Five or so years ago my husband received one of those red-light violation letters in the mail. He looked at the three pictures on the notice and said he couldn't see what he'd done wrong (he had no recollection of even being at this intersection, since the alleged infraction had taken place a good two months or so earlier). I said, go to watch the video at the link they give you, and I'm sure you'll see you probably turned right without coming to a full stop.
We pulled up the video and were shocked: the footage had been edited, with jump cuts, to try to make it look as if he had not stopped, but they're not expert filmmakers at all: it was clear from the surrounding movements of the traffic that my husband was dead still, and all cross traffic had cleared before he made his right turn. Instead of sending them $100, he made a court appointment to fight it (another two month wait).
When the adjudicator called his case, he politely said he didn't think he'd committed the alleged violation. The judge sneered and said, "we'll see about that" and pulled the video up on her computer screen. After watching for a minute, she said to him: "come here and look at this!" He approached the bench and watched it with her. She said that the state had entirely failed to prove its case against him, that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, and his fine was dismissed. She also said she'd never seen anything like that. I said, "I bet." Actually, most people either don't look at the footage to check, or don't have the time to take off work to go to court to fight it. They just mail in a check: no wonder the judge claimed not to have seen this before.
= new reply since forum marked as read
