Iowa's Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over $75 Speeding Ticket

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Iowa's Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over $75 Speeding Ticket

September 20, 20171:14 PM ET

A dispute over a $75 speeding ticket has climbed through the levels of Iowa's court system, reaching the lofty heights of the Iowa Supreme Court for oral arguments. ... Marla Leaf got a speeding ticket because a camera allegedly caught her driving 68 mph in a 55-mph zone on an interstate freeway through the city of Cedar Rapids in February 2015.

It's not typical for the state's top court to hear small-claims cases. But in her case against the city of Cedar Rapids, Leaf argues that her constitutional rights and state law were violated because the city delegated police powers to the private company that maintains the speed cameras.
....

Leaf's case argues that it is unlawful to give the authority to assess speeding — something it says is police work — to the private camera company, Gatso.
....

Larew also argued that there is no valid safety reason for the camera system on Interstate 380 — also the site of alleged speeding violations by the other parties to the case. He said the cameras don't issue tickets to semitrailers and government vehicles, calling the discrepancy arbitrary and a violation of equal protection. ... The camera system works by focusing on back license plates, which government vehicles do not have in Iowa. Patricia Kropf, an attorney for the city, told the court that the excluded vehicles are "just not in the database that we need to use to do this in a cost-effective manner."

[unblock]

1. we just got a ticket in iowa during a recent cross-country road trip

well not fully cross-country, "only" connecticut to wyoming to tennessee and back to connecticut.

being in connecticut, we have little choice but to pay it -- $100 for speeding, something like 12 miles over the limit.

among the annoying aspects is that we have no real way to contest it at all. we just got a ticket in the mail weeks after the alleged offense took place. we have no idea what the road or traffic conditions were. hell, we don't even know which of us was driving at the time!

as far as we know, it's entirely possible we were traveling only 35 miles in a 55 zone at the time and the equipment malfunctioned. had we been pulled over by a human, we could have argued and explained, or possibly taken a video of the slow-moving traffic. but any real opportunity for us to gather witnesses or collect evidence is long gone.

now, i'm willing to bet that, in fact, the equipment was fine and that in fact we were speeding (and if so, it most certainly was mrs. unblock driving; it's very rare for me to go more than a few miles per hour over the limit. she really hates that about me, lol!)

but that's not the point. the point is that there really is no due process.

[d_r]

2. they call it a civil infraction

rather than a criminal one, to get out of the requirements of the sixth amendment that you have a right to be confronted with witnesses against you; there is no witness in this case:
--------------------------------

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[unblock]

3. i still have rights when accused of a "civil infraction".

i understand that the "due process" is a different "due process" than in criminal court, but i'm still entitled to some kind of due process.

i think this is an area that the supreme court will eventually curtail a bit, i.e., governmental abuse of civil procedures to evade criminal due process, more notably in civil asset forfeiture cases. eventually. not that that's the issue being presented in this particular case....

in any event, i wasn't trying to make a legal argument, just saying that it doesn't feel like there's any semblance of justice to this process, which in turn means it's ripe for abuse. they could take a picture of parked cars and send their owners tickets for speeding, and how could anyone dispute even that?

[d_r]

4. I was agreeing with you

We should have a right to confront our accuser and to due process.