Feb 10, 2011

Posted in Uncategorized

Baltimore Confrontation Clause Problem? Red Light Camera Photos Signed and “Verified” by Deceased Officer


This could be interesting. From WBALTV:

The WBAL-TV 11 News I-Team has learned that Baltimore police and transportation officials are trying to correct a problem with about 2,000 red light camera citations that may bear the signature of a police officer who is dead.  The problem concerns the sworn statement that appears on the citations confirming a police officer has reviewed the camera images to verify a violation has occurred.

On the citations in question, that signature belongs to Baltimore Officer James Fowler, who was killed in a car accident in Pennsylvania on Sept. 27, I-Team lead investigative reporter Jayne Miller said.

How is this possible? Was the City simply verifying all photographs automatically? Or was it a glitch?

A city police representative blamed the problem on a computer glitch, which is the fault of the company that operates the camera system, and he said the problem has been rectified. Letters are being sent to people who got the violation notice.

The Police Department said it does not blanket approve citations, and only the violators got the erroneous copies. A department representative said internal copies show the name of the officer who actually reviewed the violations.

If the City does have a “blanket” approval process, would there be confrontation clause issues? There is no problem using a photograph to convict someone of a crime (in this case a trafic citation), but the photograph needs to be verified. If the defendant seeks to challenge the verification, he has the right to confront that person. If Baltimore approves all photographs without any human oversight, there may be some confrontation clause problems here.

Update: Thanks for the link Instapundit! My 10th Instalanche!

Print Friendly
Share

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Baltimore Confrontation Clause Problem? Red Light Camera Photos Signed and “Verified” by Deceased Officer -- Topsy.com

  • http://Website JBS

    Let’s be careful with our thinking–for evidence to implicate the 6th Amendment, it must be testimonial in nature. (Crawford). For a evidence to be testimonial, it must be a statement, subject to a hearsay objection. Id.

    Output from machines/computers with no human input or analysis doesn’t implicate the 6th Amendment. Cf Melendez-Diaz. Here, the 6th might not be implicated–but due process or authentication or proving up the underlying reliability of the machine might be difficult.

  • http://Website JBS

    The verification could be redone by a technician who knew the cameras were in operation at the time the picture was taken. And the state could get expert testimony from another officer.

    But could luck getting a conviction when Defendant’s Exhibit A is the dead officer’s signature. I imagine closing argument– “If they’re willing to do this, what else would they be willing to do? Is that reasonable doubt, yes.”

    • Josh Blackman

      Yes, you are right. They can get another technician to verify. But if their blanket policy is to pretend to verify photos, that may raise broader constitutional issues.

  • http://Website Cap’n Dan

    Yes, of course the internal paperwork is valid and was properly done. Certainly, I can understand how only the copies sent to the violators had obviously been “computer-reviewed” and signed by a deceased person. Yup, works for me. I have complete faith in the honesty and competence of the CONTRACTOR handling this. And, if you believe a word of this, there’s a big black wooden ship in the inner harbor I can give you a great price on.

  • http://stubbornfacts.us PatHMV

    Why is the copy sent to violators different in any fashion from the “internal” or “official” copy? That makes no sense from a process or a programming standpoint. What it suggests to me is that the city might automatically send out the notices to EVERYBODY caught by the cam, BEFORE they are verified. The verification process may be being done only after the violation notices have been sent out.

    All this automation is a serious problem. Who can be penalized for forging the name of a dead police officer on a legal paper? No point in locking up the computer, I suppose.

  • http://Website King George

    For every problem, there is a solution

    http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

  • http://Website Ellen

    What could you do to a computer caught imitating an officer of the law?

  • http://Website Murgatroyd

    Impersonating a police officer is a crime.

    Using a computer in the commission of the crime may increase the severity of the sentence.

    Ultimately, some human is responsible for this. Just sayin’ …

  • http://Website Ed

    Well, let’s be candid here. If you or I did this, it would be fraud; forgery of documents.

    If the government does it, though, it’s quite acceptable.

    …and don’t call this a double standard…

  • Pingback: 2-11-2011 | Drive Time Happy Hour

  • http://Website Jay

    and only the violators got the erroneous copies. A department representative said internal copies show the name of the officer who actually reviewed the violations.

    copies? I don’t think that words means what you think it means.

  • http://Website Jeff H

    Have they looked at the photos to see if there are donut crumbs on them?

    Dead police officers writing citations…this would never happen in Mayberry.

  • http://Website Cousin Dave

    The police department has no way out of this, and they need to just come clean and get it over with. Don’t forget, the signature on the violator’s copy attests to a sworn statement. Whoever is responsible has committed tampering with evidence, perjury, and obstruction of justice. And if I had been hit with one of those violations, I’d subpoena the police department’s copy. If it differed in any way, I’d question whether or not I was properly served (what is the statute of limitations on a traffic violation?), and whether or not the state’s open-records laws were violated. If it turns out that the dead officer’s signature was Photoshopped into the citation, then I’d question what else about the citation was Photoshopped. It would be easy from that point to cast the whole system, and the police department that enforces it, into public disrepute.

  • http://Website max

    this is why public officials earn so much more than similar people in the private sector. in the private sector when people die they stop working, but this dedicated police officer kept on working well after he was dead, certainly this proves that public sector wages to no be increased.

    • http://Website max

      erg “need to be increased”

  • http://Website dunk

    As a Baltimoron, this is par for the course. And since dead people here vote, why not have a dead guy certify the citations? At least he is not earning toward his fattened pension.

  • http://Website HenryH

    Aside from $$$, here’s 2 reasons politicians OK the cameras:

    1. They think we like the cameras!
    There’s Astroturf Lobbying by the camera Industry. (Google Rynski and Astroturf.) In addition to churning out “studies” favoring the cameras, their PR firms have employees whose job it is to manufacture a fake grassroots movement via comments they post on news articles like this one. The politicians read the web, assume the pro-cam comments represent genuine public support, so they vote to install cameras.

    2. Politicians – and their extended family – are immune to the tickets.
    It was revealed that in California 5% of all privately-owned cars (one car in twenty) have plates protected from easy look up, effectively invisible to agencies trying to process camera violations. The “protected” list includes politicians, bureaucrats, their families, and ADULT children! Unbelievable? Read Cal Veh Code 1808.4. If you think this is unfair and don’t want it to be that way in this state, call your state legislators and insist that any legislation remove loopholes for govt. employees, so that they get their tickets just like the rest of us.

  • http://Website Justin Quiring

    It’s always confused me as to why a defendant can’t call the machine to testify. After all, it’s quite routine for vehicles and wads of cash to be sued (commonly called asset forfeiture cases).

    Can Inanimate objects be sued but can’t testify? We have to make up our minds which way we want it.

    Justin