[notch656a]

You can but at least in the last state I lived, a cop's guesstimation is accepted (they count in their head or watch and count the lines or something, or that's the theory). In practice if the cop used an uncalibrated speed gun or whatever he'll always just say it was his guesstimation and precedent holds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the ticket is valid.

So it returns back to the evidence being hidden and parallel construction being used to present the court case.

[______-_-______]

I honestly think that's still better than most online bans. If you find out you were ticketed because a cop had a bad day, it's not justice, but at least it's closure. Now you know, and you can accept it or fight/appeal if you're so inclined.

If you're permabanned because of a google/ebay AI bug, you can't even get that far.

[cormacrelf]

Not sure if this is your intention or even what jurisdiction you’re talking about, but “a preponderance of the evidence” is a fancy way of saying “to a civil standard” ie “more likely than not”. Seems unlikely for a criminal offence, where that’s never the standard. It was probably a fair bit more complicated than you’re making out.

[notch656a]

Those are the literal words spoken by the judge the last time I challenged a speeding case. I was also forced to testify against myself and told clearly and specifically by the judge I had no fifth amendment right to remain silent.

[admittedly that challenge happened in a different state than the guesstimation state. I don't even bother to challenge in the guesstimation state because you're basically fucked no matter what.]

The judge's explanation to me was that any offense without possible jail time are held to preponderance of the evidence and constitutional rights such as 5th amendment are revoked.

I've also been called to show up in a 'Mayors court' for speeding where the mayor who is the cousin of the cop oversees your case. Good luck with that; the ACLU has actually done a pretty extensive documentation on Mayor's courts and the corruption involved there.

[torstenvl]

The 5th amendment (or rather the 14th in this case) requires "due process" before taking your life, liberty, or property.

As is probably intuitive, the process that is "due" for taking property, which is less than is "due" for taking liberty, which is still somewhat less than is "due" for taking life. (This latter hasn't always been the case, but read Brennan's concurrence in Furman v. Georgia and progeny cases establishing the death-is-different axiom of American criminal jurisprudence.)

A property interest that doesn't implicate any liberty interest may be taken with a bare minimum of due process, often just notice and an opportunity to be heard. If a hearing is granted, the standard is a preponderance (not beyond a reasonable doubt).

I assume the penalty for your speeding ticket was a fine only, yes?

[notch656a]

You're right, it was a fine only.

Personally I disagree that property doesn't implicate liberty. I toiled for hours, perhaps days to pay these fines. I was deprived of liberty for however long I was forced to labor to pay the fine. Also it's worth noting the citation itself was filed against me specifically, not my property. This is in contrast to something like 'US vs $500 on a dashboard.'

But yes I do understand the legal system treats these cases distinctly.

[MichaelBurge]

There's people that argue they shouldn't have to pay income tax because wages from labor is an exchange of life duration for money, so it should be a sale of assets and not pure income.

So just think of the fine as a forced liquidation, so it's back to property again.

[ncmncm]

Due process utterly failed to save the lives of the unconvicted and unindicted American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son, (both blown up by remote control) or his 8-year-old daughter (shot in the neck), all three murdered under constitutionally indefensible Presidential order. None of the principals or co-conspirators has yet been prosecuted.

[tyrfing]

> in some states, minor traffic violations aren't considered "crimes"—they're "civil" offenses. So, in these states, the government might be held to a lesser standard of proof for traffic cases. For example, in New York, the standard of proof for traffic violations is "clear and convincing evidence." And in Oregon, the state needs to prove traffic offenses only by a "preponderance of the evidence."

[marcus0x62]

De jure it is more complicated, de facto, not so much.