Illegal Scameras halted in TX!

But laws don’t apply to the dirty scameras industry!

The Bexar County Precinct 3 Constable’s Office has suspended its use of LIDAR cameras to catch speeders in North Bexar County. This decision follows concerns raised by local residents and subsequent action by Bexar County’s top prosecutor.

Read the full article at News4SA

Summary of Legal Concerns Surrounding Automated Speeding Cameras in Bexar County

In Bexar County, Texas, the use of LIDAR cameras for speeding enforcement has been suspended due to rising legal concerns and community backlash. This decision follows an inquiry from the County’s District Attorney, Joe Gonzales, who questioned the authority of local law enforcement to operate such technology. The situation highlights ongoing debates about the legality and effectiveness of automated traffic enforcement systems.

Key Points

1. Suspension of LIDAR Cameras: The Bexar County Precinct 3 Constable’s Office halted the use of LIDAR cameras for speed enforcement in response to legal concerns raised by residents and the District Attorney.
2. Legal Authority Questioned: District Attorney Joe Gonzales stated that the Constable’s Office may lack the statutory authority to use LIDAR technology, prompting him to seek an opinion from the Texas Attorney General.
3. Importance of Personal Interaction: Gonzales emphasized the necessity of personal interaction during traffic stops, arguing that automated systems could lead to legal complications and a lack of accountability.
4. Constable’s Defense: Constable Mark Vojvodich defended the use of LIDAR cameras, asserting that they provide an essential tool for enforcement, especially in high-risk areas where traditional stops may not be feasible.
5. Potential Refunds for Citations: Drivers who received citations from LIDAR enforcement will have their court dates reset, and those who have already paid may receive refunds if the Attorney General rules the cameras unlawful.

Detailed Breakdown

Legal Authority and Community Concerns

The suspension of the LIDAR cameras stems from a broader debate about the legal framework governing automated traffic enforcement. District Attorney Gonzales expressed concerns that the Constable’s Office did not possess the necessary legislative authority to operate these cameras, stating, “They have to have specific legislative authority… to act.” This perspective reflects a cautious approach to law enforcement practices, emphasizing the need for clear legal guidelines.

Arguments For and Against Automated Enforcement

Gonzales argues that traditional traffic stops are essential for ensuring accountability and effective communication between law enforcement and the public. He remarked, “the right way to do it is to have personal interaction for the officer to stop the individual.” In contrast, Constable Vojvodich maintains that LIDAR technology is vital for safety in areas where stopping vehicles poses risks to officers and the public. He noted, “in certain areas of town, you just can’t do that,” referring to locations with limited stopping space.

Implications for Traffic Enforcement

The ongoing dispute raises significant implications for traffic enforcement in Bexar County. If the Attorney General determines that the use of LIDAR cameras is unlawful, it could lead to the dismissal of citations issued under this system and prompt a reevaluation of automated enforcement practices. Gonzales indicated that the courts would decide on refunds for those who have already paid fines, further complicating the situation for affected drivers.

Notable Quotes & Data

• District Attorney Joe Gonzales: “I was made aware of this practice this week… that (the Constable) didn’t have the authority to operate this - what’s called LIDAR.”
• Constable Mark Vojvodich: “There’s a lot of factual information that will have to come out with the Attorney General so that he has a clearer, more accurate picture in which to base it.”

Context & Implications

The suspension of LIDAR cameras in Bexar County highlights the tension between innovative law enforcement technologies and the legal frameworks governing their use. As communities increasingly adopt automated systems to enhance public safety, the need for clear legal guidelines becomes paramount. The outcome of the Attorney General’s review will likely set a precedent for the use of similar technologies in Texas and could influence public opinion on automated traffic enforcement systems nationwide.

In conclusion, the situation underscores the importance of balancing technological advancements in law enforcement with the foundational principles of accountability and transparency.