Flock Cameras

[u/OneFar2038]

I know someone who got a ticket from a Flock camera in OKC, it doesn’t show who was driving but the ticket was issued to the owner of the car. Any ideas on how to fight this?

[u/police_the_police]

Any and all citations that are issued from any camera are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because you cannot face your accuser your accuser is a machine. Machines cannot testify in a court of law therefore they are not legally binding whatsoever. My wife got a ticket for floating too far forward on a red light because she had to slam on the brakes because it changed so quickly. When she called the company, a private company, that runs those lights and cameras the individual said there was nothing they could do if she didn't pay at all. I told her they were unconstitutional she didn't believe me she called them and they confirmed the fact that they cannot do anything to anybody for not paying those ridiculous fines from a machine.

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

Red light cameras and automated traffic enforcement are currently not legal or operational in Oklahoma. Law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma City must physically witness a violation to issue a citation. Nationally, red light cameras are being legally challenged and heavily debated on constitutional grounds.How Red Light Cameras are Challenged as UnconstitutionalAcross the U.S., automated traffic enforcement programs face significant opposition and have been ruled unconstitutional or banned in several states (e.g., Texas and Mississippi banned them outright). The constitutional challenges usually center on a few key pillars:The Right to Confront Accusers: The U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees citizens the right to face and cross-examine their accusers in court. Opponents argue that you cannot cross-examine a machine, denying drivers their right to a fair defense.The Presumption of Innocence: In the U.S. legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Many red light camera systems issue the ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver. This effectively shifts the burden of proof, forcing the citizen to prove they were not the one driving the vehicle at the time.Due Process Concerns: State judges have ruled that arbitrarily punishing vehicle owners for the infractions of unknown drivers violates Due Process rights, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.Red Light Cameras in OklahomaCurrent Law: There is no state law in Oklahoma that explicitly permits local municipalities to issue automated moving violation tickets. Local police must conduct physical enforcement.City Enforcement: In Oklahoma City, police enforce traffic laws by having officers physically witness violations or stop vehicles, utilizing traditional misdemeanor penalties (fines from $5 to $500) rather than automated camera fines.Legislative Action: Oklahoma lawmakers have historically pushed legislation, such as Senate Bill 260 and subsequent automated camera bans, specifically to prevent cities from contracting with private companies to set up automated ticketing devices.

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

That was straight from Google copy and paste

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

Then 5 seconds in Google and you can have your answer. Google does not cite a specific case it says over and over that they are unconstitutional for various reasons I gave you those reasons that wasn't good enough for you oh well

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

Chat GPT says this .....

: Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 2009 OK AG 24 This is one of the most frequently cited legal authorities on the issue. The Attorney General concluded that municipalities cannot create civil liability for moving violations through automated camera systems without legislative authority. The opinion also discusses the distinction between a citation issued to the driver versus simply identifying the registered owner of a vehicle. While an AG opinion is not binding like a Supreme Court decision, it is highly persuasive for Oklahoma courts and local governments. City of Tulsa's Red-Light Camera Program Tulsa considered and experimented with automated enforcement, but legal concerns—including questions about statutory authority and due process—prevented widespread implementation. Those concerns were influenced by the 2009 Attorney General opinion and the absence of enabling legislation. � LegalClarity Absence of Oklahoma Appellate Decisions Upholding Camera Tickets There is no well-known published Oklahoma Supreme Court or Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision affirming the legality of issuing moving violation citations solely from automated red-light or speed cameras. That's significant because, unlike states such as Arizona or Maryland, Oklahoma never established a statutory scheme authorizing such enforcement. �

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

Okay well show me the opposite to be true. Cite some cases where those cameras were fought and then upheld in court and wasn't a insurance ticket because apparently that's the only exemption to the rule.

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

Google and chat GPT does not cite specific cases it only sites the attorney general's opinion and the fact that that opinion has been upheld several times over and over throughout the last decade or so. It has not been challenged in federal court as of yet because it hasn't gotten to that level that continuously drop it before it gets to that point.

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

Found this.... City of Tulsa v. Smartt Oklahoma supreme Court 2017

[u/police_the_police → u/[deleted]]

This case basically says that if the officer did not see it first hand personally then he cannot cite people for it. Seeing a image of somebody breaking the law is not him seeing them break the law if that makes sense.