Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause holding in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts extends to automated traffic enforcement system schemes

Questions Presented 1.Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause holding in Melendez—Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) extends to automated traffic enforcement system schemes. Conversely, whether as applied, do automated traffic enforcement system moving violation allegations supersede and suspend the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. 2.Whether an automated traffic enforcement system scheme requiring direct approval by at least one sworn peace officer, and where a trial court becomes aware that the requirement is not met, and suppresses this material fact to convict the defendant, violates a defendant’s right to procedural due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 3. Whether the statute at issue, has sufficient confusion, and unknown punishable conduct so as to violate defendant's right to due process and renders this statute void for vagueness. 4.Whether the statutes as enforced by and in conjunction with automated traffic enforcement systems violate the defendant's right to due process and should be void due to arbitrary prosecution. 5.Whether the defendant has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated (those accused of moving violations by a natural person peace officer versus his case with no peace officer at all) and that there is no rational basis for the disparate treatment, so as to violate the defendant's Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. ii 6.Whether government agents not authorized to issue vehicle moving violations, reserved for sworn peace officers, can suddenly do so with the simple introduction of an automated traffic enforcement system scheme, and can access private and confidential information, impersonate a peace officer by signing a citation under penalty of perjury, impersonate an attorney to prosecute a case in a court of law, and cause harm through a conviction that included but is not limited to an assessed fine, mark on the driving record, potential increases in , future insurance rates and directly impacted liberty , interests, is demonstrative of a violation of defendant’s right against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.