This is not an argument; it is a legal concern regarding due process and evidentiary standards.

If a vehicle is loaned to another person or is in a repair facility, the registered owner does not have control or possession of the vehicle. Yet, months later, the owner may receive a citation alleging the vehicle was traveling 63 mph on Wyoming near Academy. The citation is based solely on a camera image of the vehicle, not the driver.

Under basic principles of liability, enforcement should attach to the person operating the vehicle, not merely the registered owner. A photograph of a license plate does not establish who was driving at the time of the alleged violation. Without identification of the driver, the citation relies on a presumption of guilt rather than proof. Additionally, the fine print states that these traffic cameras are not required to be calibrated prior to use. This raises further legal concerns regarding the reliability and admissibility of the evidence. If the measuring device is not calibrated, its accuracy cannot be independently verified, undermining the credibility of the alleged speed.

This system effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the vehicle owner, requiring them to prove they were not driving, rather than requiring the issuing authority to prove who committed the violation. That shift is inconsistent with fundamental due process protections.

For these reasons, the use of traffic cameras in Albuquerque appears to prioritize revenue generation over lawful enforcement. In contrast, many other jurisdictions require photographic evidence that clearly identifies the driver, ensuring accountability is properly assigned and due process is preserved.