highwayrobbery.net Open in urlscan Pro
50.63.7.202  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

WELCOME TO HIGHWAYROBBERY.NET

Info & Advice about California Red Light Camera Tickets

Opened in 2002.  Content updated June 7, 2021.

"Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an
emergency.  I'm one of them."
Sub-headline, Neal Gabler article in The Atlantic magazine, May 2016



p l e a s e   s t a r t   h e r e   i n   t h i s   b o x


WHAT'S REALLY NEW OR HOT?


This box is your pre-flight checklist - go all the way thru it before contacting
the police or the court about your ticket.  Failure to use this checklist could
cost you $500.00.


It may be voluntary/optional to respond to a red light camera ticket from
anywhere in California, because of a June 2020 Court of Appeal decision.
Read the "Ignore Your Ticket" section, near the top of the Your Ticket page,
before you make any contact with the court.
Then, be sure to come back here.


In Feb. 2021 half a dozen anti-motorist bills were submitted for consideration
by our Legislature in Sacramento.  As of early June 2021 the two bills which
would have allowed the installation of speed cameras had failed, but four others
were moving ahead - rapidly - through the approval process.
AB 43 - if it passes - will allow local speed limits to be lowered by 5 mph, to
as slow as 15 mph.
AB 1238 - if it passes - will remove the rules that presently require
pedestrians to cross streets in a crosswalk and not against the signal. If that
bill passes, a motorist who hits a pedestrian who is jaywalking, crossing
against the light or wandering aimlessly in the middle of the street, will be at
fault.
AB 122 allows bicyclists to roll thru intersections without stopping.
And AB 773 sets up "slow streets."
As of early June 2021 the four bills are moving through the Legislature, so
right now is the time to phone your state senator and assemblyperson.  After you
talk to them about those bills you could also let them know that you would like
them to reduce the fine for rolling right turns, that you're opposed to any more
increases in the gas tax or car registration fees, and that you'd like them to
get CalTrans to adopt the new ITE formula for longer yellows (for more info
about the new formula, see Defect # 2 on my site).
More info about current legislation is near the top of the Action/Legis page.
Then, be sure to come back here!



Does your "ticket" (from any California county or city) look like this, with
photos arranged 2 X 2 at the bottom?  If so, it's not really a ticket at all -
it's a fake, a phishing letter sent by the police to get you to confess!
You can ignore it!



Cal. Vehicle Code Sec. 40518(c) allows the police to mail out these
fake/phishing "tickets."  For more info about them, see the Snitch Ticket
section at the top of the Your Ticket page.
Go there also, if you don't yet have a ticket but want to be prepared.
Then, be sure to come back here!



Did they mail your ticket within 11 calendar days of the date of the violation?
 If it took even one day longer than that, have a look at Defect # 8, below.
Then come back here.


Warn your gullible friends and relatives that if they get an email or phone call
saying that they have an unpaid red light camera ticket and that to avoid arrest
they must purchase a debit card and provide its P.I.N. to the caller, it's a
scam.
(In the US, red light camera tickets are distributed by US Mail, and no other
way.)



Was someone else driving your car, and now the police (or even the clerks at the
courthouse) are twisting your arm, trying to get you to identify that driver? 
You don't have to.  See the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.  (If
the mismatch between the person ticketed and the actual driver is really
obvious, like a combined age AND gender mismatch, please be sure to let me know
about your ticket.)
Then come back here.



COVID One-Year License Expiration Extensions for Seniors, and Online Renewal for
Everyone:
In July 2020 the DMV announced that motorists 70+ whose non-commercial
California driver's license had an expiration date between March and December
2020 had been given an automatic one-year extension of the original expiration
date.  The DMV said that they would NOT send a new card or paper extension in
the mail.
In December 2020 they announced that those extended/expired licenses, and also
the licenses of motorists 69 and younger, could be renewed online, even if the
original printed renewal notice received by the motorist required a visit to the
DMV office.  So, if you need to renew, try the online system before going to the
office.  For those needing ID to fly,  the TSA accepts licenses for a year after
the expiration date.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov



Is the "Late Time" on your ticket (also called "red time," "red T" or "TR") 0.2
second or less?  Have a look at Defect # 7, below.
Then come back here.


Did your "ticket" come by email instead of "snail" mail?  It's a trick!  See the
"Other Confidence Men" section in the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket
page.
Then come back here!



If you haven't yet received a ticket in the mail but want to be prepared in case
one arrives, be sure to read and follow the links in the first two paragraphs
above, about ignorable tickets in LA County and fake "tickets" sent out by the
police.
If you don't have a ticket, haven't even been flashed, you're just curious about
what's going on near where you live or travel, go to the Camera Towns page.  If
you're just doing general research, you can find the main heading for this
website by scrolling to the bottom of this checklist.  Look for the large yellow
and black horizontal bars.



Have a quick look at the recent court decisions, which could be of use to every
defendant.
Then come back here.


Is your ticket for a straight thru violation (not a turn) and the yellow seemed
shorter than normal?  Videotape that signal!  And have a look at Defect # 2,
below.
Then come back here.


Was your ticket for making a right turn?  If so, see Defect # 9 (below), and the
Legislation section on the Action/Legis page.
Then come back here.



California photo enforcement tickets can put a point on your driving record. 
So, they have to have a good picture of your face.  A picture of your license
plate isn't enough.  See Defect # 1, below.
Then come back here.



If you want more information about traffic school, see the traffic school
Editorial on the Links/Ref page.
Then come back here.



Are you worried that you may have had your picture taken in the last few days? 
See FAQ's # 8 and # 9 on the Links/Ref page.
Then come back here.



Do you have a 0.20 or less "Late Time" ticket?  Check out Defect # 7, below.
Then come back here.



Do you have a cover on your license plate?  Or a reflective spray?  You could
get a ticket!  See FAQ # 11, on the Links/Ref page.
Then come back here.


Want word-for-word details of how an actual photo enforcement trial goes?
Trial transcripts, and decisions, are available.
See my Library of Transcripts, Briefs, Decisions.
Then come back here.


On your ticket, does the supposedly "red" light look yellow?  To find out if it
really is red, or yellow, see FAQ # 20 on the Links/Ref page.
Then come back here.




If you're not sure what an extension to a "respond to" date is, and what the
difference is between an arraignment and a trial, please read the big green
Confusing Terminology box on the Your Ticket page.
Then come back here.



Does your "ticket" have the address of the Court on it?  If it doesn't, or if it
says "Courtesy Notice - This is Not a Ticket" or (in small print on the back of
the page), "Do not contact the court," it's not really a ticket at all - it's a
police trick!  See the section entitled "Police Going Too Far...  Snitch
Tickets" on the Your Ticket page.
Then come back here.



Lost, or want to find something quickly?
There's now a detailed Site Index.
Also, the FAQ will answer many questions.




end of the What's Hot box

main website content starts below


RED LIGHT CAMERAS
w w w . h i g h w a y r o b b e r y . n e t

- - - - - - - - - - - -  the main pages  - - - - - - - - - - - - HOME / DEFECTS
CAMERA TOWNS YOUR TICKET ACTION / LEGIS LINKS / REF / FAQ SITE INDEX

Contact/Email Address
Legislation/Speed Cameras Coming?
Fake/Snitch Tickets, Issued by the Police!
Library of Transcripts, Briefs, Decisions
Boycott !
Journalists/Bloggers/Webmasters
Industry PR - and Ours
Alternatives to Cameras
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
Expanded Version of Home Page
Search


You are on the Condensed version of the Home / Defects page.  Only 8000 words!
 There is an Expanded version, with 18,000
words, at:  Home / Defects - Expanded.



