Off Subject Please Help

Mike...

It's yet another example of "Big Brother" gone awry... To heck with the little guy, even if he's doing the right thing.

I'm certainly no attorney, but I wouldn't think you'd need one in the example you've given. If you've got the photo that you described (w/ambulance), carry it into court and represent yourself. Any judge with an iota of common sense will be sympathetic to your plight.

Then again, "judge" and "common sense" seem to be mutually exclusive terms these days.

Best of luck

Well there are three ways you can go about this:

1) Pay the fine

2) Use the photo and pray for a judge with common sense

3) If I was representing you, I would ask for proof that you were operating the motor vehicle. According to an opinion from the Minnesota State Supreme Court (opinions are the rulings of the court)  Here is an excerpt from this opinion:

 The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure. This violates the rule in Hoben that an ordinance cannot provide less procedural protection to the person charged than would be available if the person were charged under the Act. 256 Minn. at 444, 98 N.W.2d at 819.

The state argues that the ordinance meets Hoben's requirements and does not conflict with the Act because the rules of criminal procedure are applicable to both a charge under the ordinance and one under the Act. The state also cites to the court of appeals decision in State v. Eakins for the proposition that the presumption in the ordinance could not violate principles of criminal law because a petty misdemeanor is not within the definition of a crime under the criminal code. 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 2006) (citing Minn. Stat. Section 609.02, subd. 1 (2006), which defines a "crime" as "conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine").

Regardless of whether petty misdemeanors are considered to be "crimes" under the criminal code, the rules of criminal procedure specifically apply to petty misdemeanors. Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.01. And those rules require that a defendant be "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Minn. R. Crim. P. 23.05, subd. 3. Thus, in any prosecution under the Act, the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner was driving at the time of the red-light offense, and the owner has no obligation to prove anything.

On the other hand, section 474.660 of the ordinance requires the owner to rebut the presumption that he or she was the driver, or face liability as the owner. Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid.

The state argues that even if section 474.660 is invalid because it creates a presumption that the owner is the driver, that section can be severed and the owner may still be held liable under section 474.640. But, as we discussed above, section 474.640 is itself in conflict with state law because it imposes liability on owners who would not be liable under the Act. Thus we need not analyze the question of severance because it would not alter the outcome in this case.

The state argues that there are compelling public safety considerations that underlie the ordinance, citing that numerous accidents occur as a result of red-light violations and they often lead to "serious injuries, death, extensive property damage and high insurance costs." Our decision is not meant to minimize those considerations, but only to clarify that they are not relevant to a preemption analysis and are most appropriately addressed to the legislature.

We hold that Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670 are invalid because they are in conflict with the Act, and specifically with Minn. Stat. Section 169.06, subd. 4(a), and Minn. Stat. Section 169.022.
I underlined a few of the key points, but of course this is only a section of a long ruling: Minnesota v. Kuhlman (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 4/5/2007)

The key point being that a Supreme Court in this country has determined that Red Light Cameras are in fact a violation of a citizens rights.

I would have a couple of additional questions obviously for you, but if I was an attorney for you, I would dare them to prosecute the case.

Just my take.

Here's one final thought you can try, take it to the paper and the television stations.  Get the media involved.  A true human interest story, someone obeying one law gets punished by another law.  The press can put enough pressure on the city to make them drop the case.  Don't know if its an election year for your local officials but if it is that is more in your favor because the last thing a politician needs in an election year is bad press.

Good Luck.

Mike,

Buddy, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you've got my kind of luck. I'd have to agree with the take the picture with you to the judge and represent yourself choice. With my kind of luck, if I hired an attorney, I'd probably wind up paying for him, the court costs, and the ticket. Maybe the judge will understand your situation.

But now as a firefighter/ EMT/ ambulance driver, my advice is NEVER run a red light because an emergency vehicle is behind you. Our lights, sirens, and air horns are not used for demanding the right-of-way, but more as a to let you know "hey, we need to get through, if you can safely pull to the right, please do so" type of courtesy call. We don't mean for our warning devices to "push" traffic, though it may seem so. But if you were involved in an collision because you pulled through the red light, that emergency vehicle would now have to respond to you, then they would have to dispatch another unit to the original emergency. All that would take longer than if the ambulance had to wait just a few more seconds for the light to turn green and you clear the intersection safely before yielding to ambulance. Also, emergency vehicles can move left into the oncoming traffic lane if it is clear and they can safely do so. Just remember, we're asking for a right-of-way. If you can't move safely, don't move.  I hope this makes sense.

I know it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Good luck with your situation.

I recently had a similar situation in court. I represented myself because I knew the guy was lying. I actually proved it in court, and that his sworn testimony was a l