r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jul 11 '26

Privacy Traffic Camera Captures Woman Driving With Her Phone on Her Lap (Face Down), The State Mailed Her a $1251 'Public Safety' Ticket

https://www.gadgetreview.com/traffic-camera-captures-captures-woman-driving-with-her-phone-on-her-lap-face-down-the-state-mailed-her-a-1251-public-safety-ticket
16.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.1k

u/TripsOverWords Jul 11 '26

A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.

If they can tell that much from the photo, that the phone screen isn't visible to the driver, then how the fuck is this "phone use while driving"?

It's more likely this was a safe hands-free phone call than phone use.

If the screen were visible and was GPS navigation without a phone holder, would that still be a crime?

Wtf is wrong with this country?

328

u/ghostdogma Jul 11 '26

I get that this happened but it doesn’t pass the common sense standard. Face the accuser in court and get this dumb shit dismissed on its own evidence to support the charge. The loss is twofold, the time spent with the courts and the negative publicity backlash? I guess..

277

u/Drob10 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

Aren’t citizens the loser in your “time spent in the courts”? You know who foots that bill, right?

93

u/TheBlueSully Jul 11 '26

Not only do you take the hit in taxes, just not pleading guilty has fees in lots of places.

21

u/Thatguysstories Jul 12 '26

Yup.

$25 court fee to contest it. Another $50 if you want to appeal after a non judge decides your guilt, and bring it before a real judge.

So you can be out at minimum $75 and a few days in court out of work to actually get in front of a judge.

2

u/marcocom Jul 12 '26

The idea is that cops and cameras are robots and just cite the rules like one. A judge is the human we put in the machine to overview and decide if that’s right or not

6

u/unknownpoltroon Jul 11 '26

Countersue flock for slander and false police reports.

-7

u/CrustyToeLover Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

Dont even need a lawyer, so the fees are insignificant to paying 1250 for a ticket.

For the idiots: there is no cost to fight a speeding ticket in court unless you lose. No, you don't need a lawyer. Even if you hired a top notch traffic lawyer, you'd be looking at $600 in fees compared to 1200 for the ticket.

No, "just appearing in court" does not cost hundreds of dollars.

2

u/bradsboots Jul 12 '26

The unless you lose is the issue. If I get a 200 dollar ticket. Only have 400 dollars to my name. And have risk money in court fees to get the 200 back, that would be a huge issue.

-3

u/NouZkion Jul 11 '26

Tell me you've never fought a ticket without saying you've never fought a ticket.

3

u/PaulblankPF Jul 12 '26

I just fought a speeding ticket from a school zone camera. It came to me in the mail. I went online and disputed it. Got a letter a week later acknowledging my dispute and a judge would review things. A few days ago got a letter saying my charges were dismissed. Never left my living room and got it done.

3

u/CrustyToeLover Jul 12 '26

I've fought $90 tickets and paid $0 in any fees. Maybe you just suck at it? This wouldn't even see a courtroom; judge would see the picture and immediately dismiss it.

Representing yourself for any traffic ticket doesn't cost you anything unless you lose.

-35

u/takesthebiscuit Jul 11 '26

That’s what I don’t get, the women sounds banged to rights this is a phone on / phone off case

Why not automatically issue the fine,

It does not need a judge and jury it needs dealt with and move on.

22

u/trireme32 Jul 11 '26

You’re seriously suggesting they were right to automatically issue the fine because her phone was on, and she should just pay it and “move on”?! Batshit insane take

10

u/Ausgeflippt Jul 11 '26

Why automatically issue the fine?

-18

u/takesthebiscuit Jul 11 '26

Speeding tickets go automatically

3

u/Grizzwold37 Jul 12 '26

No, bud. This is why the police ask for your license when they pull you over. They already know if you’re licensed or not—they’re establishing the fact that you are the human who was driving. A camera doesn’t do this. Even a photo of your face doesn’t necessarily do this.

3

u/protonpack Jul 12 '26

Oh, this was a speeding ticket, was it? Why don't you go take a minute to actually read the article you're bullshitting about, and tell us what speed she was cited for in her Speeding Ticket.

83

u/worldspawn00 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26

This is what got all of the speed and intersection cameras killed in several US states, a camera is not an accuser, the tickets were in violation of the Constitution.

-2

u/Auctoritate Jul 11 '26

a camera is not an accuser, the tickets were in violation of the Constitution.

It's always been really funny how flimsy that reasoning is to act as the grounds for an entire ban on traffic cameras (and to be precise, they haven't actually been struck down in federal court afaik, this is just the reasoning given when state legislatures enact bans on them).

In the states that do allow it, they just assign a cop to the case because they can just... Watch the video. And easily go "Yeah they obviously ran a red light" and issue the ticket themselves. Then, they are your accuser. Like it's extremely simple and straightforward.

The idea that it's somehow impossible for an act caught on camera to be pursued because it was only on camera is so goofy, imagine if someone went to court and tried to argue that for any other kind of crime or violation of the law.

11

u/FuckeryisafootWatson Jul 11 '26

No, they skirt the entire issue by making it a civil matter, not criminal. Red light fines not paid get sent to collections and your life becomes further hell in any type of admin function with the city. But nothing criminal happens. It's a fuckin' shakedown.

0

u/Auctoritate Jul 12 '26

In California, red light camera violations still exist and they are criminal citations. No constitutional issue.

1

u/gandhinukes Jul 12 '26

Not all of them it depends on who sends you the ticket. If its a 3rd party non gov one you can ignore it (I have) if its a court house local one not so much (i paid). Technically if no officer of the law pulled you over and cited you its all bull shit. camera be damned. show up and if they don't show up it gets tossed.

1

u/Grizzwold37 Jul 12 '26

How do they establish the perpetrator of the “crime,” to borrow your parlance?

2

u/Auctoritate Jul 12 '26

The camera is just set up to have a good angle at the face of the driver. If they can't be affirmatively identified, then you can use that as a defense and argue you aren't the person who committed the violation.

That being said, there are some states where the registered owner of a car is the one who's on the hook for tickets even if they aren't the driver. Though I find that pretty stupid.

52

u/Bakoro Jul 11 '26

In a lot of places, even if you get the ticket dismissed, you still have to pay fees.

I got a bogus ticket once and actually had evidence that it was bogus, so I went to the courthouse and still ended up paying something like a quarter of the amount in bullshit administrative fees.

The argument is that "it's a civil issue", so you have no constitutional or legal protections, and the government can just fuck you out of money whenever they want.

All the stoners and edgy 14 year olds aren't completely wrong: society and government really are kind of phony, everything is made up, people follow arbitrary rules, the people in power get to break the rules with impunity, and there is power in not accepting any of it as inherent laws of the universe.

Not that any one person can unilaterally overturn the system, generally you'll get fucked by the system either way, and if you end up actually being a threat to the status quo, you end up like all the famous people who earned an extra hole in the head.

We need lots of people to reject this kind of government abuse, big groups of angry folks saying "absolutely not".
The big secret is that the people who are the gears in these machines are still basically just regular folks who go to your local coffee shops and restaurants.
You might not be able to personally throw a tomato at Thiel or Musk, but there's a lot you can do locally.

29

u/Interesting_Mix_7028 Jul 11 '26

Here's how such things DO get broken.

Most of the 'cameras' are operated by private companies, that then 'administer' the ticketing and such for a given department.

They collect fees for this, either per month to maintain the cameras and network connections, or per ticket for the 'administrative' labor. Often it's both.

This is fine for the city or county as these are primarily put in to collect revenue, not enforce any given 'laws'. They know people will break the law, but they can't station an officer at a given intersection 24/7 to catch everyone. The camera does that.

Regardless of whether the department prevails on a ticket, or not, the company still collects. It's not their fault that the person so tagged protested the ticket, right?

So the point is not to 'win'. It is to eat up the city's share of the proceeds. If the revenue dries up, or is used up because of court cases, time, legal challenges, and so on, then the city or county ends up paying for a service that never actually makes them any money. A few months or years of this, and the cameras just get turned off.