"Our research in Gardena has revealed there is no significant traffic safety
impact as a result of the use of the red light cameras. At almost every
intersection where we have cameras, collisions have remained the same, decreased
very slightly, or increased depending on the intersection you examine. When
combining the statistics of all the intersections, the overall consensus is that
there is not a noticeable safety enhancement to the public."
Police Chief Edward Medrano, in City of Gardena, California staff report
presented at city council meeting.



"Mr. Saunders [President of RedFlex] suggests jurisdictions refrain from issuing
a [rolling right] ticket except when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk."
Interview of James Saunders, President of RedFlex until Mar. 2015, in Dec. 26,
2014 Wall Street Journal column  (archived copy) with headline, sub-headline and
first line:
"Can the Red-Light Camera Be Saved?
"Money-hungry politicians discredit a hopeful safety innovation.
"A promising industry betrayed by the behavior of its customers—that’s the story
of the red-light camera business."



"Our judicial officers must balance their responsibility for enforcing the law
with their responsibility to protect the public from abuse of those laws."
From the LA Superior Court's explanation of its decision to not report ignored
red light camera tickets to the DMV.



"Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law
enforcement and the courts.  Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as
unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who
make and enforce those laws."
The Appellate Department, in People vs. Goulet



Photo Enforcement Defects

The defects below are listed in the chronological order they came to my
attention, with the newest ones at the end.  So, the numbers don't necessarily
reflect their significance.

Defect # 1 - blurry photo of the driver - is the one which gets the most cases
dismissed - if the defendant (you) takes the case all the way to a not-guilty
trial.

In addition to the defects listed on this page (below), on the Camera Towns page
there is more discussion of the defects as they relate to specific cities or
counties.

Along with defending their ticket, every motorist needs to go on the offensive.
 Part of each motorist's handling of their ticket should be a call to their
legislators.  See the Legislation section on the Action page for details.




DEFECT # 1:  DRIVER'S FACE PHOTO



In California, photo enforcement tickets can put a point on your driving
record.  So, they have to have a picture of your face.  A picture of your
license plate doesn't establish that you did the crime - it only establishes
that your car did it, and anyone could have been driving your car.


A bad "face" photo - blurry, or picturing a driver whose name is not on the
ticket - is a common reason for dismissal of red light camera tickets.


(If you have not received a ticket with photos on it - all you have received is
a "Courtesy Notice" from the Court, or a notice from a collection agency - you
will need to phone the issuing police department and ask them for a copy of the
ticket.)



Important:  Is It a Fake / Snitch Ticket?


Does your "ticket" have the address of the Court on it?  If it doesn't, or if it
says, "Do not contact the court," it's not really a ticket at all.  It's a
police trick!  See the section entitled "Police Going Too Far..." on the Your
Ticket page.


Is It Someone Else in the Photo?

If your name is on the ticket but it's not your face in the photo, you don't
have to identify the person driving.  For more info on how to handle this
situation, go to the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.
(If the mismatch between the person ticketed and the actual driver is really
obvious, like a combined age AND gender mismatch, please let me know about your
ticket.)


Photo Blurry?

If it is your face in the photo, but it's blurry, read on...

The "face" photo on the ticket sent to me was very blurry.  The ticket said that
I could go to the police station and be shown the original photo, so I did, and
it was just as blurry.   Vehicle Code Section 210 requires that the photo be
"clear," so the lack of the required clear photo was part of my challenge to the
ticket.  Read the discussion about driver's photos on page 255 in the 13th
Edition or page 277 in the 14th Edition of Fight Your Ticket, and the Foley
decision (2010).   Unfortunately, a judge evidently has a lot of latitude as to
what "clear" means.  Commissioner Randall F. Pacheco, who heard my case, ruled
against me, saying: "The driver in the picture has remarkably similar coloring
and facial structure."


In most cities, on the day of trial (not arraignment), many tickets are
dismissed "first thing" at the request of the police, due to poor quality face
photos.  ("First thing" meaning right after the judge comes in, or right after
the defendant has been called forward for his trial.)  If your photo is very
blurry, plead not guilty, come in for a trial - maybe your ticket will be
dismissed.  If it's not dismissed "first thing," the ticket still could be
dismissed during the trial once the judge gets a look at the photo.  To convict
you, the judge needs to be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it is
you.  But you need to know that while some judges are likely to reject bad
photos, others will readily accept a photo with only a fraction of a blurry face
visible behind the rear view mirror and sunglasses.  If the photo is blurry and
the judge hasn't noticed that (or if the officer hasn't shown the photo to the
judge), bring it to the judge's attention.  Don't say "It's not me," as that
would be perjury if you know it actually is you.  (See FAQ # 21 on the Links/Ref
page for more information about perjury.)  Simply ask the judge, "Are you sure
it's me?" Or you could say, more formally, "I request dismissal of this ticket
as there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I was driving the vehicle."
 The preceding two phrases are not testimony, so give you the added advantage
that if the judge asks you, "Well then, who is it?" you can tell him that you
have not agreed to testify.

At trial, some defendants with blurry face photos have successfully raised
"reasonable doubt" in the judge's mind by showing him a snapshot of them
together with similar-looking family members or friends.

At one trial the defendant argued that the photo could be any one of a number of
his employees who had access to the truck.  The photo wasn't totally blurry -
the officer quipped, "Do you have a twin brother?" and the judge said, "I think
it is you - I see shades and a nose."  But then the judge (a retired judge
brought in temporarily) said, after taking another look at a blow-up of the
photo, "If he murdered somebody, I don't see why I should treat a traffic case
any differently."  He then dismissed the case.


The burden of proof (the job of convincing the judge it's you) is on the People
(the officer and his photos).  (See the discussion of the law in the "It's Not
Me!" section of the Your Ticket page.)  You're not required to help the officer
convict you - the Fifth Amendment says, "No person... shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself."  You should (politely) invoke
that right if the judge asks questions like,  "Is that you in there?" or "Do you
recognize yourself?" (For more info about remaining silent, read the Fourth Step
of the "It's Not Me!" section.)
Sometimes, the officer forgets to display the face photo to the judge.  If that
happens, wait until he finishes all his testimony and the judge signals you that
it is your turn, then make a motion to dismiss for lack of proof that you were
driving the car.


The original face photo displayed at your trial will be clearer than the copy
you received in the mail or saw on the Internet.  If you are trying to decide
whether to fight the ticket based on a blurry photo and would like to see how
good the "original" is, call the phone number on the ticket (often in the upper
corner on the back) and make an appointment to go to the police department and
look at the photos.  At the appointment, ask the officer to blow up the face
photo, just like he does at a trial.  (For a preview of what your visit to the
police department might be like, read "Contact the Police," which is part of
Step One of the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.)
If it's not convenient for you to visit the PD to view the original photos, or
the police are unwilling to show them to you, you can use Discovery to get
copies of the photos mailed or emailed to you!



Did Someone Turn Your Name In?

