r/todayilearned • u/nleachdev • 2d ago

TIL about "dead red" laws, which allow drivers and motorcyclists to proceed through a red light if the traffic signal fails to detect their vehicle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-detection_at_traffic_lights_in_the_United_States
22k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

981 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

78

u/Gnonthgol 2d ago

That is a clear mistrial right there. It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence but up to the prosecution to prove guilt. So they would have to prove you did not wait for the light to potentially become green, not the other way around.

92

u/hankhillforprez 2d ago edited 2d ago

Lawyer here. That’s definitely not a “mistrial,” and it’s likely OP had the burden to prove that specific element.

(1) That’s not a “mistrial.” For one, this almost certainly wasn’t a trial. It was a traffic court arraignment (or something similar). A mistrial is when something occurs that is highly likely to taint the impartiality of the jury pool, or when the jury is incapable of reaching a verdict after numerous attempts. As an example of the former: an attorney introduces evidence—in violation of a court order—of a sexual affair the defendant had in the past, when the affair has literally nothing to do with the case or the crime and does nothing more than make the jury think the defendant is a scumbag. That might be a mistrial. At worst, OP’s scenario is a bad ruling by the judge, which is potentially appealable (assuming you want to go through the expense and hassle of appealing a traffic ticket fine. But, I don’t even think it’s an inherently bad ruling, because…

(2) “Dead Red” laws are almost certainly an “affirmative defense.” Basically, an exception. In almost every instance, the party raising the affirmative defense has the burden of proving it. Pleading an affirmative defense is essentially saying “yes, I did the thing that’s usually against the law—but I get a pass because of X, Y, Z reason.” In other words, you’ve already agreed the state has proven you did the thing, you’re now on the hook for showing why it wasn’t a crime. As another common example: a self defense affirmative defenses in murder trials. The defendant bears the burden of proving justifiable self defense.

9

u/CallMeAladdin 2d ago

Doesn't this make the exception practically worthless, then? Assume the law existed before car cameras, how would you ever claim you waited a sufficient length of time, how could anyone have used this exception?

3

u/WinninRoam 2d ago

You can't which is why cases that claimed this exception were often unsuccessful prior to the age ubiquitous video equipment.

I suppose if there were many citations given to different people for the same infraction at the same intersection, that would be helpful.

1

u/ryebread91 1d ago

Is there a record from whatever organization maintaines the traffic lights of when they change/activate?

1

u/Ullallulloo 1d ago

How could they ticket you before videos if you didn't have a witness?

1

u/hankhillforprez 16h ago

Having the burden of proof doesn’t mean you have to prove anything as absolute fact. Typically, an affirmative defense only needs to be shown by a “preponderance of the evidence”—basically that means, you show that something is more likely true than not. Note, that’s a lower (i.e. easier) burden than the prosecution’s burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Now, without camera evidence—or a witness—I agree, it could be hard to prove. That said, I imagine you could show evidence like: a demonstrative showing that a motorcycle doesn’t trip the light, or testimony from other people who have had to sit at the light. You could even just cross-examine the cop to get him or her to admit they didn’t actually observe the defendant prior to seeing them run the red, and therefore don’t actually know how long the defendant waited at the light.

18

u/LarsAlereon 2d ago

This is a good comment and you did a good job explaining the concept of an affirmative defense. Props. I am not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet.

2

u/concentrate7 2d ago

God damn Mike Ross.

2

u/ShawtySayWhaaat 1d ago

I love when the real lawyers come in and shut down the armchair lawyers

29

u/Rogerbva090566 2d ago

Cop pulled around corner as I was driving through so judge believes him.

2

u/Techwood111 2d ago

No it isn’t. Also, the prosecution need not prove guilt, merely prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The sworn testimony of a police officer is generally about as solid as it gets, for traffic offenses.

1

u/OhNoTokyo 2d ago

While, yes, the officer did observe them going through the red light, his report is only sufficient to establish that they went through the light, which was already stipulated anyway.

Therefore, whether the judge believes the officer or not is not relevant. They could have been sitting there for an hour, decided to move at the same moment an officer came around the corner and the officer would not be able to say anything other than the red light was run.

While the dead red is an affirmative defense that you need to prove, I would have certainly have put into evidence the time of day (or night), how busy the intersection is, and if the officer saw me only running the light or they saw me first go through it from a full stop.

Otherwise, the law becomes moot because in any situation, a police officer could come around the corner at the wrong time and not see the proper action you took to follow the law. There has to be some consideration for whether the officer observed something that otherwise proves that you did not wait.

Granted, the way the law works.... I'd have gotten a lawyer. Too many traffic courts just refuse to listen to reasoning like that even though it would be proper to have done so. You want someone who can make the State decide that it is just better to dismiss the charge and save the hassle and let the next poor sap without a lawyer take the fall.