It doesn't have to. They send a representative from the camera company whose job it is to show up in court and rationalize their bullshit at the judge. I know this because I actually had to go through this process once, many years ago, to fight a clearly fraudulent ticket from one of these damn fool things in our local downtown.

That's an insane interpretation of the law. I don't know or even care what prior jurisprudence says on the matter, it's fucking dumb if it's been interpreted that way.

If the camera took the photo and automatically issued the fine, then sure, I agree. But the camera should be taking the photo and passing it to a human to decide if a fine is warranted or not. And in that case, the human (or more to the point, the organisation the human works for) is the accuser. And the fine should stand, unless a defence explaining how the photo misrepresented the situation can be successfully mounted (similar to how a defence could be mounted explaining that the speed camera was incorrectly calibrated).

This seems trivially defeatable by having an officer use the camera footage as evidence when they issue a fine. Then there's an accuser to be confronted in court - the officer

Not sure why you're being downvoted.

It's the sixth amendent.

For of such a short document it is ridiculous for any American not to know their rights. Unfortunately the internet has been taken over by the ignorant.