It's illegal to drive the car out! Neighbors reported 17 red tickets in 12 consecutive days, the judge revoked the fine for one reason

In August last year, a man surnamed Wu in Tainan City was repeatedly accused of violating the law by setting up surveillance cameras for a long period of time by his neighbors. In just 12 days, he received 17 tickets for "not using direction lights in accordance with regulations" and was fined more than 20,000 yuan. Wu refused to accept the complaint and filed an administrative lawsuit. The Kaohsiung High Administrative Court found that the whistleblower's violation spanned "long-term" and "targeted" evidence collection day and night, and the purpose of the report was improper, and the original punishment was revoked.

The judgment pointed out that Mr. Wu drove a large heavy motorcycle, an ordinary heavy motorcycle, and a commercial passenger car. From August 17 to 29 last year, he was continuously reported for "not using direction lights in accordance with regulations." He was directly prosecuted by the police and fined 1,200 yuan for 17 cases.

The plaintiff Wu Nan claimed that the reporter was a neighbor, and both parties were residents of the same row. For some reason, the reporter did not get along with the surrounding neighbors. He installed a surveillance camera in front of his house and continuously filmed his neighbors' driving movements for a long time, and filed a retaliatory report. The reporter's behavior caused his family to panic, and the residence was extremely remote, with farmland nearby. The pictures he saw in the video were all when he was leaving or returning home. No one else was using the road, and there was no harm to traffic safety.

The police stated that the surveillance camera was directed towards a public road and did not focus on the door where the plaintiff entered and exited. It was difficult to recognize that it was targeted. The vehicle that the plaintiff drove drove out of his garage and then drove on an outdoor public road. It was a public space that could be seen by no specific people. It was also difficult to recognize that the degree of interference with the plaintiff's right to privacy was serious, and the penalty was not erroneous.

The judge held that according to the police's letter, the informant had made a total of 89 complaints about automobiles and motorcycles against the plaintiff since August last year. The violations were "long-term" and "targeted" to collect evidence throughout the day and night. The purpose of the accusations was improper and lacked reasonable connections. The violations in this case did not pose a risk to road traffic safety, and there was no high social welfare that must be protected. The original punishment was still illegal and should be revoked.