And speed light cameras

What is a speed light camera?

No. Parking is leaving your possession somewhere and should apply to the registered owner. It is not illegal to own a car that someone else used to run a red light.

I didn't leave my possession. I just owned a car that someone else left.

But is it illegal to own a car that someone else parked in the wrong pkace?

No. Running a red light is when your possession crosses an intersection while the light is red, and should apply to the registered owner.

If I lend a neighbor my kitchen knife and they murder someone with it, should I be liable?

3 year before the murder: You are probably fine, IANAL

10 minutes before the murder: Expect to get an accusation of accessory to murder, conspiracy to murder and a few additional tomes of the penal code. We all know you are innocent, but you should better find a good lawyer just in case instead of wasting your last free minutes arguing on the internet.

When subpoenaed, you'd be obligated to tell the court who you gave the knife to.

But if you'd like to tell the fall, I'm sure some prosecutors wouldn't dig too hard to find the guilty party.

It seems in this case they’re not asking, they’re accusing and saying I need to prove otherwise. I think that is substantively different

Edit: subpoena is not a criminal charge afaik is what I’m saying

You absolutely can be, especially if you knew, or should have known, that the knife was likely to be used illegally.

While a bit more extreme than your example, there have been multiple cases where the parents of a school shooter have been held responsible because they provided access to a weapon when there were warning signs.

On the less extreme end of the spectrum, this is the same reason why you have to pretend that you are buying a "water pipe for tobacco" and not a bong if you don't want to get kicked out of the headshop (in places where that is still illegal).

Or is it?

If someone used the car without permission, they are guilty of theft.

If they used the car with your permission, you should either be responsible for what they do with it, or be able to point to the person who was using it.

> If someone used the car without permission, they are guilty of theft.

Sure, but I still don't know who they are, so I can't give their name over for either investigating the theft or reassigning the speeding/red light/parking fine.

Except that requiring you to testify in order to absolve yourself of guilt violates your Fifth Amendment right not to testify in a trial against you. It is up to the government to prove you did something, not up to you to prove you didn’t.

You can not testify all you want, but you should still be on the hook for your vehicle getting tickets, just like you are on the hook for your vehicle accruing toll fees.

If your car was magically stolen and returned, and you have no idea that it happened, or who could have done this... Well, that's certainly an interesting legal argument that you could make to a judge. I doubt he'll believe you.

In the old days it certainly happened. Joyriding. Take someone's vehicle for a spin, put it back. Illegal but nowhere near as serious a penalty. Car security systems have gotten a lot better since then.

Surely the framing is "we the people allow you to operate this (otherwise illegal) dangerous vehicle on public roads, on the condition that by default you are responsible for whatever transgressions".

Who is leaving your possession is just as relevant as who is driving your possession?

Wow this sparked a lot of tedious debate. Just wanted to clarify that I'm talking about the law as written, not some high-level philosophical ideal.

Almost, except parking tickets are still typically civil “owner-liability” citations tied to where the car is parked, while red-light violations are intended to target the driver’s conduct

possibly, although I suspect the quote from above:

> Although nominally civil, traffic infraction proceedings retain every substantive hallmark of criminal prosecution...

Is going to matter here. A moving violation (ex: red light) is quite different from a non-moving violation (ex: parking) in how they're handled, and often how they're classified.

Ex - my in state, a moving violation is a criminal misdemeanor, while a non-moving violation is entirely civil.

Idk how Florida handles it but several states citations issued by red light cameras and those issued by officers are handled entirely differently for the exact reason you mention. Camera citations are entirely civil, you don't get points against your license. If a cop issues the ticket it does become a misdemeanor moving violation.

there is no state where a moving violation is criminal misdemeanor. some moving violations may be CM but there are myriad of moving violations whose class/degree is not CM. CM is serious class/degree that if you are charged with it you better get yourself an attorney.

That quote is from the judge's decision: he considers that moving violations are quasi-criminal proceedings, and as such, that the protections for criminal prosecution apply, unlike in purely civil cases.

Where is the line drawn for criminal vs civil in nature?

It feels like any civil case brought against an individual by a government is quasi-criminal.

this is why going to court pretty much takes care of these tickets. of course, for a lot of people, going to court costs more money than paying the ticket so people pay.

disclaimer: I write software for court houses and am intimately familiar with the proceedings etc. in some jurisdictions these tickets will be outright dismissed and in others you may have to put up a bit of fight :)

"this is why going to court pretty much takes care of these tickets."

But what about things like red flag laws, child support (like the cited case law), etc?

If you get a ticket in the mail, go to Court and contest it if you have time.

This is good suggestion in general even if you get a ticket by Officer because if Officer does not show up in Court (this happens more that you’d think) the ticket will be dismissed

Per the US Supreme Court in Hicks v. Feiock 485 U. S. 624 (1988):

>The substance of particular contempt proceedings determines whether they are civil or criminal, regardless of the label attached by the court conducting the proceedings.

>See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 384 U. S. 368 -370 (1966); Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U. S. 585, 330 U. S. 590 (1947); Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 313 U. S. 42 -43 (1941); Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U. S. 217, 285 U. S. 220 -221 (1932); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 221 U. S. 441 -443 (1911).

>Civil contempt proceedings are primarily coercive; criminal contempt proceedings are punitive. As the Court explained in Gompers:

>The distinction between refusing to do an act commanded -remedied by imprisonment until the party performs the required act; and doing an act forbidden -punished by imprisonment for a definite term, is sound in principle and generally, if not universally, affords a test by which to determine the character of the punishment.

>221 U.S. at 221 U. S. 443. Failure to pay alimony is an example of the type of act cognizable in an action for civil contempt. Id. at 221 U. S. 442.

>Whether a particular contempt proceeding is civil or criminal can be inferred from objective features of the proceeding and the sanction imposed. The most important indication is whether the judgment inures to the benefit of another party to the proceeding. A fine payable to the complaining party and proportioned to the complainant's loss is compensatory and civil. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 330 U. S. 304 (1947). Because the compensatory purpose limits the amount of the fine, the contemnor is not exposed to a risk of punitive sanctions that would make criminal safeguards necessary. By contrast, a fixed fine payable to the court is punitive and criminal in character.

Yeah, and most civil cases that have the government acting as or representing the plaintiff against an individual have punitive outcomes - imprisonment for a set time for red flag violations, imprisonment for a set time for failure to pay child support, etc.

Do parking tickets result in “a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record”?

No.