SUPERIOR
COURT
OF
CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
OF
LOS
ANGELES,
CULVER CITY BRANCH
PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE OF )
Case
No.
D1234567
CALIFORNIA )
)
Plaintiff ) ENGROSSED
SETTLED
STATEMENT
)
ON
APPEAL
v. )
)
John
Smith )
)
Defendant )
)
____________________________________)
Appellant John Smith was
cited for
violating Section 21453(a) of the California
Vehicle Code, failing to
stop for a red light, on July 30, 2002. The
citation was issued by Sgt.
Michael Shank of the Culver City Police Department
through the use of
an
automated red light camera system pursuant CVC
§40518.
The Appellant requested a trial
by
declaration and posted bail of $270.00. [[That was
the full amount of the fine, back then in
2003.]] The
Appellant was found guilty
and requested a trial de novo. February 13, 2003
was set for
arraignment
and trial. The Appellant was advised, in writing,
of his right to a
speedy and public court trial by a judge or
commissioner of the Court
within 45 days of his arraignment, to confront and
cross-examine
witnesses called to testify against him, to
subpoena witnesses on his
behalf at no cost to him, to be represented by an
attorney paid for at
his own expense, at all stages of the proceedings,
not to be a witness
against himself. The Appellant appeared for
arraignment and trial on
February 3, 2003, in Division 3 of the Superior
Court Culver City
Branch. At that time, Appellant was arraigned and
entered a plea of not
guilty to the charge.
At the trial Sgt. Wolford of
the
Culver City Police Department was sworn and
testified as follows:
The City of Culver City has
automated
red light camera systems that capture drivers who
enter an intersection
while facing a red light. This computer-based
radar system takes two
photos [[or 12 seconds of video]] of the vehicle.
The first photograph
is taken prior to the
vehicle entering the intersection after the light
has turned red. The
second photograph is taken a second or so later
after the vehicle
actually enters the intersection while still in
the red phase. Along
with the photographs is data information relative
to the infraction.
The
data information has the date, time, and location
of occurrence, as
well
as the vehicle’s speed at the time the photograph
was taken, how long
the light had been red at the time the photograph
was taken, the
picture
number and finally the elapsed time between the
two photographs.
Technicians respond to each
intersection between one and three times per week
to change the film
and
insure that all systems are working properly.
[[Doesn't apply to video
tickets - the digital data moves from the camera
to the camera
company's facility via a dedicated phone
line.]] The evidence is
then
marked, logged and batched. Once the photographs
are developed, they
are
digitized and assembled onto a notice of
violation. A log file is then
associated with the photographs. The log file is a
permanent record of
the violation information, the system’s internal
calibration and a
diagnostic inspection.
The City of Culver City had to
comply
with several vehicle code requirements before the
system was
implemented:
1. Public
Hearing
-
A
public hearing was held in the Culver City City
Council on
2/8/99
2. Public
Announcements
-
Public
announcements were placed in the Times Westside
section on 9/13/98, the Times Metro section on
9/1/98, the Culver City
Chronicle on 9/9/98, on channels 2, 4,
7, 34, 52, and on the
Culver City cable crawler and City web site.
3. 30
Day
Warning
Period
- There was a waiting period between 10/11/98 and
through 2/26/99 during which warnings only were
mailed.
4. Posted
Signs
-
Photo
enforced signs are displayed in all directions at
each
automated enforcement intersection in the city to
identify the system’s
presence.
5. Notices
of
Violation
-
Notices of violation or citations are mailed out
within
15 days as required by the vehicle code.
The intersection of East bound
Washington and Beethoven is located in the City of
Culver City and has
such an automated enforcement system that captures
drivers who enter an
intersection while in the red phase. On July 30,
2002 at 1:52 P.M., the
system activated producing the pictures depicted
in Peoples 1.
(People’s
1. The citation and photographs).
Technicians for Traffic Safety
Systems
respond to this intersection 2 to 3 times a week
to change the film and
to insure that the system is working properly. In
this case,
technicians
were at this intersection on: July 30, 2002 in the
morning prior to the
time of this citation and again on July 31.
(People’s 2. The Field
Service Technician Inspection Report)
The film is then taken to
Traffic
Safety Systems where it is marked, logged and
batched. After the film
is
developed the photographs are digitized and
assembled. This process is
done as standard operating procedure. (People’s 3.
The Evidence
Tracking
Report).
After the film is assembled,
the
photographs are associated with a log file. Along
with the record of
the
violation information, the log file also records
the systems internal
calibration and diagnostic inspection. This
document shows that the
system performed an internal calibration 3 minutes
prior to the
citation
and again 14 minutes after and at both times the
system was operating
properly. (People’s 4. The Log File).
Directing the courts attention
to the
television monitor, displayed on the monitor is
the negative from the
first camera of the system, photo 2 A. The
negative depicts a 199x
Dodge
Mini Van license plate No. ABC123 traveling East
bound on Washington
Boulevard at Beethoven in the # 2 lane behind the
limit line facing a
red light. The red light shown on the television
monitor is the same as
shown in the photograph which is People’s 1. The
data strip shows that
on July 30, 2002 at 1:52 P.M., Eastbound
Washington at Beethoven, the
Radar tracking and trigger device was tracking the
vehicle depicted in
the photograph at a speed of 35 miles per hour
when the system
activated
and the first photograph was taken. The data strip
shows that the light
had been red for 3 tenths of a second and the
elapsed time in the A
photograph is 0.0 seconds as it should be.
A vehicle traveling at 35 miles
per
hour is traveling at 51 .45 feet per second. In 3
tenths of
a
second a vehicle traveling at that speed will have
traveled 15 feet,
thus the Dodge Van in photograph 2A would have
been an additional
fifteen feet further back from the limit line when
the light turned
red.
The amber light at this intersection was 3.5
seconds. [[As of the time
of this violation it was 3.5, but in November 2002
it was increased to
3.6.]] At 35 miles per
hour the vehicle would have been an additional 180
feet back when the
light turned amber giving the driver a total of
195 feet to bring the
vehicle to a safe stop.
This is photo 2B taken by the
second
camera and the elapsed time in this photo is .9
seconds meaning that
this photo was taken 9 tenths of a second after
the first photo and the
vehicle is well out into the intersection where it
would be expected to
be 9 tenths of a second later. Now focusing in on
the driver, there is
Mr. Smith behind the wheel of the Dodge.
After reviewing and analyzing
the
photographic evidence, as well as, the data
information, coupled with
my
training and experience in the function and
operation of the automated
enforcement equipment placed at the intersection
of Washington and
Beethoven, I deduced that Mr. Smith was
approximately 17 feet from the
limit line when the light turned red and then
continued on through the
intersection failing to stop for the red light, a
violation of Section
21453(a) of the California Vehicle Code.
The Appellant was sworn and
testified
as follows:
When my witness and I went
through the
intersection the light was yellow the whole way.
The photos could have
been tampered with, I used photo shop to make the
lights red, yellow
and
purple. The machine is fallible, all systems make
mistakes. Appellant
called a witness, Mr. James Jones, who was sworn
and testified that he
was in the car and the light was yellow all the
way through the
intersection. Appellant offered the testimony of
Mr. Jones’ mother to
say that he was truthful but that form of
character evidence was not
permitted by the Court.
After considering the testimony
the
Court found the Appellant guilty of violating
Section 21453(a) of the
California Vehicle Code, failing to stop for a red
light. Cash bail was
applied to the fine.
Appellant appealed from the
judgment
of the court and a conference for the preparation
of an Engrossed
Settled Statement was scheduled for xxxx, at 9:00
a.m., in Division 3.
Appellant filed his appeal
based on
the following facts:
1. State
law
(VC
21455.5)
improper sized signs posted at
Washington/Beethoven
intersection (46% too small). [[At the time
of the violation
they were (allegedly) too small. Larger
signs were erected in
March 2003.]]
2. State
law
(VC
21455.7)
Washington/Beethoven light is too short.
[[As of
the time of this violation it was 3.5, but in
November 2002 it was
increased to 3.6.]]
3. These
two
facts
were
not known to the Defendant/Appellant at the time
of the
trial. This evidence
should be presented
at a new trial.
The Court does now settle and
allow
the foregoing Engrossed Settled Statement on
Appeal and certifies that
the same is a true and correct statement of
proceedings had in the
above
entitled action.
DATED:
__________ _______________________________
RALPH
A.
AMADO
COMMISSIONER
LOS
ANGELES
SUPERIOR
COURT
[[From www.highwayrobbery.net]]
|