Murrieta City Council Discusses Red Light Cameras

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Diana Serafin's petition to ban the red light cameras in Murrieta received the required number of signatures to get the measure on the ballot in 2012, and last night the Murrieta City Council presented the topic for discussion. The city brought in the police officer that initiated the program in Murrieta over five years ago, the chief of police, and a traffic expert to argue in favor of the cameras.

Twelve residents, including myself, spoke regarding the issue. Some were for the ban, and some were against.

The police chief began his presentation by showing two videos of near-misses caught on film from last Sunday. In both cases the accidents nearly occurred due to a vehicle running the red light. The gentleman then provided statistics showing that at the four intersections where red light cameras are in place, the number of collisions, and red light violations, has gone down as a result of the cameras being in place.

Addressing the arguments by the proponents of the "ban the cams" petition, the Chief of Police acknowledged that in other cities there is evidence that at intersections with red light cameras accidents have gone up, and that there has been mishandling of the equipment, or corrupt behavior by cities in relation to the cameras. However, Murrieta is not only not having those same problems, but the city has taken great pains to ensure that the red light camera program in Murrieta is not about revenue generation, but about increasing intersection safety, and that the cameras and the accompanying parameters are fair.

One example, the city contended, of where they even go above and beyond in the sense of trying to be fair, a filter has been put into the system that will allow right turns to not come to a full stop without triggering the camera, as long as the vehicle makes the right turn at a speed of less than ten miles per hour. A cop would ticket such a maneuver since the motorist did not come to a complete stop. The system is much more forgiving.

The speakers that support the cameras argued that people who abide by the law are not affected by the cameras, and the cameras make the city safer because people are less likely to run the red light in those intersections.

Diana Serafin argued that the cameras do not make the city safer, due to people slamming on their brakes on yellows, or speeding up to make the light before the cameras can get them.

The $490 ticket for running a red light was also argued against, calling it unreasonable, and devastating for someone that is on a fixed income.

Members of the city council explained they have no control over the cost of the tickets. The cost of the ticket is set by the State.

When I approached the microphone, I acknowledged that the arguments on both sides were reasonable. "It seems that the biggest concern of those that support the cameras is that the law is enforced. But, I am concerned that the very existence of the red light cameras may be unlawful in their own right. I am speaking of the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, and it is my consideration that the red light cameras may be unconstitutional in the first place."

After informing the council that I am a longtime resident that has actually lived in Murrieta longer than Murrieta has been a city, and that I am an expert on the Constitution with over 30 years of studying the document, and the history that surrounds it, I explained that the question of constitutionality lies in the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Normally, the Constitution applies only to the federal government. However, there are places in the Constitution that applies to the local governments, as well. "For example, the First Amendment begins with the words 'Congress shall make no law.' Clearly, that amendment only applies to the federal government. However, the 5th Amendment begins with the words, 'No person shall,' and the 6th Amendment begins 'In all criminal prosecutions.' The language is all encompassing. Therefore, it is clear that based on that language, these two amendments apply to both the federal government, and local governments.

"The 5th Amendment carries a clause that states nobody can be compelled to witness against himself. When the red light tickets are sent out, the photo is attached, and the person is asked to identify themselves as the person in the picture. In other words, to self-incriminate.

"Amendment Six addresses the right for the accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him. With a red light camera, there are no witnesses. The witness is a machine. Sure, an officer reviews the video, but no officer saw the infraction in person. Therefore, without a witness to confront, there is no case. To continue on would be unconstitutional."

All of the members of the city council know me, and some of them battled against me in last year's election. Rick Gibbs, in responding to my indication that the red light cameras are unconstitutional, about bust a few blood vessels. He was angry. How dare I challenge the constitutionality of their precious big brother cameras.

The council argued that the Amendment Five argument was in error. They compare the driver's license picture on file to the image on the video before sending out the ticket. If there is no match, they send nothing.

As a commercial driver I received a red light camera ticket that clearly showed me coming to a stop on the video, rather than running the light on my right turn as they indicated. I was asked to identify myself on the picture. I returned it saying the image was unverifiable. I put the burden of proof in their corner, and they never responded. My experience shows that they do, sometimes, expect the driver to self-incriminate.

They gave no argument against my Amendment Six assertion other than that a Riverside judge said it was Constitutional.

A judge does not have that authority. I reject their argument on that one.

In the end, the council voted to go ahead and let the measure on the ballot. The finale will be in November of 2012.

Now, it is up to the voters.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary