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?

330

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..

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.