A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.
Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.
Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.
I don’t know what town it is exactly (Kirkland or Kenmore, WA), and they had a speed limit posted as 30mph., but gave my friend a ticket for going over 28 in a 25 zone. They grayed out the speed limit in the photo they sent that was approved by a cop. My friend would’ve had to go and get a picture of the sign to prove what assholes they were. I remember the sign and know for a fact that it said 30. Not enough to fight it, but enough to stay the fuck away from that town.
Not enough to fight it
if that’s not worth fighting then nothing is. I’ve met High school kids that have fought tickets before. U.S. Traffic Courts are notoroious for being extraordinarily mundane
They would have fought it if you could fight it like a normal ticket, but you couldn’t. You could pay or write them a stern letter that would mean nothing. Seattle has those kinds of tickets too. This would have had to have been a trip to the AG or something. I don’t know how they would have fought it without a lawyer.
Some towns literally just exist to extract money from nonlocals who don’t know to not go through there. There’s one near where I grew up that transitions from a 60 mph to a 30 mph zone at the bottom of a hill, so if you aren’t riding your brakes the whole way down you’re speeding. And of course the cops love to sit there and pop people with tickets for it.
Ain’t that shit considered “entrapment”?
Entrapment has a very specific definition, and this ain’t it.
It might still be an illegal speed limit change, but that’s going to depend on an awful lot of details. It’s certainly bad design, but the locals probably like it for the money it brings in.
Entrapment is when a cop gets you to do something that breaks a law, and then catches you.
Same sort of speed traps used to be along the only route to a casino I went to a few times. My first time driving to the casino, they were laying in wait. I got caught on the way back.
Pigs sure do love to jam people up. Bonus points if they ruin the life of a minority! There certainly are no such thing as quotas, right?
That happened to my dad too, he was going “one over the limit.” It’s infuriating because it’s fraud and stealing.
I think that lazy shitty cops do a lot to malign common sense safety engineering that most people would otherwise be totally on board for.
Emporia, Virginia is another notorious one, right on heavily traveled I-95 as well as US-58. Virginia has front license plates, so the cars that don’t have front plates definitely aren’t from Virginia and if there’s a group of cars all going the same speed it’s the easy way to pick out the non-local. Saw it happen when I was a passenger.
Old guy told me in addition to photos you should request all documentation regarding that specific sign and that stretch of road, such as the work order to have it installed. Public records laws vary lol
Wow, good to look into if ever defrauded like this!
Would be funny if it was a more modern vehicle, with a massive ipad that’s nearly bolted to your forehead and has displays on the back of every headrest.
I have my windows illegally tinted (including windshield) all around so…hopefully this helps.
Also fuck flock.
Wow, it sure must take a lot of processing power to go through that much surveillance data.
i keep mine in the space between the console and the seat not quite resting on my leg just sitting there unused and charging. the case on it kinda keeps it from looking like a phone as well
Great. Let me make sure my phone sits somewhere that hides it from view overhead when im not using it.
Ive been leaving my phone home more and more when I go places. I can’t wait until I get a citation for not having a phone.
Unconstitutional. Get that stupid ass shit dismissed in court.
What’s unconstitutional about it? Genuinely asking.
The Constitution guarantees the right to confront your accuser in court, which you can’t do with an automated camera. It used to be a guaranteed win if you showed up at all because the camera itself couldn’t hire a lawyer and present an argument.
That’s an insane interpretation of the law. I don’t know or even care what prior jurisprudence says on the matter, it’s fucking dumb if it’s been interpreted that way.
If the camera took the photo and automatically issued the fine, then sure, I agree. But the camera should be taking the photo and passing it to a human to decide if a fine is warranted or not. And in that case, the human (or more to the point, the organisation the human works for) is the accuser. And the fine should stand, unless a defence explaining how the photo misrepresented the situation can be successfully mounted (similar to how a defence could be mounted explaining that the speed camera was incorrectly calibrated).
