A police officer doesn't need to be present for code enforcement (ie. property inspections etc..).
A police officer doesn't need to be present for parking enforcement.
A police officer doesn't need to be present for toll fee collection enforcement.
Why should police then be present when violating traffic rules? What makes speeding or running a red light so meaningfully special that its enforcement cannot be automated, but violating parking rules can be?
> The officer's presence would encourage safer driving at problematic intersections.
Cameras would be the exact same type of encouragement, and not be nearly as disruptive or dangerous as a cop pulling someone over.
What gives?
If an office is stated at an intersection it is an important issue. Similar in spirit to warrants as an important step in violating people's privacy.
But that's just like your opinion man.
> not safety improvement devices.
But they are. Speed and red light cameras reduce injury and death. I want myself and my family to live in a city where we won't get randomly murdered or maimed. The carrot isn't working on drivers, it's time for the stick.
> Similar to warrants
It's not at all. A warrant is invasion of somebody's home because executive power has reason to belief crime is going on. A speed camera invades no-ones privacy, and just registers violations of traffic rules.
The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution requires that to be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
And wrt court challenge, I mean, the photographic evidence is right there, car running red light, can't be more clear. Why would it be dismissed?
And Why does every crime need witness? Plenty of prosecutions on photographic or forensic 3videnc3 alone.
Also, is traffic violation a crime (is it, genuinely asking (?))
Tbh, this often feel like people rummaging around the couch cushions for reasons (not saying you, link much appreciated, til)
The officer's presence would encourage safer driving at problematic intersections.