New Mexico Appeals Court to Take Red Light Camera Challenge

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

A New Mexico district court judge on Thursday transferred a case challenging the legality of photo enforcement systems to the state’s second highest court. In a written decision, Judge Manuel Arrieta suggested it would save time and expense for the court of appeals directly to weigh the case against Cristobal Rodriguez who was issued a red light camera ticket by the private company operating on behalf of the city of Las Cruces.

A hearing officer working for the mayor found Rodriguez guilty of running a red light, even though the New Mexico State University educational management professor was not behind the wheel at the time of the offense. Rodriguez does not know who was driving, and the Las Cruces ordinance finds the owner guilty unless someone else steps up and pays the ticket. On January 20, Rodriguez filed an appeal to the district court, arguing that this procedure violated his due process rights under the constitution. He also argues that the photographs are hearsay, but the ordinance forbids motorists from raising any objections to the evidence. Because the ordinance authorizes confiscation of cars as a penalty, Rodriguez argued that the rules of criminal, not civil, procedure should apply. As the appeals court has already agreed to consider a similar case, Las Cruces v. Avallone Mechanical Company, it made sense for the district court to hold off on ruling in this case.

“The appeal challenging the STOP program raises constitutional issues which are of substantial public interest and are issues which will likely recur with some frequency,” Judge Arrieta wrote. “The need for uniformity in the resolution of these issues is great and will result in advancing the interests of judicial economy and reduce future litigation.”

Rodriguez, who is representing himself in the case, has an uphill legal battle. In 2007, District Court Judge Geraldine E. Rivera ruled that the city’s use of a “nuisance” ordinance to confiscate vehicles was “civil in nature” and therefore the lower legal burden of an administrative hearing was appropriate. She also declared that a punishment of vehicle forfeiture for exceeding the speed limit by a few miles per hour was not an excessive. Judge Arrieta believed a decision either way would end up in a higher court.

“An appeal from any district court decision is highly likely such that certification in the first instance would serve the interests of judicial economy and reduce litigation costs,” he concluded.

A copy of the order is available in a 700k PDF file at the source link below.

New Mexico v. Rodriguez (Dona Ana County, New Mexico District Court, 4/5/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
 2 comments
  • PrincipalDan PrincipalDan on Apr 18, 2011

    Good to see someone fighting this locally (I've been a New Mexican since 2001.) I'm amazed that some ambitious lawyer hasn't stepped up to help him pro bono just for the publicity.

  • John Fritz John Fritz on Apr 18, 2011

    People seem to not give a crap about these cameras which is mind boggling to me. I get fired up every time I read about a private person or a group of people resisting these local government extortion rackets. Fighting red light cameras is one of the first signs that regular people are starting to wake up to this constant government misconduct going on in our country. Camera fights are just the tip of the iceberg of growing civil disobedience aimed at overreaching government. It's about time.

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next