Saint Louis Conservative's new Favorite Judge

Judge Robert H. Dierker, Jr., take a back seat.  Though I'm still quite fond of Dierker's personal fight against red light cameras in the City of St. Louis (chronicled here and here), that fight was undertaken as an accused litigant in front of the bench.

Mark Neill has now taken up the fight as a judge behind the bench.  Neill, like Dierker a Circuit Court Judge in the the City, ruled Friday that the City's red-light camera ordinance is unconstitutional and invalid.  (Link to story here.)

As they say in some parts of the country, "Darn tootin'!"

Kudos to Judge Neill, SLC's new favorite!

Sanity and Respect for the U.S. Constitution return to Washington . . . Washington, Missouri, that is

Kudos to Washington, Missouri.  The Franklin County municipality has voted to drop red-light cameras as soon as the city's contract with the (for-profit) company that installed and operates the devices.  (Link to story here.)

So, what's the reason?  They don't, and didn't, prevent accidents.

Hooray for reality and the Constitution winning one for a change!

A ban on red light cameras in Missouri . . . it is closer than you might think.

The Missouri Senate, by a 23-8 vote, passed an amendment to a transportation bill today banning red light traffic cameras anywhere in the state.  (Link to story here.)  The bill isn't final yet, though, and still faces legislative hurdles.  But, if the bill becomes law, it would be a victory for freedom, privacy, and the Constitution.

Kudos to Senator Jim Lembke (R-St. Louis) for sponsoring the amendment.  Keep up the fight!

Judge Dierker won his red light camera case . . . that's too bad.

Congratulations to St. Louis City Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker, Jr., who was found not guilty yesterday of running a red light.  He - or at least his car - had been caught by one of the nearly ubiquitous intersection cameras in December of last year.  (Link to story here.)

Dierker decided to fight the ticket.  First he challenged the constitutionality - and lost at the trial court level.  I had hoped that the judge would move on and be found guilty so that he could appeal the constitutionality of red light cameras - and, hopefully, begin the end of the Camera Age.  (Here's a link to my prior blog of encouragement.)

But, alas, it was not to be.  Dierker won.  The court documents were sealed.  And there won't be any appeal.  The system is again unchallenged.  

I suspect that municipalities and camera contractors everywhere are taking a short break from counting their money to do a little status quo victory dance.

Fight on Judge Dierker, Fight on!

Somebody needs to fight the good fight against the blatantly unconstitutional red light cameras that serve as intrusive cash cows for municipalities around the country.  That somebody is St. Louis City Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker, Jr.  

Today, as reported here by the St. Louis Beacon, Judge Dierker expectedly lost the first round of his fight.  Another circuit judge held that the red light cameras in the City of St. Louis were constitutional.  The case will go on.

But, I'm nearly certain, Dierker hoped to lose at the trial court level and hopes to be convicted of such a violation just to have the chance to move the issue up the appellate ladder.  And that's where the fun will be.

This judge is smart, curmudgeonly, precise, thorough, and maybe most importantly, self-assured.  Friends of freedom could not have a better advocate in this cause than Robert Dierker.

Keep up the fight Judge.  

Reason Prevails in Arizona County

Kudos to Pinal County, Arizona, which has dropped speed cameras.  Those cameras, apparently, provided only minimal financial revenues to the county and did not minimize but may have actually increased traffic accidents.  (Link to story here.)

Here's hoping that this is the beginning of a trend and photo enforcement is on its way out.

Red Light Camera Update - Alderman and Lawyers Say Don't Pay the Tickets

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch got into the debate over red light cameras with a Sunday cover story about the difficulties that municipalities have if those who receive tickets don't just pay them voluntarily.  The moral of the story seemed to be . . . if you get such a ticket, ignore it.

St. Louis Alderman Freeman Bosley, Sr., put it bluntly saying, that "if you threw [the ticket] in the trash, nothing would happen."  Individuals are also reporting that lawyers are giving them legal advice to ignore tickets from red light cameras.  Attorney Herman Jimerson is quoted saying that since the camera doesn't show the driver of the car, he's told his client that the municipalities can't prove that he violated the law.  He suggested not paying the assessed fine.

The fact that these tickets are so unenforceable should have prevented them from going up in the first place.   Now that the Post-Dispatch has picked up on it and basically told everyone in town to ignore the tickets without consequence maybe the trend will shift away from these cameras but I doubt it.  They're too big of a moneymaker for municipalities and too many gullible folks are paying their tickets without a fight.

The Bill of Rights v. Red Light Cameras

Red light cameras are springing up everywhere.  And they're unconstitutional.

Most municipalities red light camera schemes work like this . . . the cameras are installed by vendors "free of charge" at various intersections.  The cameras snap photographs of vehicles that violate red lights and then the registered owner of the vehicle is mailed a ticket.  Whether the owner of the vehicle was actually driving at the time of the violation, however, is unknown.  The photographs don't show the driver.  When the tickets are paid, the City gets a cut and the vendor gets a cut.  Everybody's happy and all involved get to claim, rightly or wrongly, that they're making the world a safer place.

But what happens if the owner of the vehicle had loaned it to somebody else?  Well, the owner still gets the ticket and has to pay it unless he or she testifies about who was driving.  And that's where a violation of the Fifth Amendment comes in.

Under these red light camera schemes, the accused vehicle owner is presumed guilty of the violation and required testify to prove his innocence.  But the Fifth Amendment guarantees that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

In a conversation with a local prosecutor several months ago, the prosecutor admitted to knowing that these schemes were unconstitutional.  The municipalities and the camera vendors, however, banked (literally) on citizens not knowing their rights or, if they did, not wanting to spend more on legal fees than the fine itself.

If prosecutors in Arnold, Missouri, felt the same way, they didn't know Chet Pleban.  Pleban is a local attorney whose friends must even admit there's never been a media outlet that he didn't like.  His name crops up from time to time in various newsworthy cases.  Whether for the publicity or the principle, Pleban has filed suit on behalf of two Arnold residents who received a ticket in the mail.  More power to him.  In this case, he and his clients are right on the money.