Originally Posted by
CB HI
If cops do not investigate, it is because they are too lazy, not because video or pictures are hearsay.
They're not always hearsay, but they're harder to work with in a court room if the person who actually took them is not there to testify, and the cops don't know that you'll be there.
Remember, we're talking about minor moving violations (well, I was.) The cop's laziness is absolutely a factor -- if they didn't personally witness the violation, things get a lot more complicated for them to support if it goes to court. Most handle this by just not giving tickets for things they didn't see or weren't confessed to them.
Your wiki hearsay is really dealing with digital things like facebook pages, e-mails, blogs, twitter and such, not photos and video.
And did you see the other link I provided, the one about courtroom rules of evidence?
In case you didn't, I'll quote it for you --
Audiovisual Media
Photographs or video recordings of evidence are important to your case. In order to be admissible, someone must testify that they reasonably represent the thing or person that was photographed or filmed. The person giving testimony concerning the item either must have taken it herself or been present when it was taken, so she can verify that the film or photograph accurately represents what it is purported to represent.
Now, this is a very simplified overview of a complicated matter, and it can vary from state to state or even court to court, but in general video evidence doesn't stand on its own -- somebody has to testify about who took it, what it recorded, etc. A cop might do that for you for a traffic violation -- but they probably won't. And even if they did, they're just testifying about what you told him.
Here's a page that talks specifically about video evidence, how it's often considered hearsay, if the digital files part confuses you -- the rules are very similar.
Present it as you see fit, but the reality is ... the police will rarely issue minor traffic citations based solely on video evidence -- they generally have to have seen the violation themselves, or have had the violator confess their crime to them. Call the reason laziness if you want, but there is more to it than that, with some bonafide legal reasons for it -- but laziness is certainly a factor. Whatever the reason -- it doesn't happen often. (Now, cases involving felonies are a different matter ...)
Video evidence generally is admissible in court, however -- but in general the person who took the video or is responsible for it will need to be there to testify about the video -- what it covers, when it was taken, etc. Without that testimony, the video may be ruled to be hearsay and not allowed to be admitted.