||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NH REPRESENTATIVES VOTE 268-8 AGAINST REAL ID CARD
KEENE FREE PRESS, NH - In an overwhelming, bipartisan vote today, New
Hampshire representatives sent a clear message to Washington DC that the
state will not stand for a National ID card. In a lopsided 268-8 vote,
the House passed HB685, which declares that New Hampshire will not
participate in the federal REAL ID act. This vote also sends a clear
message to the State Senate, which gutted and killed a similar bill last
year. At the time, Governor Lynch had indicated that he would sign such
a bill.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=489&Itemid=36
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN RED LIGHT CAMS
THE NEWSPAPER - The Minnesota Supreme Court delivered the highest-level
court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision
against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld
last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program
had violated state law.
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law
imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo
ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than
available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the
conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court
argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime:
"owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither
required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout
the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is
not familiar," the court wrote. . .
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that
lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the
country.
"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," the court
concluded. "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."
RULING
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NH REPRESENTATIVES VOTE 268-8 AGAINST REAL ID CARD
KEENE FREE PRESS, NH - In an overwhelming, bipartisan vote today, New
Hampshire representatives sent a clear message to Washington DC that the
state will not stand for a National ID card. In a lopsided 268-8 vote,
the House passed HB685, which declares that New Hampshire will not
participate in the federal REAL ID act. This vote also sends a clear
message to the State Senate, which gutted and killed a similar bill last
year. At the time, Governor Lynch had indicated that he would sign such
a bill.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=489&Itemid=36
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN RED LIGHT CAMS
THE NEWSPAPER - The Minnesota Supreme Court delivered the highest-level
court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision
against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld
last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program
had violated state law.
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law
imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo
ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than
available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the
conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court
argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime:
"owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither
required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout
the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is
not familiar," the court wrote. . .
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that
lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the
country.
"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," the court
concluded. "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."
RULING
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment