Erosion in our right to face accuser

We have a tradition of fair law enforcement, in the USA that stems from our inherent sense of fairness, our rights, to be free of intimidation by the government and being a country of laws, rather than the whims of government officials. Recently we've allowed the erosion of the difference between the two.

First, there was photo enforcement in construction zones. We accepted this to protect the workers.

Secondly, after it was acceptable to photograph in work zones, local yokels decided to encroach onto expressways, which had been the province of the state police, and photo enforce speed laws.

Thirdly, motorists learned where these zones were and deliberately slowed down, making it uneconomical to use these cameras.

Fourth, they put cameras in vans and moved them into an area where the speed limit dropped, and before you would see the lower limit sign and slow down, they'd photograph you and charge a high fine for a small infraction.

Fifth, the public officials in all the major cities and suburbs escalated the practice and the public responded by not running the lights, which was a good thing, but not a revenue producer, so they have taken six seconds off the yellow lights, making it impossible to not violate the law if you are traveling the speed limit and are at the wrong place when the cycle starts.

The constitution has always been interpreted in a way to make one's accuser appear in court and be a witness, subject to cross examination. State and local courts are violating this right by sending a fine notice to people who have passed through an area; they cannot afford to go back to and challenge the local courts.

Some of them put a statement on the photo enforcement notice: If you pay, no points will be applied to your driver's license. Either it is a violation of the law or it isn't. If it is, it should be a reportable offense; if not, then no fine should be levied by unknown civil servants just to increase their revenue stream.

Wilton Jere Tidwell

Huntley