If the ticket (now in your name) was originally issued in someone else's name,
and that person filled-out the affidavit form and supplied your name to the
police, their written affidavit identifying you as the driver cannot be used
against you in court.  And I have never seen an officer/prosecutor even try to
do so, because it would so clearly be hearsay.  If he was really desperate to
convict you, the prosecutor would need to subpoena the person who identified you
to come to court and testify in person;  I have never seen that happen, either.
 See the "Were You Snitched On?" paragraph on the Your Ticket page.


Did You Turn Your Name In?

If the original "ticket" was actually a fake ticket (Snitch Ticket) issued in
your name, and you filled-out the affidavit form and later received a real
ticket (Notice to Appear) in the mail, your affidavit identifying yourself as
the driver ordinarily could not be used against you in court, due to the Fifth
Amendment.  Unless you testify that it wasn't you driving!  See the "Did You
Snitch on Yourself?" paragraph on the Your Ticket page.


Face Photo Checklist

Finally, these three things bear repeating:

1.  Make sure it's not a Snitch Ticket - which can safely be ignored.

2.  If it's not you in the photo, you don't have to identify the person driving.
(See the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page)


3.  If it is a real ticket and it is you in the photo, keep in mind that you
probably have the option to ignore it.



This (above) is the only version of Defect # 1 - the version on the Expanded
Home / Defects page is identical.






Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 2:  YELLOW LIGHT TOO SHORT FOR THE SPEED ON THE STREET



If you were ticketed for a right turn, Defect # 2 may not be the place to start,
because present California rules allow a city to set the yellow light for a left
or right turn to as short as 3.0 seconds, even on a high speed street, if the
turn is controlled by a green arrow.
Instead, first have a look at "Churning" in Defect # 9, below.  Then, come back
here.

A tiny change in the length of the yellow light can have a huge effect on the
quantity of violations.  The economic effect is so significant that some red
light camera contracts - those in Bell Gardens, Citrus Heights, Corona, and
Hawthorne - appear to provide for a monetary penalty against the city if city
traffic engineers lengthen the yellows.

Vehicle Code Section 21455.7 says that yellow lights cannot be shorter than the
length stated in the CalTrans Traffic Manual (the MUTCD).  The following
CalTrans table shows how long yellows need to be for a straight-thru movement.
(Under present California rules, which could be revised in 2021 (see For Turns -
Some Hope in 2021, below), the minimum yellow for a left turn or right turn
phase is 3.0 seconds, no matter how high the posted speed limit is, if the turn
is controlled by a green arrow.)



Condensed from Table 4D-102 Minimum Yellow Light Change Interval, California
MUTCD 2014 Edition, as revised Nov. 7, 2014


> Speed 
> Until 7-31-15:  Use Posted Speed
> After 8-1-15:  Use 85th%, Rounded Up
> Minimum Yellow Interval
> 
> MPH SECONDS 25 or less 3.0 30 3.2 35 3.6 40 3.9 45 4.3 50 4.7 55 5.0 60 5.4 65
> 5.8


A Nov. 7, 2014 revision to the MUTCD requires California cities to have re-set
their yellows - for through movements, not turns - based upon the 85th
Percentile Speed of traffic rounded up to the next 5 mph increment, by Aug. 1,
2015.  Some yellows could be 0.3 or 0.4 longer.  (The Cities of San Mateo and
Daly City failed to re-set their yellows prior to the Aug. 1 deadline, and in
late 2015 announced they would be refunding or canceling nearly 1300 tickets
issued Aug. 1 or later.  The City of Los Alamitos needs to refund or cancel
about 1000 tickets, but may resist doing so.  The City of Oxnard needs to refund
several hundred tickets, but may resist doing so.)  For more details about the
new requirement, see the Expanded version of Defect # 2.

Definition:  The 85th Percentile Speed is used in the Speed Trap Law (Vehicle
Code Section 40802) which requires that wherever a city wishes to use radar for
speed enforcement, they must do a radar speed survey sampling the speed of 50 to
100 cars.  The 85th Percentile is always higher than the Posted Speed Limit.

For Turns - Some Hope in 2021

Under present rules a city can set the length of the yellow for a turning
movement (right, or left) to as little as 3.0 seconds, even on a high speed
street, if the turn is controlled by a green arrow.  However, in Nov. 2014
CalTrans recommended longer yellows for right and left turns where the turn lane
exceeds 150 feet in length, and in 2020 a national engineering organization (the
ITE) recommended the use of a new formula providing longer yellows.  And in 2021
a group of national safety organizations recommended that that formula be
applied.

"On March 2, 2020, after 55 years of getting the math wrong, ITE released its
new yellow light practice with the correct math. The correct math, if applied as
stated in the ITE Journal and adopted by DOTs, will bring an end to the
red-light camera industry."
(That comment - by a physicist member of a small team which was instrumental in
getting the ITE to revise its formula - was found in the comments below this
blog entry:
https://blog.photoenforced.com/2011/02/what-is-proper-length-for-yellow-light.html
 It is the 4th of the six comments and is noted as being from a year ago.
 Another member of that team explained the new formula, in an article published
in the March 2020 ITE Journal.)

Then, a little more than a year later, on May 6, 2021, five national safety
groups, including the AAA, IIHS and the NSC, published a new Automated
Enforcement Checklist which says, "Ensure that yellow light timing conforms to
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers [ITE] guidelines." That endorsement by those prominent
groups should make it easier for motorists to convince CalTrans and the DOTs in
other states (and local city councils) that the new ITE formula should be used
to calculate the length of yellows.  The article including the new checklist is
on the main page at iihs.org.



Cities found to have too-short yellows:

Union City, Sept. 2005
San Bernardino, Nov. 2008
San Carlos, Jan. 2009
Victorville, July 2009
Redlands, Sept. 2009
Menlo Park, July 2010
Loma Linda, Sept. 2010
Fremont, Nov. 2010
Sacramento, Jan. 2012
San Mateo, Nov. 2015
Daly City, Dec. 2015
Napa, Dec. 2015
Oxnard, May 2016
Los Alamitos, June 2016
Fremont, Jan. 2017
Citrus Heights, Feb. 2017
Metro/MTA, Feb. 2017

For information on how to measure the length of the yellow, see the big yellow
box in Step 2 of the "Handling Your Ticket" section on the Your Ticket page.


This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 2 -
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 2 - on expanded Home page.




'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE


If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in
your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat
Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh
your memory.  I use it too!





Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 3:
MERGED WITH DEFECT # 2




Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 4:
PHOTO ENFORCEMENT WARNING SIGNS TOO SMALL, ABSENT, ETC.


Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 requires the posting of warning signs.

From 1995 to Dec. 31. 2012 it gave a city the option to locate the signs at all
the main entrances to town "including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and
state highway routes" (in a city with a large airport, I think that the airport
should have been considered to be a "main entrance") or at each camera-equipped
intersection and "visible to traffic approaching from all directions."  (At a
typical intersection it required four signs even where there was only one camera
monitoring one direction of traffic.)  Most cities chose to post the
intersections rather than the town entrances, and occasionally some forgot to
post all four directions at the intersection.

On Jan. 1, 2013 Section 21455.5 changed.  The option to post the entrances to
town was deleted and a requirement to post a sign near each camera was added.
 That new requirement to always post a sign near each camera may sound like an
improvement over the previous law which gave a city the option to post no signs
at the intersection, but in my opinion it makes us less safe.  How?  See the
discussion in SB 1303 on the Action/Legis page.

