Resolved: The US should abolish traffic cameras

Thank you for accepting this debate.
----
1. Overview
Traffic cameras give police and municipalities the ability to remotely enforce traffic laws. The most common form of traffic cameras in the United States are red light cameras that are designed to catch those running a red light; and speed cameras which are designed to catch those who are speeding. {1} In this debate I will be arguing on both constitutional law and on empirical evidence.
2. Traffic cameras violate the United States Constitution
There are several amendments that traffic cameras violate. According to the US Constitution it is incumbent upon the state to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you committed the traffic violation.
A. The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
B. The 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 defence.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state’s policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).
While yellow light times were reduced by mere fractions of a second, research indicates a half-second reduction in the interval can double the number of RLC citations — and the revenue they create. The 10 News investigation stemmed from a December discovery of a dangerously short yellow light in Hernando County. After the story aired, the county promised to re-time all of its intersections, and the 10 News Investigators promised to dig into yellow light timing all across Tampa Bay.

1. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/automated-enforcement-overview.aspx
2. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-superior-court/1532711.html
3. https://mic.com/articles/29661/speed-cameras-ohio-judge-rules-them-an-unconstitutional-sham#.cFsQXAMC9
4. https://phys.org/news/2018-07-red-light-cameras-dont-traffic-accidents.html

9. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-rahm-emanuel-red-light-tickets-lawsuit-settlement-met-20170720-story.html

 
In a world where police officers regularly lie on innocent people[1][2], traffic cameras are one of the greatest inventions ever designed to assist the justice system and are crucial to giving people a fair and just hearing as well as outright saving lives. Because of this, I strongly reject the resolution and would instead propose that the US not only keep traffic cameras, but that the federal government incentivize states to DRASTICALLY INCREASE the amount of cameras they have, the level of quality they retain, the amount of footage they can maintain and the amount of public roadway they can film!

Whenever someone wishes to contest a traffic ticket, they are offered with the opportunity to be heard before a court of law. In areas where there are no traffic cameras, the patrolling officer who handed out the ticket is typically called to testify.[3] The officer will generally testify based on what he/she mentioned in his/her report and you will then have the opportunity to cross-examine him/her. The problem is that the judge is generally going to side with officer no matter what[4], making it a very rigged process. And this is in spite of the well-known flaws with eyewitness identification testimony.[5] 

CON Contention #2: Traffic cameras save lives!
 
Perhaps the true genius in the implementation of traffic cameras is that they deter activities that statistically cause car accidents. Questionable outlier research aside, the raw data speaks for itself:[10][11][12][13][14]
 

 ^[10]

^[11]

^[12]

^[13]

^[14] 
Conclusion:
 
No matter how you look at it, traffic cameras make our country a much better place to live in! A vote for CON is a vote for the judicial integrity and the safety of America!
 
 
Sources:
 
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/blue-lies-matter
[2] https://www.innocenceproject.org/prevalence-police-lying/
[3] https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/traffic-violations/a-day-in-traffic-court.html
[4]https://www.salon.com/2015/12/16/it_is_an_open_secret_long_shared_by_prosecutors_defense_lawyers_and_judges_that_perjury_is_widespread_among_law_enforcement_officers_why_judges_so_rarely_second_guess_police_testimony/
[5] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
[6] https://www.s-tron.com/eyewitness-testimony-important-surveillance-camera-footage-critical/
[7] https://www.safemotorist.com/Articles/Traffic_Ticket_Quotas.aspx
[8] https://www.aclu-ia.org/en/news/lets-stop-racist-pretextual-traffic-stops
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-some-cops-use-the-badge-to-commit-sex-crimes/2018/01/11/5606fb26-eff3-11e7-b390-a36dc3fa2842_story.html?utm_term=.8ede2afedb4a
[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/speed-limit/2015/09/03/f38acb82-51b9-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html?utm_term=.5133113dbd89
[11] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/05/14/red-light-cameras-are-both-legal-and-life-saving
[12] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323749840_Do_Speed_Cameras_Save_Lives
[13] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html
[14] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2015/09/04/speed-cameras-save-lives-and-motivate-drivers-new-study-shows/#72e1b5dd1e8d
[15] https://www.curbed.com/2017/7/28/16051780/us-traffic-death-speeding-statistics-speeding
[16] https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118914&page=1

I thank PRO for the response and for his cordial demeanor. Cheers to a good debate!
 
