Originally Posted by
urbanknight
You do not have prove anything. You just have to contest the charge and raise a doubt. It's their job (by looking at you and then the picture from the camera) to prove that it WAS you and not someone else.
Sorry, but your logic makes no sense here anyway. If going to court to defend your case was an alienation of your rights to due process, nobody would ever have to go to court for anything. Try this...
Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear.
When there is no photo, the department has no case against you. There should be no need for a driver to even have to contest the charge. By issuing a moving violation when there is no legal basis for doing so, the concerned department is banking on the fact that most people will simply pay rather than waste a day in court. Before I became a beach bum, I sure as hell wouldnt give up a day's wages to save a couple of hundred bucks.
What the government is doing is enforcing a law that they know to be unconstitutional. Technically speaking, you are right - this doesnt require the driver to prove his innocence, it merely requires him to defend himself. But bottom line is - the government has no business trying this in the first place.
V.