It doesn’t have to. They send a representative from the camera company whose job it is to show up in court and rationalize their bullshit at the judge. I know this because I actually had to go through this process once, many years ago, to fight a clearly fraudulent ticket from one of these damn fool things in our local downtown.
Do you happen to live in the area the company is headquartered? Because I can’t imagine them flying a representative out for every ticket being contested.
These guys know how it works. They don’t “fly” anyone anywhere. The have low paid lackeys available in any and all of the areas they operate whose job it is specifically to hang around in courthouses and defend their tickets. It’s not like they drop everything and bundle an executive on a plane to go to Podunk, Missouri or whatever to argue about a one-off ticket.
In my case this outfit only operates in our state, to my knowledge. They wouldn’t have to go far.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted.
It’s the sixth amendent.
For of such a short document it is ridiculous for any American not to know their rights. Unfortunately the internet has been taken over by the ignorant.
I mean, we should certainly take the time to learn our rights, but I wouldn’t say that it’s ridiculous to not remember everything contained in 40+ pages.
This seems trivially defeatable by having an officer use the camera footage as evidence when they issue a fine. Then there’s an accuser to be confronted in court - the officer
4th Amendment violation
That surely fails the Katz test
When traffic cameras are found to be unconstitutional it’s generally under the fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures, requires probable cause for a search warrant). I don’t know if that’s how this case would shake out, but a ticket issued by a robot for having a phone in your lap face down is dumb as hell even if it’s not unconstitutional.
Yes, but the process is also a punishment.
Get it dismissed, and then sue the department that sent the fine.
Good luck with that.
Plenty of lawyers that work on contingencies if they think you have a worthy case.
Might have more luck suing the company running the camera software which flagged it.
Fuck it, sue them too.
YOU get a lawsuit! And YOU get a lawsuit!
EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS STUPIDITY GETS A LAWSUIT!!!
Too bad they’ll all be thrown out of court after the company pays off the judge…Ya know, it used to be when I’d say things like that, which I knew were always true, that people would say I’m crazy. That businesses can’t just BUY their way out of a lawsuit.
And now, the corruption is just out there. Everyone can see it now. Which kind of validates me, but also it means that things have gotten so much worse though out there. Now they feel no fear in basically telling the public “We run this shit, not you.”
Now for the next thing people will think I’m crazy for. Once they have it well established that they have bought and own the government, they’ll begin taking things away. I’m not talking about healthcare, or important things. That’s already started. They’re in the process right now of gutting programs like SNAP, and Medicaid. They began that about a year ago.
What I’m talking about is, right now you have no reason to believe that you can’t go down to your local ice cream parlor and get an ice cream cone. Nothing wrong with that. No reason to believe you’ll be denied. Give it time. There will come a day where you go to get ice cream, and they’ll tell you no. You’re not part of the in group. You’re not allowed to have ice cream.
And I’m not saying this about just ice cream. That’s just one example of something that is an affordable luxury, that has zero importance in life but it makes you feel good. It brings you joy.
Those are the types of things you’ll start being denied as they take more and more for themselves. They’ll want movie theaters to no longer allow the common man. They’ll want public pools closed, and renovated into private pools with private entry. They’ll want everything for them, and for you to beg to get common luxuries.
For them, it’s not about having vs not having. It’s about power. The ability to lick an ice cream cone, as they watch you go without, and laugh. They want the status of being able to tell you what to do. They want the world for themselves. That’s where this whole epstein’s island comes from. Some of them might actually be attracted to young kids, but really the thrill for them is to be able to take your sons and daughters dignity. They want what society says they can’t have, and is wrong for anyone to have. They want that. They want the taboo. They want the power to say they can have it anytime they want. Regardless of how wrong it is. To them it’s a show of power, and that’s all they’ve ever cared about.
