Ex-Judge Loses Long Island Red-Light Camera Fight

MINEOLA, N.Y. (AP) — A former judge has lost his court argument that a Long Island county’s red-light camera system is unconstitutional.

In a ruling last week, state Supreme Court Justice Anthony Parga denied Samuel Levine’s claim that he should be able to confront in court those who installed Nassau County’s red light cameras.

Parga said he made his decision because Levine does not face a criminal conviction, but rather a violation of the vehicle and traffic law. Levine told reporters in August that it was his wife who got the tickets last October. He is responsible because the car is registered in his name.

Levine, a retired district court judge, did not answer telephone calls to his home seeking comment on Tuesday.

He is due back in traffic court to answer the charges on Nov. 10.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Comments

One Comment

  1. PAC MAN says:

    Unconstitutional !!! The VTL states the obervation must be made by a law enforcement officer. The last time I checked the camera was not sworn in.
    Money is their only interest,and not your safety.

  2. metastar says:

    Go Judge! Fight tyranny. Our constitution has been turned into nothing but toilet paper by our criminal, corrupt, and illegitimate corporate owned leaders.

    Demand the rule of law. Demand to face your accuser!

    Why are we paying our money to Lockheed Martin anyway?

    I can only hope you were so inclined to interpret laws from a constitutional perspective when you were serving.

  3. wordleaf says:

    So the judge isn’t arguing that his wife wasn’t breaking the law and he wanted his day in court? Seems he got it but it seems strange that a judge is arguing to break a law. These cameras are working hard to change our driving behavior making our streets a safer place for everybody. Even the judge’s family.

  4. JasH says:

    An article (“Special License Plates Shield Officials from Traffic Tickets”) said that in California there are nearly a million private vehicles having ‘confidential’ license plate numbers that are protected from easy look up, thus are effectively invisible to agencies attempting to process toll and red light camera violations. Such “protected plate” lists exist in other states, and could be bloated, like California’s. In CA the list includes local politicians, bureaucrats, retired cops, many other govt. employees, and their families and adult children! Plus such oddities as museum guards and veterinarians. In each state, reporters (or citizens) should investigate to see how many, and who, are on that state’s list.

    Here in CA, until August, there was a bill (AB 2097) in the legislature to change things so that those guys would receive the tickets they are due. But the politicians killed it. I urge everyone to call their legislators and their AAA about this. Otherwise, the pols and bureaucrats will keep laughing at us as we pay our $$$ fines.

  5. derrik d says:

    I hope the judge realizes that his wife borke the law and owns up to that responsibility. I would make sure she came to court with me. Goes to show that not even judges can avoid the law.

  6. xyx says:

    I wonder what happened ot that judge who took the Korean laundro-mat to cleaners with millions of dollars of law suit because his shirt was not ironed crisp.

    This guy is no body compared to that moron.

  7. B Boy says:

    These cameras are very dangerous. People in a second have a choice to slam on the breaks to get a tickets, so you, knowing the person is on your tale try to beat the light.

    There is also a big question about giving a person a ticket because his or her car goes through a red light. Taxed again… Ha Ha

    1. B says:

      What’s the big question about giving a person a ticket because his or her car goes through the red light? It works exactly the same way a parking ticket does, and you don’t see people up in arms about those. Here’s a tip for avoiding the “tax” you claim this is: don’t break the law.

      1. Stand UP for rights says:

        Lookup People v. Hildebrandt 1955.

        A parking ticket goes to the owner because there is no driver to associate the infraction with. Just because they have a picture of a car going thru an intersection doesn’t mean the owner was driving it. If it was REALLY about safety, why aren’t they getting the drivers who break the law off the road?

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

BUY TICKETS NOW
Get Our Morning Briefs

Listen Live