Re PRO Contention #1: Traffic cameras violate the United States Constitution
PRO spends a lot of his time insisting that traffic cameras violate the Constitution. In his first round, he says they violate the 5th Amendment right to due process and the 6th Amendment’s confrontation clause. PRO’s due process concerns are that traffic cameras presume guilt and thus do not provide an individual with the opportunity to have a fair hearing PRO’s confrontation clause concerns are inanimate objects and therefore cannot be cross-examined. PRO bases his argument on a California Superior Court ruling in People v. Khaled, (2010). Unfortunately for PRO, the California Court of Appeals has long overruled the holding he is relying upon based on its January 13, 2015 ruling in People v. Borzakian.[1][2].
Traffic Cameras do NOT violate the 5th Amendment
The problem with PRO’s 5th Amendment due process clause argument is that the actual traffic camera footage makes no presumptions whatsoever. It’s simply footage. It is what it is. If you want to contest the government’s conclusion’s regarding the footage (i.e. you were speeding), you are welcome to have a hearing on it. That’s what the defendants in Khaled and Borzakian did. If the camera footage does not show you breaking the law, you can go to court and get the ticket thrown out using the camera footage as proof of your innocence.
Traffic Cameras do NOT violate the 6th Amendment
The problem with PRO’s 6th Amendment confrontation clause argument is that it completely disregards the meaning of hearsay. To those who don’t practice law, hearings and trials adhere to what we call “The Rules of Evidence.” Each State has their own set of rules with minor differences here and there, but they all agree on what constitutes hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement submitted for the truth of the matter asserted.[3] The problem with out-of-court statements is that the person making those statements did not make them under oath and penalty of perjury and thus there is generally no way to assure that said statement is trustworthy. Photographs and video footage do not have this problem because they are not statements. You cannot cross-examine a photograph or a video tape because there are no statements to cross-examine.
The only evidentiary question regarding photographs and cameras is authentication. In order to get a photograph or a video admitted into evidence, you have to establish that it is what you say it is.[4] In the case of footage, how do we know the footage was collected on the date the government said it was collected? How do we know that your car was the car that ran through the red light, as government alleges? A witness must establish these things and that witness must be knowledgeable. In the case of Khaled, the police officer used to authenticate the traffic camera footage was testifying about electronic records he had no personal knowledge of. An objection against his testimony would therefore be appropriate. This is, however, not grounds to conclude traffic cameras are not constitutional, but instead grounds to conclude that the prosecuting attorney is incompetent for not calling a knowledgeable witness to testify.
PRO’s philosophy would create a dangerous precedent
Can you imagine what would happen in California had the Khaled opinion NOT been overruled? Can you imagine what would happen if more courts in other states adopted PRO’s notion that mere photographs and camera footage should be inadmissible? It would be complete chaos for our justice system. Imagine the case of prosecuting attorneys using the surveillance footage of a bank robber robbing the bank and killing hostages to prosecute said robber for armed robbery and felony murder. By PRO’s logic, that evidence is inadmissible hearsay since the footage cannot be cross-examined.  That is simply not how the rules of evidence works and the people of California should be thankful that their appellate court promptly overruled the precedentially suicidal opinion PRO is relying upon.
Re: PRO Contention #2: Traffic cameras increase accidents and are inaccurate
PRO tells us that traffic-cameras increase non-angle accidents and that they can be highly inaccurate at times. Specifically, he says they increase non-angle accidents because some study out in Houston found that there was an 18% increase in such accidents after traffic cameras were installed. He says they’re inaccurate because a majority of cameras in Baltimore were given in error when traffic cameras were first installed and that a traffic camera was even used to issue a speeding ticket against someone whose car was parked. Neither argument is persuasive however.
PRO’s study suggesting that traffic cameras increase accidents is a statistical outlier and relies on bad logic to reach its conclusion.