The revised version of Section 21455.5 says that 2013 would be a transition
period, to allow cities time to change their signs to comply with the new law.
 Cities were required to complete the changes by Jan. 1, 2014.

Unchanged was the requirement for signs to comply with CalTrans specifications:
 They must be at least 30" wide and 42" inches high, the bottom edge must be at
least 7 feet above the pavement level (5 feet in rural areas), and they must be
laid-out per this CalTrans design...





Please note that there is no requirement to post signs at right turns, telling
you "stop before turning" or something like that.


This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 4 -
For more info about signs, the original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 4
- on the expanded Home page.





Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 5:  XEROX/ACS/CONDUENT CAMERA


Defect # 5 is about problems where the cameras are run by ACS, which until 2017
was a division of Xerox but now is Conduent Inc.  Until late 2018 ACS provided
the cameras in San Francisco, and currently provides cameras to Beverly Hills,
plus more than 100 cameras located along the light rail lines and Orange Line
busways of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority/MTA/Metro.  ACS (originally Affiliated Computer Services - not to be
confused with ATS, a competitor) was a pioneer in the photo enforcement Industry
but was overtaken by other companies offering more modern equipment.  For many
years ACS did not win a new contract in California, until it was awarded the
Beverly Hills contract in 2014.  Tickets from older ACS cameras have a
distinctive black data box (0.5 by 1.25 inch) superimposed on the photos.  The
data box includes the 'cat face' trademark of Gatsometer, the Dutch camera
manufacturer.

Many ACS installations still do not include a video camera, while the Industry
norm is to save a video clip of the violation - essential if the city wishes to
issue tickets for rolling right turns.  Also, in many ACS installations, the
only Limit Line photo is taken by a camera facing the driver, thus does not show
the signal the driver was looking at (see first example below), while the
Industry norm is to take two photos - one facing the driver, the other a
"forward-facing" photo (second example).




This ACS Limit Line photo shows only the signal opposing traffic is looking at
(upper right arrow).
Some ACS Limit Line photos show no signal at all.
highwayrobbery.net added the arrows.




Typical (non-ACS) "forward-facing" Limit Line photo, shows signal the driver is
looking at.



I.

The lack of a "forward-facing" Limit Line photo showing the signal may have
delayed the discovery of a major problem at an ACS camera at Whittier / Atlantic
in East LA.  Nearly 3000 tickets issued at that intersection were reversed by
the court, after it was discovered that the camera issued many tickets
prematurely, possibly while the light still was yellow.   This problem could
occur with an ACS camera anywhere in the world.  (More info about the Whittier /
Atlantic reversals is in the East LA section on the Camera Towns page.)


An ACS camera in your town could have this problem if either (A) or (B) exists.


(A)  The "1Y..." or "2Y..." imprint (see arrow in first example above) on your
top photo (assuming it is more legible than the example above) is not followed
by:

(1)   " 30 " or more in a 25 mph zone or for a left or right turn violation,
(2)   " 32 " or more in a 30 mph zone,
(3)   " 36 " or more in a 35 mph zone,
    (4)   " 39 " or more in a 40 mph zone, or
(5)   " 43 " or more in a 45 mph zone.


(B)  The camera has been aimed, as in the first example above, so that the
signal head (other arrow) is visible, and the visible light you see is yellow,
not red.  It's best to check a ticket with small "red time" - 1/10th or 2/10ths
of a second - " R001 " or " R002 " in the top photo on the ticket.  See also
Defect # 7, below.


If your ticket is not in color, or isn't clear enough so that you can't perform
the checks above, you can call the police department and ask them what the
numbers are, or go in and look at their copy of the ticket.  Their phone number
should be on the back of the ticket.  (Before you go visit the police, read II.,
below.)


II.

Following the ticket reversals in East LA, some cities with ACS installations
added an extra camera to take a "forward-facing" photo.  But some California
cities did not.  Several appeal court decisions ( Bohl, Moore, Graham, Salseda)
have addressed that issue.

If you go to cite-web.com to look at your ACS photos, the forward-facing photo
may or may not be there - assuming one was taken.  If you really want to know,
for sure, if a forward-facing photo exists for your ACS citation, I suggest
asking for Discovery.

For more information on how to read the "Late Time" or "Red Time" printed on
your ticket, see the How to Read Your Late Time box in Defect # 7, below.


This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 5 -
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 5 - on expanded Home page.





Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 6:  CITY DIDN'T ISSUE WARNING TICKETS FOR 30 DAYS
& other required warnings



Defect # 6 applies when the installation of "your" camera was not followed by a
30-day period during which warning tickets were issued by that camera, and you
got your ticket during that period.  This is most likely to happen if "your"
camera was not the first one installed in town.

(There are two other types of warnings required - see the expanded version of
Defect # 6.)

Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 says, in part:


21455.5:

(b)  Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction
utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to
issue only warning notices for 30 days.


( This requirement is not new - it was first enacted, although not in exactly
the same words, by Section 4 of Senate Bill 833 of 1995, which was effective
Jan. 1, 1996 and said,
"Any city utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system at intersections
shall, prior to issuing citations, commence a program to issue only warning
notices for 30 days." )


Section 21455.5 doesn't make it clear whether a city having a pre-existing
system is required to issue warning tickets when it adds a new camera.  As a
result, while all cities issued warning tickets at the time they installed their
first camera, many cities did not issue warning tickets from the cameras they
added weeks or months later.   Hawthorne, Inglewood, Santa Ana and Stockton are
examples of cities that issued warning tickets at their first camera location
only - but there are many more.

In 2014 the California Supreme Court issued a decision in People v. Gray, about
warning tickets.  The Court agreed that a city must issue warning tickets when
it adds a new camera to its system, but it limited that protection to benefit
only those violators whose violations occurred when the new camera first became
operational.  So, if "your" city installed "your" camera and did not issue
warning tickets for 30 days after that installation, and your violation occurred
during that period, this issue can be raised in court.


Issuing warning tickets may be a "foundational" requirement (read the Gray
decision) - Defects #'s 2 - 4 and 10 are others.



This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 6 -
If you want more details, the original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 6
- on expanded Home page.



Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 7:  SIGNAL LIGHT BULBS TAKE A WHILE TO COME ON
...and So Do LEDs
AKA:  The "Filament" Defense


This defect is applicable only to tickets with small "Late Times" - 0.20 (two
tenths of a second, or 200 milliseconds) or less.  If you can't find your Late
Time, or can't read it, see the big purple-ish box, below.

California Vehicle Code Section 21453, which is the law you have been charged
with violating, says: 
"A driver facing a steady red... shall stop...."  (Emphasis added.)

The defect is that LEDs (light-emitting diodes), the fastest-acting light source
used in signals, can take slightly more than  0.1 second to light-up (turn-on)
after the power has been applied.  If you have a ticket with a 0.1 Late Time,
that turn-on delay may be longer than the Late Time you were cited for.  And the
old-fashioned, but occasionally still-in-use incandescent bulbs, take about
twice as long.  If your Late Time was very short (or you suspect that it was),
compare the brightness of the red in the first photo...


Portion of "First photo," taken when front
of car was 1 - 2 feet behind limit line,
Late Time indicated as approx. 1/10 sec.

