One of my cases was reported on in the Smithtown News last week:
"A Smithtown lawyer has taken on a pro bono case to help defend a Port Jefferson Station resident in his effort to fight an alleged red light camera violation, with evidence that the yellow interval at that intersection was malfunctioning at the time of the alleged violation.... Mr. Kreppein will argue that Mr. Buttaro was deprived of due process of law and should have been permitted to present a defense at the hearing rather than being told he had to wait for a later appeal hearing. 'In this case, Appellant was not permitted to present a defense. Appellant was, essentially, taken into a room and told that he was guilty, no matter what, with no opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine a witness, or even have the merits of his defense considered by the Court.'"(Read More: "Smithtown lawyer challenges red-light-camera ticket," by Corey Adwar, The Smithtown News, 9/14/2012).
Disclaimer: Nothing on this law blog should be understood to constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. To the extent anything on this site may be considered attorney advertising, take notice that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Good luck with the challenge to this. Here's a link with a bunch of resources for different case law:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsLawaaIndexTransBrfsDecisions.html
Particularly:
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsLawBriefFairfax.html
They had speeding cameras in the 1950's with holding the owner responsible. I'm wondering if you can also use the logic to argue that in the appelate:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18345614553683891963&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr