Santa Ana Documents - Set # 2
2008 Appeals Decision - People v. Anna V.
This case is
an example of a foundational defense (see Defect # 6 and Defect # 10 on the Home page).
It is similar to People v. Fischetti.
The defendant fought the ticket based upon a number of foundational
objections, among them that Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 says, in part:
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."
(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.)
August 2008 the Appellate Division ruled in favor of Defendant/Appellant
Anna V., that Santa Ana erred when it failed to provide 30 days of
warning tickets when it added the camera that ticketed the
Defendant. The court did not comment upon the defendant's
other foundational arguments.
The August 2008 Anna V. decision was the second time the Orange County
Appellate Division had ruled on the warning ticket issue. The
first time was in the 2005 Fischetti case involving a Costa Mesa
ticket. In December 2008 the Appellate Division ruled a third
time - on a new ticket received by Fischetti, this one in Santa Ana.
This decision has not been published, so cannot be cited as precedent in other cases, except possibly in Orange County. The general issue of which decisions get published, and which don't, is under study. See nonpublication.com for more information.
Click on these links for the documents in the Anna V. appeal (these are in chronological order):
Trial Judge's Written Decision
Appellant's Opening Brief - .txt file .pdf file
City's Response Brief - Not Filed
Appellant's Closing Brief - Not Filed
Appellate Judge's Decision
These materials may be freely copied and distributed, so long
as credit is given
to highwayrobbery.net .
RED LIGHT CAMERAS