...to the brightness of that same lamp in the second photo.


Portion of "Second photo," taken approx. 1 sec. later,
when car was in the middle of the intersection.

If it is noticeably brighter in the second photo, then you have photographic
evidence that you were not facing a "steady" red at the time you were at the
limit line, and you should be sure to read the Expanded version of Defect # 7.



How to Read Your Late Time

You may need a magnifying glass, a pocket calculator, or a crystal ball !

Late Time is how long the signal already had been red (actually, how long power
had been applied to the red light bulb) when your picture was taken.  The red
light camera industry is so new that there's no standard terminology.  Thus,
Late Time is also often called "duration," "time into red," "red time," or
abbreviated as "TR."

There's also no standard as to the number of decimal places - Some red light
cameras display the Late Time rounded down to tenths of a second, others display
hundredths of a second, and some of the newest cameras have four digits to the
right of the decimal place.  In at least one city (Culver City) the number of
digits varies from camera to camera.

Pointing up the lack of standards, several cities formerly using Nestor-brand
camera systems don't display the Late Time at all, even though Nestor systems
clearly had the capability to do so.


(From sample ticket at the end of a Nestor brochure.)

A possible motive to leave it off could be so that they can cite for very short
Late Times (like 0.1 second) without widespread criticism (including some from
judges) about "Mickey Mouse" tickets.  If you phone the PD to ask what your Late
Time was, they probably will say that to get that information, you must come in
to the police station.  The visit to the police station serves to grind you
down, make it harder for you to fight your ticket. See the Cerritos, Costa Mesa,
Pasadena, Davis or San Bernardino sections on the Camera Towns page for more
information.

Many red light cameras imprint the Late Time right on the top[2] photo on your
ticket - but the format has not been standardized.  So here is how some of the
more common cameras would display a Late Time of 1/10th (one tenth, or 0.1) of a
second.

The now almost-obsolete (but still used in some locations) ACS "wet film" 35mm
cameras print 1/10th of a second as R001 .  While it's not a 1/10th of a second
ticket, the top photo in Defect # 5 above is a good example of a ticket from an
ACS 35mm camera.  The tenths digit is smaller than the rest and is always very
hard to read; to be sure of what the tenths digit is, you may need to call the
issuer of the ticket.  On the example, the Late Time is 1.1 second, displayed as
R011 (in the middle row on the right side of the data box).

Early RedFlex cameras, such as Culver City's first seven installations, used
35mm "wet film" and displayed the data in bright, but fuzzy, red numerals in a
strip across the top of the photos[2].  They would print a 1/10th second Late
Time as Red T.  000.1

RedFlex's newer cameras, which are digital and take 12 seconds of video, display
the data in tiny faint white letters on a black strip at the top edge of the
photos[2] (best way to read them is by putting the ticket up on the window).
 They would print a 1/10th second Late Time ("duration," "TR," or "time into
red") as either 0.10 or 0.1000.  At court in Culver City I have seen some
RedFlex "video" tickets with only the tenths digit displayed.  The officer told
the court that this occurs when they are having a problem with their live data
link.

Most brands of cameras (ACS, RedFlex, etc.) have an additional time counter,
often called "elapsed time," which starts at zero at the instant the first photo
is taken.  It will tell you the time that elapsed between the first photo and
the second.  Sometimes using the elapsed time (subtracting it from the elapsed
Late Time shown in the second photo on the ticket) will help you to figure out
what the hard-to-read Late Time (in the first photo) is.  For example, here are
the data boxes from the first and second photos on a typical ticket - actually
the same ACS one used in Defect # 5, above.

If you subtract the elapsed time of 0.89 (shown in the middle row, left side,
below) from the elapsed Late Time of 2.0 ( " R020 " in middle row, right side,
below) you get 1.11, which confirms that the Late Time shown in the first photo
(middle row, right side, above) is 1.1 (after rounding off).



For more practice reading Late Times, see this page.

If you are making time/distance calculations, see:  The Math Page.


[2] If two photos have a Late Time imprint, the applicable number will be the
smaller one.




This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 7 -
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 7 - on expanded Home page.




Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 8:  TICKET MAILED LATE,
OR TO THE WRONG ADDRESS,
OR WITHOUT PROPER PROOF OF MAILING,
OR INCOMPLETE


Most of Defect # 8 could apply to any violation, anywhere.

(A)  Many defendants are unaware that they ran a light.  Many other defendants
loaned their car to someone else.  So that defendants are able to remember what
they were doing on the date of the violation, or to whom they had loaned their
car, California law gives the police only a limited amount of time (15 days)[4]
to deliver a genuine Notice to Appear to the registered owner's letter box.
And, of course, the police need to send it to the right address.

[4]  Vehicle Code Sec. 23 says, "The giving of notice by mail is complete upon
the expiration of four days after deposit of the notice in the mail...."  So, if
the postmark is more than 11 calendar days after the date the violation
occurred, the service of the Notice to Appear could be defective and you could
file a demurrer to make the ticket disappear.

If you're not the registered owner, please note:  The 15-day requirement applies
to the first mailing of a Notice to Appear, which is usually to the registered
owner of the car.  If he or she received a genuine Notice to Appear, then gave
your name to the police who then re-issued the ticket to you, the 15-day
requirement does not apply to the timing of the mailing to you.  But if what the
registered owner received was something other than a genuine Notice to Appear
(maybe a Snitch Ticket?), you might be able to file a demurrer. For more info
about demurring, see Defect # 8, Expanded.

(B)  And since red light camera Notices to Appear are not handed to you in
person by a motor officer who obtains your signature, the law requires the
police to obtain some evidence that the Notice to Appear was actually mailed.

(C)  Some cities leave the court's phone number off the Notice to Appear, or
provide an incomplete address for the court (both of which are required on the
official form), in an apparent attempt to make it harder for defendants to have
their day in court.


The Law

In California, Vehicle Code Section 40518 says (in part, with emphasis added):


40518. Whenever a written Notice to Appear has been issued by a peace officer or
by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the
Judicial Council ... and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged
violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file
with the department, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of
service ...




This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 8 -
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 8 - on expanded Home page.



'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE


If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in
your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat
Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh
your memory.  I use it too!





Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 9:  "CHURNING"
Quotas, Enforcement on Left or Right Turns, Signals which Change Too Quickly,
Cameras at Confusing Intersections, Federal Guidelines


"Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law
enforcement and the courts.  Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as
unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who
make and enforce those laws."
The Appellate Department, in People vs. Goulet



Nonsequitur, by Wiley Miller.  Shop at www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/



A.  Ticket Quota$


Section 11.14 of the Feb. 2009 contract between the City of Walnut and RedFlex
penalized the City if:

"...the City or Police waives more than 10 percent of valid violations forwarded
to the Police for acceptance...."

The contract between Los Angeles County MTA ("Metro") and ACS required:

"The Contractor shall be required to maintain, at a minimum, the existing rates
of citations issued by location...."

