Civilian video footage inadmissable (wrt traffic violations)

[Archer]

Why is it that if a civilian captures video footage of blatant traffic offences that it is inadmissible? Supposedly traffic violations fall under schedule 3 offences, which means an officer in full uniform must witness them... so are speed cameras officers in full uniform too?

It is simply not possible to have traffic officers all over the show 24/7, why not rely on a few extra eyes in the form of dash cams or the like? Or is the only thing to do to speak to the local traffic department or ward councillor and hoping they do something (for a little while)?

 

[saturnz]

Why is it that if a civilian captures video footage of blatant traffic offences that it is inadmissible? Supposedly traffic violations fall under schedule 3 offences, which means an officer in full uniform must witness them... so are speed cameras officers in full uniform too?

It is simply not possible to have traffic officers all over the show 24/7, why not rely on a few extra eyes in the form of dash cams or the like? Or is the only thing to do to speak to the local traffic department or ward councillor and hoping they do something (for a little while)?

because the civilian footage will essentially be entrapment, or could be construed to be entrapment.

thats my off the cuff response, I can understand the rationale.

 

[Hemi300c]

They have used CCTV footage for other crimes and this is acceptable in most countries as well so some fkers need to wake up. We constantly hear how we must assist SAPS in controlling crime but as soon as you do you in the shyte.

 

[Archer]

because the civilian footage will essentially be entrapment, or could be construed to be entrapment.

thats my off the cuff response, I can understand the rationale.

Heh? Entrapment is when you induce someone to commit a crime they likely wouldn't have commited otherwise. I don't see how that can possibly apply

 

[saturnz]

Heh? Entrapment is when you induce someone to commit a crime they likely wouldn't have commited otherwise. I don't see how that can possibly apply

it means if they had known the civilian was filming them they wouldn't have committed the offense

traffic officers have to advertise there are cameras in the vicinity

maybe if you had a big notice that you are filming other drivers you could argue its not entrapment

if you can't see how it applies, I'm not going to convince you otherwise

 

[Sinbad]

I'd be more worried about the chain of evidence than entrapment. If someone videos you breaking the law that's not entrapment. That's you getting caught being a dick. But if someone edits a video to make you look bad, that's a problem.

 

[Archer]

it means if they had known the civilian was filming them they wouldn't have committed the offense

If I had rolled up next to someone and asked them to dice me, and then filmed them doing silly things that is entrapment. But with no contact whatsoever it can not possibly be entrapment, you are simply mistaken

I'd be more worried about the chain of evidence than entrapment. If someone videos you breaking the law that's not entrapment. That's you getting caught being a dick. But if someone edits a video to make you look bad, that's a problem.

I envision traffic cops would rotate shifts going through footage, with some rudimentary way to check that it is not fake. Would it be worth the effort getting around those checks to make someone pay a (relatively) minor fine? I don't know. In most cases like that proving where your phone was at the time would probably get you off. But yes, its more admin for the officers.

 

[ToxicBunny]

because the civilian footage will essentially be entrapment, or could be construed to be entrapment.

thats my off the cuff response, I can understand the rationale.

Entrapment?

What are you smoking?

The issue with civilian footage is chain of custody etc.. nothing to do with "entrapment" (which it isn't even in the slightest)

 

[Nerfherder]

Why is it that if a civilian captures video footage of blatant traffic offences that it is inadmissible? Supposedly traffic violations fall under schedule 3 offences, which means an officer in full uniform must witness them... so are speed cameras officers in full uniform too?

It is simply not possible to have traffic officers all over the show 24/7, why not rely on a few extra eyes in the form of dash cams or the like? Or is the only thing to do to speak to the local traffic department or ward councillor and hoping they do something (for a little while)?

I think it might not inadmissible in court as evidence but it will help cops get a head start on the responsible parties.

For example... the other day there was video of some guys getting out the car and hijacking someone. In the vid all you can see is them stopping in front of a car and getting out with guns.
In court that proves nothing. Logically we know what happened but it gives such a short view of what happened you can't say for certain that what is happening on camera is 100% of what happened.

What it does show the cops is what these guys look like, so when they find them in possession of the car they can then prove that they hijacked it.

So I think evidence is always useful even if they cant use it in court.

 

[marine1]

Because date time and other factors.
You would need proper time stamps and date tamps that cannot be altered?

 

[Archer]

So basically, go to ward councillor or traffic department and hope they come out once a month to the trouble spots? Meh. I wish there was more that the law abiding public could do, because our roads are just a disaster (I cant imagine what Jhb roads must be like)

Plus, what excuse am I now supposed to use tu justify getting a camera?

 

[Brenden_E]

TIL Saturnz has no idea what entrapment means.

 

[supersunbird]

So basically, go to ward councillor or traffic department and hope they come out once a month to the trouble spots? Meh. I wish there was more that the law abiding public could do, because our roads are just a disaster (I cant imagine what Jhb roads must be like)

Plus, what excuse am I now supposed to use tu justify getting a camera?

You can still upload clips of their offences to youtube and make sure their license plate number is title/heading and thus is they ever google their license plate number they will get angry...

 

[Brenden_E]

You can still upload clips of their offences to youtube and make sure their license plate number is title/heading and thus is they ever google their license plate number they will get angry...

Haha what!

 

[supersunbird]

Haha what!

That's what lots of SA people do when you confront them when they are doing something wrong, go on the attack.

 

[Nerfherder]

TIL Saturnz has no idea what entrapment means.

Good to know

 

[Brenden_E]

That's what lots of SA people do when you confront them when they are doing something wrong, go on the attack.

I'm more amused at that you would upload it for the off chance that some random person might one day google his own number plate, and then get mad when he sees the video. Pretty odd.

 

[supersunbird]

I'm more amused at that you would upload it for the off chance that some random person might one day google his own number plate, and then get mad when he sees the video. Pretty odd.

Why? No one else, that is supposed to, is doing anything about it. And better than chasing the person down yourself and giving them a whipping...