PRO provided us with a study conducted by Case Western Reserve University to conclude that traffic cameras increased non-angle car accidents.[5] Based on data it had examined in Houston, PRO’s study concluded that “Once drivers knew about the cameras, they appeared to accept a higher accident risk from slamming on their brakes at yellow lights to avoid an expensive traffic citation—thereby decreasing safety for themselves and other drivers.” Here, we see the non-sequitur fallacy at work. By the study’s own logic, the problem isn’t the traffic cameras themselves, but the fact that non-law abiding citizens don’t know about the traffic cameras and thus slam their brakes when caught off guard by their presence. To which I offer a straightforward solution: Simply post signs in the area alerting drivers that traffic cameras are nearby and that they will receive a ticket should they speed or run the red light. And for those of who use apps like google maps, an audio alert could be added to give the driver advanced notice. Problem solved.
PRO’s study further says “There is clear evidence that installing a camera reduces the number of vehicles running a red light” and that is all we need to know. Refer back to my cites 15 and 16 from my R1. Ergo, PRO’s study implicitly admits that traffic cameras save lives. Throw in all of my R1 sources on this topic and it’s very clear that PRO has offered us nothing more than an outlier against what is otherwise a wide consensus.
PRO’s bad-accuracy examples strengthen my case
PRO cited examples of traffic cameras issuing erroneous tickets. This can and does happen. Although technology is constantly improving, it is not without error. Fortunately, that’s the beauty of the US having a judicial system that allows people to contest these tickets. Lets look at the example of the gentleman getting a speeding ticket despite having his car parked. See PRO’s source on this. That gentleman promptly got his ticket thrown out after making the court aware of this mistake. Now imagine if instead of a traffic camera giving him this ticket, it was an otherwise crooked police officer. What do you think would have happened? Both this gentleman and the police officer would’ve gone to court, the police officer would have lied on the stand, the judge would’ve believed the police officer (see my R1 cite #4) and the gentleman would’ve been up a creak without a paddle. We’re far better off in the hands of a traffic camera making a mistake as opposed to a police officer. We can prove our innocence with the former, but generally have no recourse with the latter.
Re: PRO Contention #3: Traffic cameras open the door for corruption
PRO argues that traffic cameras have encouraged municipalities to do all kinds of shady things like decrease the yellow-light time in order to “catch more people” and increase ticket revenue as a result. PRO’s argument is a classic case of trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
PRO’s problem has nothing to do with abolishing traffic cameras
Lets assume PRO is correct and shortening yellow-light intervals is the problem. If that’s the case, why not pass legislation that keeps cities from doing this? By PRO’s logic, we would get the best of both worlds and cities wouldn’t be able to corruptly increase ticket-revenue regardless of contracting with private companies. There is nothing inherently wrong with cities contracting with private companies. Many modern municipalities would not be able to function without doing this.[6]. The problem is when these cities deliberately change the law for no reason other than to increase revenue. That IS corrupt and something that can be dealt with without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
CON Contention #1: Traffic cameras are superior to eye-witness testimony.
PRO doesn’t object to this contention and instead argues that camera footage is inadmissible hearsay. See above.
CON Contention #2: Traffic cameras save lives!
PRO presents a counter-plan to save people’s lives. He says we should increase yellow light times and reduce speed limits. Increasing yellow light times does not hinder my case, so I don’t have a problem with it. PRO’s burden will be to show why we can’t do both. As to his speed limit reduction proposal, (1) That too is not mutually exclusive with having traffic cameras and (2) It’s a terrible idea in light of how truly and uniquely terrible traffic is in the US.[7][8] Imagine living in a city like Houston, Texas and having grown used to it taking you 3 hours to get to work. Now imagine it now taking 6 hours due to PRO’s proposal to cut the speed limit. No Just no. Any solution that makes the traffic nightmare in the US even worse than it already is is just not a good solution.
And that’ll do it for now!
Sources:
[1] https://tinyurl.com/ybetf2pr
[2] https://tinyurl.com/y9nwel9f
[3] https://tinyurl.com/yb54ljn8
[4] https://tinyurl.com/yd944wgd
[5] https://tinyurl.com/yakf3x38
[6] https://tinyurl.com/y8cuegoj
[7] https://tinyurl.com/ycgpne9o
[8] https://tinyurl.com/ybvlwwk8
 

I’m sorry to my opponent but I’m gonna have to forfeit this round. Too much school work and I picked a bad time to do this debate. Right in the middle of mid terms 

Voters, please pay no mind to the forfeit. I'll also waive the rules and permit PRO to rebut my arguments in his remaining round. 

Thanks for the debate!  Vote CON!