In Apr. 2011 a jury awarded $2 million to two LAPD motorcycle officers who
alleged that their supervisors retaliated against them for complaining about
traffic ticket quotas.  Article, LA Times, 4-12-11

In June 2011 the mainstream media revealed that the LA County Superior Court was
not reporting ignored red light camera tickets to the DMV.  By the following
month, payment of tickets had dropped in half.  To bring their ticket revenue
back up, some cities began to issue a lot more tickets.  Baldwin Park, Commerce,
Covina, Culver City, Hawthorne, Lynwood, Santa Clarita, South Gate, Walnut and
West Hollywood - more than half of the red light camera cities in LA County -
increased ticketing by more than 50%.  For more info, see Set # 2 on the LA
County Docs page.  Ticketing also increased 50% or more in some cities outside
of LA County:  Corona, Garden Grove, Highland, Los Alamitos, Oakland, Redding,
Riverside, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Ana, South San Francisco, Stockton
and Victorville.

Ticket quotas are illegal in California - see CVC 41600 - 41603.



B.  Churning Right Turn$

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done
at all."
Prof. Peter F. Drucker

"Basically they're [the camera company] saying we're going to make money off
that intersection if we put it there.  It's a half million dollars in fines that
we would not normally have collected."
Emeryville Police Chief Kenneth James.  Source.

Sgt. Sharon Kaufman:  "My only question is since most of the violations are
right turns, how long would that be sustainable?"
RedFlex rep Mark Riggs: "I can say that most intersections that have right turns
enforced continue to produce consistent numbers."
2013 email exchange about proposed new camera in Menlo Park

"Mr. Saunders [President of RedFlex] suggests jurisdictions refrain from issuing
a [rolling right] ticket except when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk."
Interview of Saunders in Dec. 26, 2014 Wall Street Journal column headlined:
 "Can the Red-Light Camera Be Saved? - Money-hungry politicians discredit a
hopeful safety innovation.”


There has been a shift away from ticketing people who run straight thru
intersections, towards ticketing drivers who "roll" a right turn.   It has
become the profit center of most systems, and some of the newest contracts
(between cities and red light camera providers) acknowledge the economic
importance of rolling right enforcement by making it a contractual obligation.


Clause found in the Nov. 2007 San Carlos and Feb. 2008 Belmont contracts.

The San Carlos and Belmont contracts merely required those cities to enforce on
rolling rights, without specifying exactly what would happen if the cities had
refused to do so.  On the other hand, the Dec. 2007 Citrus Heights contract, the
Jan. 2008 Bakersfield contract, the June 2008 Napa contract, the Oct. 2008 Bell
Gardens contract, the Nov. 2008 amendment of the Ventura contract, the Dec. 2008
Lynwood contract, and the Feb. 2009 Walnut contract all provided for a monetary
sanction against the city.

Why did RedFlex find it necessary to force cities to enforce rolling rights?  We
need look no further than Ventura.  Before 2008, the City was not contractually
required to ticket rolling rights, and chose - correctly - to give it very
little emphasis.  Because of the low ticket volume - combined with 'cost
neutral' terms - by 2008 the City owed RedFlex a "balance carried forward" of
$1.7 million.   By 2014 the debt had increased - despite the amendment - to $2.7
million, which RedFlex was forced to forgive in 2015 as part of negotiations for
a new contract with the City.  See Set # 2 of  Ventura Documents .


A Few Important Notes about Right Turns

(1)  The price - In 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 there were bills in
the legislature to reduce the fine for rolling rights.  None passed!  See the
Legislation section on the Action page.
At least one city used to do what the three bills proposed:  Until Aug. 2008 the
City of LA cited its rolling right turns under Subsection (b) of CVC 21453,
instead of (a), which resulted in a much-lower fine.  And a few judges in other
cities offer reduced fines to defendants with rolling right tickets.
For perspective:  New York City charges $50 for all its camera tickets, and in
Oct. 2009 the Lafayette, Louisiana City-Parish Council reduced the fine for
rolling rights to $25, from the previous $125.

(2)  At right turns, the city is not required to post signs telling you "stop
before turning" or something like that.  See FAQ # 27 and Sign Requirements for
more details.  But if you were cited for a turn at a corner having a sign saying
"no turn on red," please contact me about it.

(3)  Under present rules a city can set the length of the yellow for a turning
movement (right, or left) to as little as 3.0 seconds, even on a high speed
street, if the turn is controlled by a green arrow.  However, in Nov. 2014
CalTrans recommended - but did not require - longer yellows at those locations
where the turn pocket exceeds 150 feet in length.
If the turn is not controlled by a green arrow, the length of the yellow should
be set according to the speed of the through traffic.

For more info about right turns, read the expanded versions of Defects # 2 and #
9.


C.  Churning Left Turn$

A tiny increase in the length of the yellow makes a huge decrease in the number
of left turn violations.

If cities wish to reduce left turn running, they should lengthen the yellow,
make sure the green arrow is long enough - and demand-activated - and that the
turn pocket is large enough for the demand.  In most cities, the photo
enforcement on left turn arrows is a form of Churning.

Under present rules a city can set the length of the yellow for a turning
movement (left, or right) to as little as 3.0 seconds, even on a high speed
street, if the turn is controlled by a green arrow.  However, in Nov. 2014
CalTrans recommended - but did not require - longer yellows at those locations
where the turn pocket exceeds 150 feet in length.
If the turn is not controlled by a green arrow, the length of the yellow should
be set according to the speed of the through traffic.

For more about left turns, read the expanded versions of Defects # 2 and # 9.


Take Political Action

If you have a ticket for a turn, left or right, call your State legislators, and
your auto club, and complain about the heavy ticketing and the way
out-of-proportion fine.  For phone numbers see the Legislation section on the
Action page.

Other than the quotas, the things noted in Defect # 9 above are mostly political
issues - it would be difficult to use them to beat your ticket.  If you would
like to read more about them (including Federal guidelines), see Defect # 9, on
the expanded Home page.



This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 9 -
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 9 - on expanded Home page.




Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
DEFECT # 10:  PROBABLE CAUSE, FOUNDATION, CONSTITUTIONALITY, HEARSAY,
CONFRONTATION


Defect # 10, Subsection A:
SOME FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENTS:  WARNING SIGNS, WARNING TICKETS, LONG-ENOUGH
YELLOWS, AND WRITTEN GUIDELINES


At a trial, Foundation is the introductory evidence necessary to establish the
admissibility of other evidence.

There was no witness to the crime.  The case is based solely upon physical
evidence - the photos and the data the computer recorded.  But the police can't
use evidence if it was gathered illegally.  Vehicle Code 21455.5 (in box, below)
specifies things the City must do and must not do in order to legally gather red
light camera evidence.

To make this concept clear, here is an extreme example:  Suppose you're accused
of shooting a convenience store clerk, and the police have produced a gun that
matches the bullets found in the clerk; the gun also has a full set of your
fingerprints on it.  It is almost perfect evidence - just like the photos the
red light cameras take - except for one problem.  The police obtained the gun
illegally, by breaking into your house without a warrant.  So, they will not be
able to use the gun in court, and will have to depend upon other evidence, and
eyewitness testimony, to make their case.

At your red light camera ticket trial, the officer will testify first, and he is
supposed to begin his testimony by "laying the foundation."[5]  Without having
to be reminded to do it, most officers will give a brief foundational speech
(sometimes very brief) saying that they posted warning signs (Defect # 4), made
announcements 30 days before starting up the system, gave warning tickets for 30
days (Defect # 6), have long enough yellows (Defect # 2), etc.

[5] Think of the evidence as a house; houses collapse if they have no
foundation.