Call me crazy, but in 20 years, when there’s an entire generation who’s never tasted ice cream in their lives, maybe you’ll remember this post. Probably not, but I will. Just like if I knew where my 1st grade teacher, Mrs Huey was, I’d go tell her the conversation we had 30+ years ago. The one in which she claimed that I’d grow up, and stop playing video games. I told her that on my death bed, I’d be playing video games no matter how old I got. I’m 42 now, and I’d ask her “At what point am I going to grow out of video games? When does the growing up happen? I’m older today, than you were the day you said that.” And she, in turn, I assume would tell me it’s not important, and that it was 30 years ago. Which is frustrating because 30 years ago she wouldn’t believe me, and now, she won’t care. Anything to avoid saying you were wrong I suppose. Which is weird to me. I have no issue when I’m wrong. Happens quite a bit. When I was 8, I thought I’d grow up to be one of the ninja turtles. Which, just conceptually makes no sense. The turtles became the turtles because they were already regular turtles, and then mutated when they got covered in toxic waste. If anything, I’d just be a really big mutated human. Think about it. The turtles were little regular pet store turtles. Maybe 7 inches tall if held upright. Then they get splashed with ooze, and they’re like 7 feet tall. So as a kid, I was probably 4 feet tall…so I’d be like 30 feet tall I guess? I mean, that would still be cool, but also, we’re ignoring the medical problems of being mutated. I’d probably get cancer again.
What was I talking about again?
I read this entire comment and I don’t regret it.
I have no idea, but username checks out
Let’s be sure to name and shame, for anyone who missed it: Georgia and Florida.
Company is - you guessed it - Flock.
Flock is shit, but apparently not the one who did this. Ig they could be lying?
Flock Safety reached out to us to clarify that our information was wrong. Flock cameras were not involved with the woman driving with her phone story. Alexandra Parade, where the incident took place, is a well traveled coastal highway with systems operated by state revenue programs. We have corrected that and removed any mention of Flock being involved with that story.
I think people are rightfully referring to mass surveillance system cameras as Flock cameras.
Even if the company folds, the cameras will still be operated. It doesnt matter what the brand is that makes em.
It matters people know what they are.
When I first heard of the amputee story (a bodycam video/audio of the initial encounter) it sounded to me like this was good old-fashioned police work, followed up with a typical harassment citation to send the citizen they didn’t like’s attitude to court if they wanted a chance to prove that they weren’t holding a phone in their amputated hand.
Two states?
Washington is mentioned, but not with enough context to determine that Washington uses the cameras.
Which is weird, and other comments mention the whole article may be AI slop, rehashed from somewhere else. :(
Queensland, Australia.
deleted by creator
Like I said on a similar thread - we already lost our feedom. They’re just installing the shackles now.
Per the article this was not a Flock cam. FYI.
I remember the NSA massive surveillance machine during the George W. Bush administration and Obama administration that tracked phone metadata and internet traffic that left or entered the US (which was used to justify a lot of surveillance of US citizens). Even after the Snowden disclosures of 2013 we were promised that the system was only meant to track foreign terrorists.
Then we learned that DEA had full access to it, and that NSA was sending hints to law enforcement about large amounts of cash in transit so it could be intercepted for purposes of asset forfeiture, what is nothing short of robbery of civilians by law enforcement officers.
This is an example of mission creep, in this case how it affects the surveillance state. Once we allow a method or technology to be used for major crime (like terrorism), it will eventually be used even for minor crime (like drug possession or distracted driving).
It’s very common for courts to forgive a violation of fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search when the violation presents evidence for a major crime, but then that case will be used as precedent when the same violation occurs and discovers a minor infraction.
This is how, during the aughts and 2010s, the Fourth Amendment was gutted by a long run of carve-outs. Now, a police officer or state agent can violate your privacy without a warrant via a whole range of exceptions:
~ If the crime they discover is significant (SCOTUS suggested controlled substance possession as an example)
~ Using specialized technology, say long-range multi-spectrum cameras, or using a drone.
