Email Address
Site Index

If you haven't already done so, please read Defect # 10 - B on the
Home page

Added 6-21-11

Daly City Documents - Set # 3, Cont'd

2011 Appeal Decision - People v. Chew

This case is an example of a foundational defense (see Defect # 10 - B on the Home page).

To my knowledge this is only the fifth favorable Appellate Division decision, anywhere in California, regarding the legality of a cost-neutral contract.

  This decision is final but has not been published, so cannot be cited as precedent in other cases, except possibly in San Mateo County "cost-neutral" cities such as Redwood City*, Millbrae*, South San Francisco*, Daly City, Menlo Park, and San Mateo*.  The general issue of which decisions get published, and which don't, is under study.  See for more information.

*On Nov. 10, 2009 the City of South San Francisco may have removed cost-neutrality from its contract, on Nov. 16, 2009 the City of San Mateo removed cost-neutrality from its contract, in early 2010 the City of Millbrae removed cost-neutrality from its contract, and on Nov. 22, 2010 Redwood City removed cost-neutrality from its contract.

In Dec. 2009 a pro per defendant (Lopez) beat his Daly City red light camera ticket at appeal, garnering from Appellate Division Judge Mark Forcum a one-word decision, "reversed."
(The Lopez case is on my site at .)

Then, beginning Mar. 2010, another pro per defendant (Chew) fought, and then appealed, her Nov. 2009 Daly City ticket using the same "cost neutral is illegal" argument as had Lopez.  But in Chew's case Judge Forcum affirmed, again just one word, on Jan. 4, 2011.  On Jan. 18 Chew petitioned for reconsideration, pointing out the lack of consistency between the two appeal decisions.  She got no reply, so petitioned to the Court of Appeal in San Francisco, which refused to take the case.  With that, Chew thought it was over, done.  Not so.  In May 2011, out of the blue, Judge Forcum sent Chew a notice that he had granted the Jan. 18 request for reconsideration (the notice didn't say why), and that there would be a hearing in the Appellate Division, on June 10.

At the June 10 hearing Chew was present, and represented by Emeryville-based attorney Ken Schmier.  Judge Forcum said that at the time he decided the Chew appeal he was under the impression that because of the earlier Lopez appeal, Daly City had revised its contract and had removed the cost neutrality clause.  He apologized for the error.  He issued Chew a revised decision, just one word, "reversed."

Documents available in People v. Chew:

Please note that both the officer and the defendant were named Chew.

Statement on Appeal - Court's Notes, Officer's Statement and Packet
Request for Stay (To Retain Traffic School Privilege Pending Resolution of Appeal)

These materials may be freely copied and distributed, so long as credit is given to .

Many other cases and /or transcripts are available - see the Index to Transcripts, Briefs, and Court Decisions.

For more details about Daly City, see Daly City's entry on the Camera Towns page.