When it's your chance to cross-examine him, you could ask the officer if he
provided public notice 30 days before firing up your camera,
issued warning tickets for the first 30 days of operation (of your camera - see
Defect # 6),
had four signs (full 30" x 42") posted at your intersection at the time you were
ticketed,
and has written guidelines.



Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
Defect # 10, Subsection B:
FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENT:  PAY-PER-TICKET ("COST NEUTRAL") CONTRACTS ARE
PROHIBITED

Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 prohibits "pay per ticket" contracts.  21455.5(h)
says:
(h)(1) A contract [with a red light camera supplier]... may not include...
payment... based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the
revenue generated..."
( Full text is in the big box, below. )

The author of 21455.5 wrote:
"Paying red light camera vendors [suppliers] based on the number of tickets
issued undermines the public's trust and raises concern that these systems can
be manipulated for profit."
(Official comment by Senator - then Assemblywoman - Jenny Oropeza, published in
8/27/03 legislative analysis of AB 1022 of 2003.)

Many cities are ignoring that law.  An example was Marysville, where the
contract signed Dec. 21, 2004 said:
"Fixed fee of $6,030 Per Month Per Designated Intersection Approach..."
"Payment [to camera supplier RedFlex] will only be made by Customer [the City]
up to
the amount of cash received by Customer from Yuba County through the collection
of red light citations up to the amount currently due."
"Cost neutrality is assured to Customer using this methodology as Customer
will never pay RedFlex more than actual cash received." (Bolding added.)
In other words, contrary to the misleading "fixed fee" language, RedFlex will
get less money if there are fewer tickets, and more money if there are more.

The known examples of illegal or cost-neutral contracts are Bakersfield‡,
Baldwin Park‡, Bell Gardens‡, Capitola‡, Cathedral City‡, Cerritos‡, Citrus
Heights‡, Commerce‡, Corona‡, Costa Mesa*‡, Covina‡, Culver City*‡, Daly City‡,
Davis*, Emeryville*‡, Encinitas*‡, Escondido*‡, Fairfield‡, Fullerton, Gardena‡,
Glendale*‡, Grand Terrace, Hawthorne‡, Hayward‡, Hemet‡, Highland‡, Inglewood‡,
Laguna Woods*‡, Lancaster‡, Loma Linda‡, Long Beach‡, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles
County, Lynwood‡, MRCA*‡, MTA/Metro, Marysville‡, Menlo Park‡, Millbrae*,
Modesto‡, Montebello‡, Moreno Valley, Murrieta‡, Napa*‡, Newark*‡, Oceanside‡,
Oxnard‡, Paramount‡, Rancho Cucamonga, Redding‡, Redwood City*‡, Redlands,
Riverside‡, Rocklin‡, Roseville, San Bernardino*‡, San Juan Capistrano*, San
Leandro‡, San Mateo*‡, Santa Ana‡, Santa Clarita‡, Santa Maria, Solana Beach‡,
South Gate*, City of South San Francisco‡, Stockton‡, Union City, Upland,
Ventura‡, Victorville‡, Walnut‡, Whittier‡, Yuba City‡, and Yucaipa.

*  This city recently amended its contract, or signed a new one,
changing the pay to its camera vendor to "flat rate."
For more details, see the city's entry on the Camera Towns page.
‡  This city's contract is available in the city's entry on the Camera Towns
page or in the city's Documents page.
This list of cities with cost neutral contracts may not be up-to-date - there
could be an amendment that has not come to my attention.

Appeal Victories!

In 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 defendants won appellate court decisions saying
that cost-neutral contracts are illegal.  See the expanded version of
Defect # 10 - B for more information.

Check the contract in "your" city.  It may be available on the city's Documents
page, here on highwayrobbery.net.  Or, you can get it by calling the city clerk,
at city hall.  If the contract was signed or amended after Jan. 1, 2004 and the
quantity of tickets (or the amount of ticket revenue the city gets from the
court) has any effect upon the amount paid to the camera supplier, make a motion
(or add to your Trial by Declaration) to exclude the camera evidence, because it
was gathered illegally. 



Home/Defects Page (Condensed):
Defect # 10, Subsection C:
MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE CONSTITUTIONALITY

In association with the National Motorists Association (NMA), an attorney
prepared a 20-page defense brief (Fairfax) asking a court in Fairfax, Virginia
to strike the evidence and rule the underlying ordinance unconstitutional.
While some of the brief would apply only to a ticket in that city, many sections
of it might be useful in California. 


See the Links/Ref page for more information about the NMA.





Defect # 10, Subsection D:
HEARSAY / CONFRONTATION

Ordinarily, when someone wants to use a document, letter or photo as evidence in
court, they need to bring in a live person to testify as to the document's
authenticity and accuracy.  And the opposition gets to cross-examine -
"confront" - that person.  Without that "live" authentication, the document
could be ruled to be "hearsay," and excluded from evidence.  There is an
exception to the hearsay rule, for documents created by a government employee -
but many of the documents the police present in court have been created by a
private company's employees who are not government employees, thus have no
official duty to report accurately.  Numerous recent decisions by California
Appellate Divisions and the US Supreme Court have addressed this
hearsay/confrontation issue.

In Sept. 2012 Gov. Brown signed a new law diminishing a defendant's ability to
object on hearsay grounds.  See SB 1303 of 2012, on the Action/Legis page.

RedFlex holds a patent on a method to alter/intensify portions of photos.

Also see the Getting Records / Discovery page, read about California's Truth in
Evidence law, and the Best Evidence Rule.


Defect # 10, Subsection E:
PROBABLE CAUSE

Some cities issue a real ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle, even
when it is obvious (an age and/or gender mismatch) that he or she was not the
driver at the time of the violation.  In 2014 there was a trial court decision
about that lack of Probable Cause, in People v. Tho--.  An earlier decision is
in Section III(B)(2) of Judge Ronald Styn's Aug. 15, 2001 ruling in People v.
John Allen.  Also see Set # 16 on the Culver City Docs page.



The Law

Text of California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5, effective Jan. 1, 2004, with
the significant changes effective Jan. 1, 2013 (due to SB 1303 of 2012 - see the
Action/Legis page) shown in Italic and strikeout type:

(a) The limit line, the intersection, or a place designated in Section 21455,
where a driver is required to stop, may be equipped with an automated traffic
enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets all of
the following requirements:

(1) Identifies the system by signs posted within 200 feet of an intersection
where a system is operating that clearly indicate the system's presence and are
visible to traffic approaching from all directions in which the automated
traffic enforcement system is being utilized to issue citations.  or posts signs
at all major entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges,
and state highway routes.  A governmental agency utilizing such a system does
not need to post signs visible to traffic approaching the intersection from
directions not subject to the automated traffic enforcement system.  Automated
traffic enforcement systems installed as of January 1, 2013, shall be identified
no later than January 1, 2014.  [[Also see subsection (j), below.]]

(2) Locates the system at an intersection, and ensures that the system meets the
criteria specified in Section 21455.7.  [[See Defect # 2.]]

(b) Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction
utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to
issue only warning notices for 30 days.  The local jurisdiction shall also make
a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30
days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program.

(c) Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency,
may operate an automated enforcement system.  As used in this subdivision,
"operate" includes all of the following activities  A governmental agency that
operates an automated traffic enforcement system shall do all of the following:

(1) Develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations and for the
processing and storage of confidential information, and establishing procedures
to ensure compliance with those guidelines.  For systems installed as of January
1, 2013, a governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement
system shall establish those guidelines by January 1, 2014.