~ If probable cause can be established. A favorite is a detection dog that signals on anything and has a 90%+ false positive rate.¹ (This is a particular beef of mine, since fake detection dogs are now more common than actual detection dogs, and dogs are losing their presumption of regularity as a result.)
~ If the police officer was acting in good faith, which is obtusely defined and is very hard to disprove. ~ If the suspect is non-white or otherwise suspicious due prejudice. Really, in a lot of counties, law enforcement are allowed to operate on hunches, or have a suspicious activity parameter list that is so encompassing (and often contradictory) that it’s impossible to be credulous.If you want to know how we got here these were already problems during the Obama administration when we had allegedly reasonable people in elected offices. And while they discussed the risk of too much power falling into the wrong hands, they felt compelled to keep it.
Whether the One Ring, or the Ring of Gyges, power without consequence is too seductive.
¹ A similar issue is the $2 roadside drug test which reacts to a lot of substances that aren’t controlled, such as glazed sugar off a donut. These were originally supposed to be then verified later in a lab, but instead were used to establish probable cause, and eventually were used as evidence in court.
This is wildly whack:
https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives
The system must do everything in its power to drive false convictions down to absolute zero.
Blackstone would agree with you.
Many, many people, in law enforcement and the judiciary would disagree…
…especially when it comes to minorities.
Why would the phone be on your lap if you’re not using it?
This is kinda justified.
Does holding the volume up button to switch songs count as using my phone?
Not even a little justified. What are you on about?
Phone is on her lap specifically because she’s not using it.
I hate flock, I hate the surveillance state we’ve lived in for decades. But you don’t just drive with a phone in your lap. She may not have been using it when the camera caught her but we all know she was definitely fucking using it. You’re lying.
There’s a law against driving with your phone in your lap? That’s crazy.
Idiots downvoting you are the exact reason we end up with so many laws that seem ridiculous. You’re exactly right, why would it be in her lap if she hadn’t been using? Saying she’s innocent because it wasn’t actively in her hand, is like saying you’re just carrying a bloody knife, but they didn’t catch you stabbing the guy, so too bad.
In Australia, your phone must be stowed or in an approved cradle when driving, because, people would be using their phone and then drop it in their lap when caught and try to claim they were just carrying it there. Not that it got them out of the fine, it just saved time with idiots arguing.
My phone is in my lap while driving all the time because I take it out of my back pocket to not squish it when sitting down and I don’t have anywhere else to put it. Usually I remember to tuck it down beneath my legs, but sometimes I forget.
There’s a bunch of trays that can hold your phone all over, newer ones even make some dedicated ones that would wirelessly charge your phone. Put it there, your lap is not a stable surface, and sure will distract you when the sudden movement causes it to slide off.
Idk maybe she just left Dunkin and paid by scanning the app in the drive thru and now her cupholder is full and it’s the safest place to put down the phone.
I don’t know.
I do know what they say about assuming, though. And the state is assuming, and thus accusing, her of a dangerous activity on nothing but the thinnest of evidence.
An accusation that is based upon a presumption of guilt, which our system shouldn’t be based upon.
And so now this person has to choose between taking time off work, and possibly lawyering up, to fight this and maybe just pay a few hundred in court fees…or just pay it.
This is Vexatious litigation and an abuse of the judicial system on the part of the state.
The other day my car told me to pull over and take a nap because I was driving out of dense tree cover into a really bright street and my eyes were squinty.
This is like putting a camera right there in the sun and issuing DUIs because you look high.
By the same logic if you’re transporting unopened liquor in a grocery bag on the seat next to you it’s “kinda justified” to be arrested for drinking while driving. After all why would it be in arm’s reach if you weren’t planning on drinking it?
Presumably the driver had previously used her phone, and the phone was in her lap. So the alcohol analogy would actually be re-sealed alcohol held by the driver or in a container around the driver’s seat. Which is illegal in most of the USA.
She probably used it earlier, but not necessarily. She might not have a good place to set her phone in her car.
She might have used it earlier, at a time where it was legal. For instance, setting navigation or music before driving. Or (depending on local laws) while stopped at a light.
