Editing Traffic enforcement camera (section)

===Legal issues===
Various legal issues arise from such cameras and the laws involved in how cameras can be placed and what evidence is necessary to prosecute a driver varies considerably in different legal systems.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/rlc_guide/rlc_bib.htm#Toc93387608 |title=Stopping Red Light Running - FHWA Safety |access-date=February 6, 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090509134710/http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/rlc_guide/rlc_bib.htm |archive-date=May 9, 2009 }}</ref>

One issue is the potential [[conflict of interest]] when private contractors are paid a [[commission (remuneration)|commission]] based on the number of tickets they are able to issue. Pictures from the [[San Diego]] red light camera systems were ruled inadmissible as [[court]] [[evidence (law)|evidence]] in September 2001. The judge said that the "total lack of oversight" and "method of compensation" made evidence from the cameras "so untrustworthy and unreliable that it should not be admitted".<ref>{{cite court|url=http://www.alexandrialawlibrary.com/red57927.dismiss-ord-080901.htm|litigants=[[Government of California|State of California]] vs John Allen, et al.|court=[[Superior Courts of California|Superior Court of the State of California]], [[San Diego County, California|County of San Diego]]|quote=The statute contemplated that it would be a governmental agency that operated the system, not private enterprise. The potential conflict created by a contingent method of compensation further undermines the trustworthiness of the evidence that is used to prosecute red light violations. The evidence obtained from the red light camera system as presently operated appears so untrustworthy and unreliable that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted}}</ref>

Some US states and [[provinces of Canada]], such as [[Alberta]], operate "owner liability", where it is the registered owner of the vehicle who is legally responsible for paying all such fines, regardless who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offense, although they do release the owner from liability by identifying the actual driver and that person pays the fine,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_01#section83.1|title=Liability of owner for speeding and traffic light violations|quote=The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the contravention of section 140, 146 (1), (3), (5) or (7), 147 or 148 (1) if evidence of the contravention was gathered through the use of a prescribed speed monitoring device... prescribed traffic light safety device... An owner is not liable under subsection (2) or (2.1) if the owner establishes that (a) the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle was not entrusted by the owner with possession, or (b) the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence in entrusting the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle.|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101218070427/http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96318_01#section83.1|archive-date=2010-12-18}}</ref> and in most such jurisdictions, convictions for such traffic offenses do not result in additional consequences for either drivers or owners (such as [[demerit points]]) besides the immediate financial consideration of the fine. In such jurisdictions, corporations that own vehicles (such as [[rental car]] companies) almost invariably require authorized drivers to agree in writing to assume financial responsibly for all such tickets.

In a few US states (including California), the cameras are set up to get a "face photo" of the driver.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us/40459.html |title=City of Santa Maria, California, Red Light Camera Enforcement, Police Services |access-date=May 18, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110506014228/http://www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us/40459.html |archive-date=May 6, 2011 }}</ref> This has been done because in those states red light camera tickets are criminal violations, and criminal charges must always name the actual violator. In California, that need to identify the actual violator has led to the creation of a unique investigatory tool, the fake "ticket".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes |title=(Fighting) Your Ticket - Red Light Cameras in California |website=Highwayrobbery.net |access-date=2016-06-30 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160708062307/http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes |archive-date=2016-07-08 }}</ref><ref>David Goldstein, CBS Television, Los Angeles [http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/13/goldstein-investigation-are-police-tricking-people-into-paying-snitch-tickets/ "Are police tricking people into paying Snitch Tickets?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110423041023/http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/13/goldstein-investigation-are-police-tricking-people-into-paying-snitch-tickets/ |date=2011-04-23 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=10022 |title=The Right To Remain Silent |work=www.almanacnews.com |access-date=November 18, 2011 |date=8 November 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111113052247/http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=10022 |archive-date=13 November 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://handelonthelaw.com/home/article_details.aspx?Article=78 |title=Something Every Consumer Should Know |work=www.HandelontheLaw.com |access-date=November 18, 2011 |date=March 27, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111024211647/http://handelonthelaw.com/home/article_details.aspx?Article=78 |archive-date=October 24, 2011 }}</ref> In Arizona and Virginia, tickets issued by cameras are unenforceable due to there being no penalty for ignoring them. However, acknowledging receipt of such ticket makes it valid and thus enforceable.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=http://www.schillingshow.com/2010/11/15/ignoring-is-bliss-why-virginians-can-safely-discard-red-light-camera-tickets/|title=Ignoring is bliss: Why Virginians can safely discard red-light camera tickets|date=November 15, 2010|website=The Schilling Show Blog|access-date=December 22, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223063310/http://www.schillingshow.com/2010/11/15/ignoring-is-bliss-why-virginians-can-safely-discard-red-light-camera-tickets/|archive-date=December 23, 2016}}</ref> Many states have outlawed the use of traffic enforcement cameras.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/automated_enforcement/enforcementtable?topicName=Red%20light%20running#tableData|title=States using red light and speed cameras|website=www.iihs.org|access-date=December 22, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223131729/http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/automated_enforcement/enforcementtable?topicName=Red%20light%20running#tableData|archive-date=December 23, 2016}}</ref>

In April 2000, two motorists who were caught speeding in the United Kingdom challenged the ''Road Traffic Act 1988'', which required the keeper of a car to identify the driver at a particular time<ref name=HumanRights/> as being in contradiction to the [[Human Rights Act 1998]] on the grounds that it amounted to a 'compulsory confession', also that since the camera partnerships included the police, local authorities, Magistrates Courts Service (MCS) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which had a financial interest in the fine revenue that they would not get a fair trial. Their plea was initially granted by a judge then overturned but was then heard by the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECtHR), and the [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ). In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights found there was no breach of article 6 in requiring the keepers of cars caught speeding on camera to provide the name of the driver.<ref name=HumanRights>{{cite web|url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=819526&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649|title=O'Halloran and Francis v. The United Kingdom|website=Cmiskp.echr.coe.int|access-date=2016-06-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120524084421/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=819526&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649|archive-date=2012-05-24}}</ref>