(2) Perform administrative functions and day-to-day functions, including, but
not limited to, all of the following:

(A) Establishing guidelines for selection of a location.  Prior to installing an
automated traffic enforcement system after January 1, 2013, the governmental
agency shall make and adopt a finding of fact establishing that the system is
needed at a specific location for reasons related to safety.

(B) Ensuring that the equipment is regularly inspected.

(C) Certifying that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated, and is
operating properly.

(D) Regularly inspecting and maintaining warning signs placed under paragraph
(1) of subdivision  (a).

(E) Overseeing the establishment or change of signal phases and the timing
thereof.

(F) Maintaining controls necessary to assure ensure that only those citations
that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are delivered to
violators.

(d) The activities listed in subdivision (c) that relate to the operation of the
system may be contracted out by the governmental agency, if it maintains overall
control and supervision of the system. However, the activities listed [[ and in
bold type, above ]] in paragraph (1) of, and subparagraphs (A), (D), (E), and
(F) of paragraph (2) of, subdivision (c) may shall not be contracted out to the
manufacturer or supplier of the automated enforcement system.

(e) The printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or
photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system does not
constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10
(commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code.

(e)
(f)

(1) Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other law,
photographic records made by an automated enforcement system shall be
confidential, and shall be made available only to governmental agencies and law
enforcement agencies and only for the purposes of this article.

(2) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for
the administration or enforcement of this article shall be held confidential,
and shall not be used for any other purpose.

(3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code,
the confidential records and information described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may
be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first
obtained, or until final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later,
after which time the information shall be destroyed in a manner that will
preserve the confidentiality of any person included in the record or
information.

[The prohibition of cost neutral contracts, formerly Subsection 21455.5(g), is
now at 21455.5(h).]

(f)
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (d) (f), the registered owner or any individual
identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of
the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic evidence of
the alleged violation.

(g)
(h)

(1) A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of
automated traffic enforcement equipment may shall not include provision for the
payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of
citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of
the use of the equipment authorized under this section.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a
governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement
equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or
amended on or after January 1, 2004.

(3) A governmental agency that proposes to install or operate an automated
traffic enforcement system shall not consider revenue generation, beyond
recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when
considering whether or not to install or operate a system within its local
jurisdiction.

(i) A manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated traffic enforcement
system pursuant to this section shall, in cooperation with the governmental
agency, submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that includes, but is
not limited to, all of the following information if this information is in the
possession of, or readily available to, the manufacturer or supplier:

(1) The number of alleged violations captured by the systems they operate.

(2) The number of citations issued by a law enforcement agency based on
information collected from the automated traffic enforcement system.

(3) For citations identified in paragraph (2), the number of violations that
involved traveling straight through the intersection, turning right, and turning
left.

(4) The number and percentage of citations that are dismissed by the court.

(5) The number of traffic collisions at each intersection that occurred prior
to, and after the installation of, the automated traffic enforcement system.

(j) If a governmental agency utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system
has posted signs on or before January 1, 2013, that met the requirements of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of this section, as it read on January 1, 2012,
the governmental agency shall not remove those signs until signs are posted that
meet the requirements specified in this section, as it reads on January 1, 2013.



This (above) is the condensed Version of Defect # 10 -
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 10 - on expanded Home page.




Disclaimers / Notes



Don't run red lights.  It is a dangerous practice - Russian Roulette with a
car.  This website is inspired by the short-sighted cities that have chosen to
"rig" their cameras and signals to maximize profits - and minimize safety.


This site is a free-of-charge public service.  I am not selling anything, and
cannot accept donations.  I ask each person who uses this website to call their
legislators and their auto club.  See the Action page.


Contributions of information are welcomed.  See the Help & Info Needed section
on the Action page.  And if you operate a website or a "blog," please mention
highwayrobbery.net.




You can buy that coffee mug at Dilbert.com




You should double-check any material obtained here, before you use it.


If you would like to fight your ticket but do not want to appear personally in
court, or cannot easily do so, you could do a Trial by Declaration, through the
mail.  See the Your Ticket page.  Or, I can refer you to lawyers who specialize
in traffic tickets.  I do not accept any kind of compensation, not even a free
lunch, from these attorneys.


During the first three years of this site's existence I attended traffic court
twice a week, and there is an extensive chronology of those visits in the Culver
City, Inglewood and Hawthorne sections on the Camera Towns page.  Even if your
ticket is not from one of those three cities, you may find the information there
to be useful.


While Defects # 5, # 7, # 8 and # 9 (above) could apply to a camera anywhere in
the world, most of the information on this website applies primarily to tickets
issued under California Vehicle Code Section 21453; the law in other states is
different. There is some "national" information on the Links/Ref page.


Most of the information on this website applies only to tickets issued in
California.


I update portions of this website almost daily.  If you are making a return
visit after an absence of more than a day, I recommend that you hit the "reload"
or "refresh" buttons, to make sure you have the latest version of the page
you're interested in.


If losing your case would cost you your job or your ability to get one, hire a
lawyer.  Hire a lawyer if you have been charged with a misdemeanor (red light
camera tickets are infractions), because a misdemeanor conviction can land you
in jail for up to six months.


"Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords."
Teddy Roosevelt


All information, documents and data posted on this website has been obtained
legally, primarily from case documents provided by defendants, from media
reports, from government websites, and from requests made under the California
Public Records Act ( Govt. Code 6250 ).




I have modified portions of this website to make it more accessible from
hand-held devices. If you are having trouble reaching it, are having to do a lot
of scrolling to find what you want, or just have a design suggestion, please let
me know. The modifications should be invisible when the site is viewed on a
laptop or desk-top computer.



Is this Site Reliable?


I am not a lawyer, or a government "insider," and may have some erroneous or
incomplete materials on this site.  You should double-check any material
obtained here, before you use it.  Use the link in the Reference section on the
Links/Ref page to review the latest version of any Vehicle Code section upon
which you are basing your defense.

Despite the paragraph above, other people consider this site to be pretty
reliable.

"Mayor Rhodes Rigsby said... he trusted the website and has taken its advice in
the past."
San Bernardino Sun, Oct. 13, 2010

"...according to data posted on highwayrobbery.net that Napa Police Capt. Jeff
Troendly said looked 'spot on.' "
Napa Valley Register, Nov. 13, 2011



Why?


"While not on an existential par with events in Syria and Iraq, someone has to
worry about our self-inflicted war on ourselves and our submission to dystopian
efficiency over humanity."
From Cry, Your Car's on Hidden Camera, by Kathleen Parker, in the Washington
Post 9-23-14 (archived copy)



Internal Links


You are on the Condensed Version of the Home / Defects page.
For the expanded (original) version, click: Home / Defects - Expanded.



Onward, to Camera Towns page


Back, to Top of Condensed Home page


Email:  For my address, go to the Action page.



PHOTO ENFORCEMENT 'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE


If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in
your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat
Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh
your memory.  I use it too!


Please also note that this is a condensed version of the Home/Defects page.  If
you are having trouble finding something that you saw before, it might be
something that is only on the original/expanded version of the page - which is
still available, and fully maintained.






---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net