Right, but if we’re making alcohol an analogy for phones then she wouldn’t be given such leeway by the law. Alcohol is just a bad analogy here.
Because the alcohol law is “open container”. There is no “phone in reach of driver” law. The analogous activity with alcohol would be active drinking.
So if the phone was on the seat she should get a ticket, if was on her hap she should get a ticket, if it was in her pocket she should get a ticket? If it’s in a dash mount within reach she should get a ticket? If the phone’s in a sealed box then she shouldn’t?
You see now why alcohol is not a great analogy.
I got a lot of down votes above for pointing out the discrepancy. I think people got ahead of their skis: I wasn’t trying to say she deserves DUI-level charges, I’m demonstrating that the analogy isn’t great.
Maybe she did use it, but did so at a traffic light. That’s perfectly fine. Stop defending people actively working against you. It broadcasts your level of intelligence.
Because you aren’t using it. It isn’t in your lap when you’re using it. How do you use your mobile?
Meanwhile in NYC they’re only allowed to put traffic cameras in school zones, they’re speed-based only, the fine is like $100, and drivers can rack up dozens of tickets without any consequence to the standing of their drivers license.
I dunno man, I feel like there’s a happy medium in traffic enforcement automation between these two extremes? It’s almost as if stuff like the Georgia example exists to provide ammunition to the opponents in NYC who successfully defanged traffic cameras up there. With a thin veneer over the top that this is about surveillance.
Flock cameras, AI surveillance, etc is bad. But the specific examples and criticisms being brought up, like this one, feel very disingenuous in the face of how many Americans die to distracted drivers every year. Like are we actually pushing back against AI state surveillance, or are we defending the “right” of motorists to be wildly dangerous to those around them?
Should breathalyzers be mandated in every vehicle because of the number of deaths due to drunk drivers? Should there be mass pedestrian surveillance with facial recognition to prevent crime because there are lots of criminals that use sidewalks?
The problem with any kind of mass surveillance is the information gathered will always be misused because that’s what those in positions of power always do. Police officers are already using camera information to monitor the whereabouts of their exes and girlfriends. Now the data’s being used as a revenue source, not for public safety. Another example - Schools remotely enabled cameras on their student’s PCs and actually monitored what students were doing in their own bedrooms. Administrators saw absolutely nothing wrong with it and tried to punish those students if they didn’t like what they saw.
In my opinion there isn’t any possibility for a happy medium, it’s eventually going to be all or nothing.
You think that automated radar-based speed enforcement of those that go 15MPH over the limit in school zones during school hours with no detrimental effects to license status is a slippery slope to a panoptic AI surveillance state?
Because personally I think that as a society we can and should agree upon reasonable tests for overreach and abuse of technological systems, and build automations that respect those tests.
We both agree that AI surveillance is bad. You just stumped against it for a whole comment, but I already said AI surveillance is bad. That was not my point, my point is that I find this article’s approach to the problem of AI surveillance problematic in that it’s leveraging the reaction that drivers have toward any automation whatsoever to make an emotional case against AI surveillance that I feel amplifies pushback against otherwise reasonable automations that catch egregiously dangerous use (eg The radar cameras in place in NYC) an muddiest and important distinction. I just don’t like the way this article is pitched.
obviously LLM-generated article from an odd outlet that publishes five articles every hour
the news is real because it just regurgitates 404media
The summary OP posted is LLM slop as well
that’s not a summary; that’s the first paragraphs of the article
Couldn’t find it on 404 (ironic) but it was on Yahoo news
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/flock-camera-captures-woman-driving-101504525.html
yahoo news is not a news source but a site that republishes articles from other websites. you can tell from the top here that this is the exactly same article from Gadget Review
apparently the 404media part is just a part of the article where it cites previous incidents. so then we don’t even have a source for the meat of the article save a random X thread.
Ah yeah even the author is the same
In some jurisdictions, yes
