfive years ago.
You obviously don't know a whole lot about this state of yours. California is one of the leading states in taking down red light cameras. Many of the major cities, including LA and San Diego, have already stopped using them. And there was just a ruling from the state appellate court restricting greatly how much the camera could be used in convicting someone of running a red light, basically saying they would need more. And I cannot find anything at all that says you have to pay to fight a red light ticket. Can you provide anything to support this?
Dan Walters: Red-light cameras under siege in California - Dan Walters - The Sacramento Bee