Actually dashcam video is not hearsay because actions like driving are typically not “statements.” Same way that photos are not hearsay. The issues are authentication and foundation. For example, if there is a statute of limitations on a civil traffic violations, how can you prove with just the video that the citation was issued within x months of the alleged violation?
Government-operated red light and speed cameras are contracted out to companies who can show their “metadata” is reliable enough to be admissible. If a video needs to be used in court, the company sends an affidavit from some tech with enough knowledge of how and where the camera was placed, the radar technology used and its accuracy, the method of recording and extraction, etc. so the court can be satisfied that the video shows what is being alleged. Cops have had to do the same thing for decades with radar guns, including proving they were calibrated.
The problem here is that the person taking the video is not testifying as to the when and where, how fast they were going, what angle shot from, etc. Not hearsay, but foundation. Video without foundation should not be admissible, but you need to have knowledge of the evidence rules and a judge (who may not be a lawyer) who understands and follows those rules. Plus the cost of a lawyer is greater than the ticket, so people generally give up and pay.
I am skeptical the described scheme would work, at least in my jurisdiction, because the criminal defense bar would react and file appropriate lawsuits.
