On a motorsport forum recently, I was tagged in a conversation and was asked to comment on a legal matter in the United States. It looks like I have been appointed as the voice of reason because I do that apparently strange thing of bothering to look up what rules and laws actually say, and quote them, when I am making an argument. Who'd have guessed that if you want to have an informed opinion, that you should probably do an iota of research and bother to be informed? Admittedly, I live in a world adjacent to the law and I work in an industry where rules are everywhere; so looking up what the rules say is normal and obvious to me.
Probably because I am that stereotypical rule-following firstborn child, who reads every rule and looks for nudges and strategies within the game to win, and who reads every rule, I want to be correct. Reading the law should be the first and most obvious point of order if one wants to know what the proper answer is to a legal matter.
<><><><><>
This is the scenario:
A driver in a truck, wants to sue the City of Chicago after he was caught by a Red Light Camera, after running through the traffic lights on the red.
You'd think that this would be a bang to rights case for the Illinois Police, who would simply mail this person a ticket for the traffic infringement and that would be the end of it.
However...
This person wants to dispute the case on the grounds that this is violates his Sixth Amendment Rights because he argues that in this case the state has no right to enforce criminal law unless a notice is served in person, as nobody has been harmed. The argument as presented is that as this is a case where the very existence of red light cameras and speed cameras themselves are unconstitutional and any evidence that they present should be struck off out of hand, in all cases.
<><><><><>
Wow.
Why are people like this?
Yes, I understand that paying a traffic fine is unpleasant and that as the hero to their own story people think that they are the most important character, but seriously? This is classic "Functional Adult Needs A Creche" stuff. This is sillier than a ordering a pizza and trying to pay with snakes. Come on. Grow up.
The short answer which should be enough is that the law says that you shouldn't run a red light and that the state can and will enforce the law. The fact that the state has sent out an infringement notice should be prima facie evidence enough to a normal person that the state has the right to enforce the law. The fact that that infringement notice exists, along with the terms and conditions which they are likely legally bound to tell you on that infringement notice, ought to be enough to convince any sane person that this has been properly thought out. However, seeing as I need to entertain with more than just "oh der", I shall have to write an opinion piece.
There are a lot of things going on here; all of which are based on smoke.
Firstly, the idea that has no right to enforce criminal law unless certain criteria are met, is blatantly absurd. I do know that the same constitution which allows that state of create and pass laws, including traffic laws, will also give that same state the right to administer and enforce those same laws. A right is the ability at law to own a thing, control a thing, or do a thing and of course it follows that giving the state the monopoly on violence to be that wellspring from which and by which law is made, enacted, enforced, and administered, is going to follow.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
SECTION 8. PASSAGE OF BILLS
(a) The enacting lause of the laws of this State shall be: "Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly."
(b) The General Assembly shall enact laws only by bill. Bills may originate in either house, but may be amended or rejected by the other.
- Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution (1970)
Of note here is that Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution provides the method by which laws may be enacted but provides no limitations on what those laws can be about. The idea that the State of Illinois is somehow bound by a criteria which doesn't even exist, is stupid. Of course the state can write laws, enact the terms of those laws, and the terms of enforcement of those laws. Stop acting the goat.
Secondly, the right being assumed by the person who has broken the law, is that they are somehow immune from it. There is no right not to follow the law, and I do not care if you are the poorest of homeless people who steals food to get by, or a King who has claimed a divine right to rule, you must follow the law. The fact that even the King is subject to the law, was very much discovered if it wasn't previously known, on 30th January 1649 when King Charles I started the day as being 5'6" at the beginning of the day but only 4'8" by the end of it. The law and the authority of the law very much acted.
There is probably some sort of background Sovereign Citizen shenanigans going on here, possibly someone absurdly claiming a right to travel which somehow makes them exempt from the rules of the road and so if any or all of this is true, then... stop it. Stupidity is the deliberate act of choosing to do a foolish thing. If you want to choose to assert that you are special and exempt from the law, then do not lose your head by claiming that you are above the law. You look stupid. You are stupid. Stop acting the goat.
Thirdly (and this perhaps is the hardest of all for this person to accept), the assertion that nobody has been harmed as the result of someone running through the traffic lights on the red signal, is wrong. Someone has been harmed. Someone has been hurt. This is difficult for people like this to accept because they neither accept that a someone has been harmed, nor accept that that someone can be harmed. That person, is the state. Yes, the state has been harmed.
The idea that the state is a person, is such a long established concept at law that it is almost moot. The state, usually as a corporation or some other legal instrument, is a person. Usually (and depending on the exact legal fiction employed), the state is Corporation Sole; that is, that it owns itself. Usually the state is given names like the Crown, or The People, or The Republic, or The State et cetera. The state owns itself and can not sell that one theoretical share in itself. The state usually has elections for the board members who make executive decisions (through councils, congresses, parliaments et cetera), it has officers who enact policy, and the state can but and sell property.
So then, how can you have a non-corporeal person be harmed by anything? Because the state in owning various things, including the law courts, the law enforcement officers, and the rule of law itself, is harmed when the corporate good of the rule of law, is violated. In principle, the rule of law is a non-real good in the same way that other intangible property such as copyrights, trademarks, designs and patents, et cetera, are also property which is harmed when violated. The thing that has been harmed is the non real good which is the rule of law. It is not by accident that the verbs used include "violate" and "break"; which would not be a thing if the rule of law was not capable of being harmed.
Fourthly, the assertion that the state does not have the right to enforce the law just because they aren't there "in person", then that is also absurd. The state IS there in person. This might be a mind blowing concept for our trucker friend but a non corporeal person can and does occupy space in this case. The space being occupied is the boundary of the State of Illinois. In this respect, this is no different to a corporation which owns a big supermarket and you causing willful damage in Aisle 3. If you take a bent towards a rack of shelving and starting bashing it with a baseball bat, then of course the supermarket has the right to make a claim of damages. The corporation which owns the supermarket, is in fact present within the confines of the premises. The State of Illinois has a superpower in that within its borders it possesses the ability to be everywhere, all at once, all the time.
Fifthly, this person wants to asset that violates his Sixth Amendment Rights. Looking at the words of the text, I would like to know how exactly.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
- Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution (1791)
Getting written notice of a traffic violation, fulfills all the state's obligations and requirements under the Sixth Amendment, in writing; including the nature of the confrontation and of the witnesses being presented (which in this case a photograph at a red light camera bears witness).
This looks like classic "I know some legal words and I will use them as magic words to get what I want". Unfortunately, knowing some legal words is of no use at all if you do not know what they mean.
If I as a reasonable person, can make five reasonable arguments as to why the state has the right to enforces laws, then then chances that the state does in fact have the right to enforces laws should be pretty high. Unless there is something that I have missed, bothering to look up what rules and laws actually say, and quote them, seems like a good strategy; especially in reference to law.
No comments:
Post a Comment