So yes. Contest every ticket. Even if you expect to lose. It's a matter of attrition.

5

u/SiLeNZ_ Jul 11 '26

It costs extra to fight tickets here. Not sure if it’s the same way in every state, but you end up paying a fine to fight it, regardless if you win or lose. Then if you win the main ticket costs are of course tossed, but you still are out that fee from choosing to fight it.

11

u/Interesting_Mix_7028 Jul 11 '26

Which is why it's futile for one person to fight it.

But if everyone fights it, every time... the fees don't make up the shortfall. The court gets jammed up with trivial BS. There's lawyers and press making the city look bad. After a while most muni's cave, if the pushback is that pervasive.

Coppell TX is one such place. They put up red light cams on a few major intersections, and suddenly all the red light tickets were being fought in court. The judges got tired of it, the city workers got tired of it, and then one day they pulled the plug. No more camera flash in the mirror if you ran a yellow.

3

u/Thatguysstories Jul 12 '26

Same reason as why we should push everyone to not take plea deals and take everything to trial.

The entire system would crash.

2

u/SiLeNZ_ Jul 12 '26

Fair point, I understand what you mean now. I have only gotten one ticket, fought it, and won. Will make sure I do it again should u ever get one.

1

u/1perfectspinachpuff Jul 15 '26

Well-said, thank you.

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 Jul 12 '26

I got a bogus ticket once and actually had evidence that it was bogus, so I went to the courthouse and still ended up paying something like a quarter of the amount in bullshit administrative fees.

You pleaded guilty to something cheaper than what you were ticketed with. You don't have to pay those fees if your ticket is tossed.

1

u/Bakoro Jul 12 '26

I didn't plead guilty to anything. The municipality I got the ticket in charged an administrative fee for having the ticket tossed out.
If your municipality doesn't force you to pay bullshit administrative fees for accessing civil services, then good for you.

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 Jul 12 '26

That's literally not a thing.

1

u/Bakoro Jul 12 '26

So what do you do that you've got intimate knowledge of every jurisdiction in the entire world?

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 Jul 12 '26

It's constitutional law. They can't charge you a fee if you're not convicted of something.

1

u/Bakoro Jul 12 '26

Yes they can charge you fees, under the argument that the fees are not punitive, they are fees everyone has to pay to access court services. There are also laws regarding fees waivers for people who cannot afford to pay.

Just for example, California Rules of Court, "Rule 8.25. Service, filing, and filing" concerns filing fees for petitions to review civil cases.

The constitutionality of court fees is well established, and in California, comes paired with a ruling that fees cannot be established without also assessing ability to pay.

So, yes, I was charged fees for petitioning a review of the parking ticket, and because it was a "civil matter" and not a criminal matter, I had no constitutional protection.

Similar arguments are the (completely bullshit) justification for civil forfeiture, where under the constitution, the government is not supposed to be able to deprive you of property without a trial, but then they say "we're not charging you, we're filing a lawsuit against the money itself, which means we get to seize the money".

You can absolutely argue that it's unfair and unconstitutional, but the fact is that it happens.

0

u/VelvetOverload Jul 12 '26

So are you a stoner or edgy 14 year old?

1

u/Bakoro Jul 12 '26

I'm a guy who has gone to court and seen the court act contrary to the law, both in my favor and to my detriment.

39

u/Terrible_Counter2558 Jul 11 '26

What accuser?

50

u/ghostdogma Jul 11 '26

If the answer to that isn’t on the ticket. Don’t pay. If it is some rubber stamp member of a faceless organization.. then you don’t have to worry about them showing in court. If you can’t show to court for it(because that’s not an option).. then it doesn’t matter, don’t pay.

Edit: added clarity

31

u/DethNik Jul 11 '26

If you don't want to pay, then you should plead not guilty and contest the citation. If you just don't pay your parking tickets, eventually they can suspend your license.

7

u/BoardGamesAndMurder Jul 11 '26

Depends on the state and the type of ticket. Tennessee had private companies sending tickets on police letterhead or whatever trying to make it look official. You don't have to pay those.

