Would you like to get a ticket in the mail for running a red light two weeks after the fact, when you know someone else was driving your car? Most people would be furious if they received a ticket for running a red light even though they were not even driving the car at the time. I would be furious getting a ticket even though it was someone else in my car, which implies having restriction on traffic light cameras is good because………….….…..………... When cameras were first used in traffic lights it was in the 1960's, then as technology develop they went digital in the 1990's([3]). In today's world traffic light cameras are in use in over 100 communities in 20 states and the District of Columbia([3]). In addition, cameras are used to catch people speeding, which are in used in Britain and other countries other than the United States([3]). The camera's technology is simple with just a sensor that connects to the traffic signal or radar gun([3]). Traffic light cameras have been around for five and half decades. Since traffic …show more content…
The restrictions on lights would produce happiness because it will help people be in less accidents. Also, making the yellow light longer so there is not anybody slamming on the car breaks.“It also found that most traffic camera violations occurred within the first second after the light turned red,”[3]. The solution to this problem is to make the are which area before the light longer and when it turns yellow so people far way can see it. Also, it would make people happy if they did get a ticket that they were notified earlier rather then later.“People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation,”[1]. Having alternative ways to find way s to give people tickets other than just sending them in the mail people rather have tickets given to them when pulled over then getting a ticket weeks after it
I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s action when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in court rooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situations in question. A case of which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened.
A simple Google search will turn up hundreds of studies based on the effectiveness of emergency lighting on the road. Obviously, this wealth of information is too vast to summarize in one article; however, there is one study that sticks out when discussing whether red or blue emergency vehicle lights are easier to see on the road. In this article, we will go over a study released by Lt. James D. Wells Jr. on behalf of the Florida Highway Patrol. This study was released in 2004 and concentrates mainly on emergency lighting configurations and the effectiveness of these lights in helping to reduce collisions on the road and keeping officers and emergency first responders safer on the road.
Stop and frisk is a brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspicious individual. The Fourth Amendment entails that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is in progress before stopping a suspect. If the officer realistically is certain that the person is carrying a weapon and is dangerous, the officers can conduct a search, a rapid pat down of the suspect’s exterior clothing. A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of impending criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is less demanding than probable cause, less quantity of evidence or information is needed. Reasonable suspicion can come from information less reliable than needed for probable cause.
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
This allows people to be recorded without their consent or even knowledge of the event when they are in a situation with an expectancy of privacy. In some cases this can be helpful when trying to catch a perpetrator however, it is still a violation of privacy. Freund also claims, “a person who is approached by a police officer wearing a body-worn camera cannot readily avoid having his identity recorded”(99). So, by the time a person was to realize they were being recorded, it would be to late for them to protect their identity, even if they had nothing to do with a crime or what was intended to be
The struggle for more transparency in policing is an issue that has been waging on for years unchecked, but with necessary body cameras this problem will be able to be solved. With the use of body cameras, police procedure can become public knowledge. This will help prevent things like the Ferguson riots that took place after the decision to not indict officer Darren Wilson. Some people argue that the use of these body cameras could violate privacy laws because “Unlike previous forms of surveillance, body-cameras can enter private spaces more easily, and can focus on individuals more effectively” (Freund 95). However, this issue can be easily solved as unlike dash cameras, which are automatic, the body cameras need to be switched on. This allows the officer to use their discretion on when to actively record. This information can repair the already damaged trust between the police and the public. Use of cameras would also decrease the rate at which police receive complaints. According to Brucato “For the police, accountability offers the opportunity to exonerate themselves and their agencies from false complaints” (457). All the frivolous complaints and lawsuits that using a body camera prevents also serves a purpose to save money of the police department. In today 's society people only see the police incidents being recorded through the use of cellphone filmed
For instance, he begins to discuss how OnStar has been installed in nearly 1.5 million cars in the United States (471). These statistics help put it into perspective just how many people are supportive of having some sort of monitor with them at all times. Penenberg then references the events in London in 1996 when 300 cameras were installed around Newham (472). He then points out the fact that the overall crime rate of the city fell by 30 percent. While the surrounding cities illegal activities rose between 10 and 20 percent, Newham’s only rose by around a half a percent.
Police shootings occur all over the world but are a huge problem within the United States. We continue to hear more and more about them. These shootings are making headlines. Front page news it seems almost weekly. All the shootings go one of two ways. Either a Police Officer has been shot or a Police Officer has shot a citizen, but either way the final result is death. Whether an Officer has been shot or an Officer has shot someone these cases seem to be related to one thing, fear. People in today’s society feel as though they can’t trust Police Officers as they are there to hurt and kill them. And Police Officers feel as though they are in danger of doing their everyday duties because people see them as the “bad guys” and want to hurt or kill them. Yes, police brutality and racism still exist, but not all cops are bad. Yes there are still bad citizens in this world that want to kill and harm others, but not all citizens are bad. People seem to react to these shootings by rioting quickly after a police officer has shot and killed someone without
He feels cameras are protection from police abuse to the public and protection from being accused of brutality to the police. Johnson sees it as a win-win for the ACLU, NAACP, and other Civil and Human Rights groups if they can input into camera policy. He says the cameras are not widely used in Massachusetts. According to Johnson even if all the legal issues and policies were in place it would take time and wouldn’t happen overnight. He lists problems and concerns from existing state law, legal procedures, and privacy issues are just the start. Storing and maintaining videos for criminal cases is a main concern to Johnson. He suggests that evidence video needs to have protection against tampering, altering, or being deleted. He brings up recording of someone without their permission or a court order could be considered wiretapping. Additional legal and privacy issues with recording inside a private residence or on a medical call and what should or shouldn’t be released to the public is more of Johnson’s
There are some major upsides in having cameras in public places. In early 2013 two people set off bombs at the Boston marathon, which killed several people and injured hundreds. The city of Boston had cameras monitoring the streets, and was able to identify the bombers within two days. (La Vigne, Nancy) The FBI was able to catch them before they were able to carry out another planned attack in Times Square, which could have been much, more devastating. In addition to being able to solve crimes that have already happened by using cameras, we are also able to use them and the other technologies that go with it to prevent crime. The National Security Agency has reported that it has prevented several terrorist attacks since 2001 using new technology put in place to prevent the attacks. However, much of the NSA’s tactics have been criticized lately, though the majority of people still agree that it is worth it. Using cameras is also a cheap way to monitor an area. Having to employ several police officers to patrol an area can be expensive and those officers could be out doing more important jobs. When you have cam...
“Each light has a different preset wavelength designed to detect hair, fibers, and body fluids at crime scenes, these lights allow a crime scene to be processed faster and more thoroughly than ever before.” This technology is speedy and can help locate the whereabouts of criminals. The use of in-car camera systems has become very popular, especially by law enforcement. These cameras are used to record traffic stops and road violations of civilians. “From the time the first in-car cameras were installed to document roadside impaired-driving sobriety tests, the cameras have captured both intended and unintended video footage that has established their value. Most video recordings have resulted in convictions; many provide an expedited means to resolve citizen complaints, exonerate officers from accusations, and serve as police training videos.” Photo enforcement systems helps to maintain road safety by “automatically generating red light violations and/or speeding summons and as a result to greatly improve safety for the motoring public.” (Schultz,
...se of this technology, in order to avoid it being abused. However, because all this technology is relatively new, there are not really any policies that are enacted yet. This will all change in the future, now that the media and privacy advocates are starting to ask questions. Law enforcement security cameras clearly have many benefits to our society, and with the right policies in place; the negative aspects will pale in comparison.
Basically security cameras are basically good and bad in all ways due to helping the public and bad for invading peoples privacy daily which would not surprise me that the government is also up to no good doing all of this but if it helps catches people who are hacking computers from other countries then oh well with that stuff. So in all ways they are good and bad for most public areas besides stores and high criminal activity area parking lots for the US otherwise crime will not stop for the people in the US and privacy will keep being invaded as long there is crime.
When having stop signs and traffic lights, people have a tendency to drive slower and look out for people walking in the middle of streets. To put a traffic light or a stop sign in a community, it takes a lot of work and planning from the community and the city to put one in. It is not cheap to do it either. The community first needs to take a petition around to everyone in the community and have them sign so they can take it to the board when the next city council meeting is. A couple residents will present it to the board, and they will decide weather or not to put it in or not. If not put in a lot of residents might be mad and bad things could happened to that part of the city.