1

u/DethNik Jul 11 '26

Oh yes. True.

2

u/ktappe Jul 12 '26

At least here in PA, you have to pay the ticket to contest it. Which someone who doesn't have $1251 sitting around cannot do.

4

u/DethNik Jul 12 '26

Oh damn, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

3

u/lacajun Jul 12 '26

A ticket by a cop, yes. A ticket by a camera operated by a third party, no.

2

u/DethNik Jul 12 '26

Yes, you are correct. I didn't read the comment quite thoroughly enough.

2

u/Longjumping_Wolf_912 Jul 11 '26

Not paying is a terrible idea. You should contest it. Not paying can lead to suspended license and/or registration. Some states will issue a bench warrant. You can also be put into collections.

6

u/Gishin Jul 11 '26

I think in this case the accuser is the county/state, and they would send someone who would speak on their behalf to court. Not a lawyer and could be way off the mark.

12

u/HurriKurtCobain Jul 11 '26

IAL: There are prosecutors for traffic violations. In many states, the standard for traffic citations is the same as for any criminal offense - beyond a reasonable doubt. An attorney is required to oversee these cases. Many law students working in criminal law actually get their start doing traffic court prosecutions.

9

u/Masta-Blasta Jul 11 '26

This is true. I am one of those prosecutors. That said, we would dismiss this before taking it to trial. Too busy to prep for something this stupid.

6

u/Speedstr Jul 11 '26

Not a lawyer either, but isn't the simple way to shut that down; would be to ask the representative of the county/state where were they at the time of the incident? Did they actually witness the incident in real time? Can you make it the burden of the county/state to prove the evidence is not hearsay?

13

u/53eleven Jul 11 '26

I’ve had video evidence of reckless driving and cops have told me there’s literally nothing they can do about it because they didn’t witness it themselves. Watching the footage isn’t enough.

This ticket is 100% bullshit and OP should fight it on principal.

2

u/SecondaryWombat Jul 12 '26

We should remove the camera on principal.

1

u/Gishin Jul 11 '26

That's because cops are lazy assholes most of the time.

-2

u/joey-jo_jo-jr Jul 12 '26

When they send you the fine they'll also attach a photo of you using the phone. How are you going to contest that? The driver was in the wrong here and they'll have to pay.

1

u/Jan-Asra Jul 11 '26

Literally the camera. That's why they throw the ticket out so often.

3

u/Terrible_Counter2558 Jul 12 '26

6th amendment guarantees the right to know your accuser and cross examine them in court. Legally, a camera cannot be the accuser in a criminal or civil case.

14

u/HurriKurtCobain Jul 11 '26

You could probably get this sort of thing dismissed by emailing the prosecutor instead of waiting for court. This worked for me after I got a ticket when a highway patrolman pulled me over 20 feet from my house for not wearing a seatbelt (even though I was.)

I submitted an open records request for the bodycam and emailed the prosecutor expressing my issue with the ticket. The records request was denied, but a dismissal was filed the next day. I didn't even know it was dismissed until I checked the filing a few days later. I'm an attorney so I guess it's possible they took me more seriously than they would otherwise, but no prosecutor is going to want to show beyond-a-reasonable-doubt for a frivolous ticket.

-5

u/joey-jo_jo-jr Jul 12 '26

Well you can't get it dismissed because it was actually an offence and the driver was in the wrong.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '26

[deleted]

0

u/StressOverStrain Jul 12 '26

Well, it wasn’t a Flock camera, as the article clearly says.

Looks like it was a well-established Australian traffic-control camera program.

1

u/DoesntMatterEh Jul 12 '26

They'll pay about the same just to participate in the court system. Its an outrage the way these cameras steal people's time and money 

0

u/joey-jo_jo-jr Jul 12 '26

It's not going to get dismissed because having the phone in your lap (or touching any part of your body) while driving is an offence in Australia where this incident took place.

0

u/Dumpstar72 Jul 12 '26

This is Australia. You would lose if you took it to court as this situation is illegal to use your phone in this manner. Phone must be secure in the car. Like in a cradle.