Camera Towns - Illegal Red Light Cameras in California

Please start by reading the What's Hot box on the Home page.

Alpha Index to Cities Covered on this Page

The inclusion of a city in this alphabetic index doesn't necessarily mean they presently have cameras. They may just be thinking about it. Or, they may have had cameras at one time, but have since removed them. Or, a city may be listed here just for rumor control. Click on the highlighted city names.

After this alphabetic index you will find a geographic index to most of the same cities.

Some cities have more info elsewhere on this site - check the Site Index.

If someone sent you a "ticket" that does not give the address of the court, or which says, "Do not contact the court," that's not really a ticket at all - so go to the section titled "Police Going Too Far...," on the Your Ticket page.

Redding Oroville
Yuba City Marysville Roseville Rocklin
Sacramento,City of Citrus Hts.
San Rafael Napa Fairfield Davis Sac. County
San Francisco Emeryville Elk Grove
Daly City South SF Berkeley Stockton
Millbrae Oakland
Burlingame San Mateo San Leandro Map by highwayrobbery.net
Belmont San Carlos Hayward Union City
Redwood City Newark Fremont Modesto
Menlo Park
Cupertino San Jose
Capitola Fresno
Santa Maria Bakersfield
Ventura Lancaster Victorville
Oxnard MRCA Parks MTA Busway Santa Clarita San Bern.
Bev.Hills W.Hollywood Glendale Pasadena Upland Rancho Cuca. Highland
MRCA Parks MTA Lt. Rail Xings Baldwin Park Montclair Yucaipa
Wil./Sepul. LA County El Monte Covina Loma Linda
LA City MTA Lt. Rail Xings Grand Terrace
Culver City Commerce East LA Montebello    Walnut Riverside Redlands
Maywood Bell Gdns. Whittier Rowland Hts. Moreno Valley
Inglewood    South Gate S.F.Springs South Whittier
LaCienega Hawthorne MTA Lynwood    Corona
  Gardena Compton Paramount Cerritos Fullerton Cathedral City
Long Beach Los Alamitos Garden Grove Indian Wells
  Santa Ana Mesa, AZ
Costa Mesa Laguna Woods Irvine
San Juan Capistrano Murrieta
Oceanside Vista Escondido
Encinitas
Solana Beach
Map by highwayrobbery.net Del Mar Poway
San Diego El Cajon

In this map, cities which formerly had cameras but no longer do are in light italic type.

(1)

East LA - Big Refund at Whittier/Atlantic

( The cameras at the Eastside Gold Line light rail crossings are covered in the Metro/MTA section, below.)

The Whittier/Atlantic camera is operated by LA County, which contracts with the CHP to review and sign the tickets. Ticket counts for East LA, and info about the other County-operated cameras, are in the LA County / CHP section.

East LA, May 2003, Whittier at Atlantic: Big Refund!
Posted Speed Limit: 30 (Or was it 35?)
Minimum yellow per table: 3.2 (Or 3.6?)
Programmed yellow:
Per the imprint on an actual ticket: 2.9
Per CHP personnel on Mar. 4, 2003: 3.0
Per county public works personnel on Mar. 5: 3.5
According to CHP personnel on Mar. 4, 2003, the boundary of the nearby 25 mph zone is approx. two blocks west of the intersection. On a Mar. 6 visit to the intersection, a 25 mph sign was found just 150 feet west of the intersection.
The signal has between 0.1 and 0.7 less yellow than required by law. A too-short yellow can cause the issuance of a lot of unwarranted, and unfair, tickets. On Mar. 4 this discrepancy was brought to the attention of the CHP personnel who issue the tickets. And on Mar. 5 county public works personnel promised to look into the matter, and call back.
By Mar. 24, none of them had called back, so the CHP was again contacted. They said that they had stopped issuing tickets at the intersection. But they would not say anything else, including what they plan to do about the tickets that are "in the pipeline" - those issued in the last several months.
On Mar. 26 a CHP lieutenant left a voicemail saying: "All the various entities are looking at your concern very seriously." He promised they would call again as soon as there was an answer.
By Apr. 14 there was no answer from the CHP, so a message was left for the lieutenant.
On May 16, 2003 a front-page article in the LA Times reported that the CHP and LA County have reversed nearly 3000 tickets issued at Whittier / Atlantic !
Note that these powerful agencies could easily have swept the defect under the rug - as at least one local city has - but instead the CHP and the County chose to do the right thing. They investigated the problem (pretty quickly, considering the size of both agencies), admitted the defect, and are attempting to make it right.
Read:
Los Angeles Times
DPW May 15 Press Release (pdf).
On May 23 the County provided a blank copy of the form letter their Department of Public Works has sent out. The form letter contains a phone number (213-744-3451) and an email address (trafficphotoclaims@auditor.co.la.ca.us) for the County department that will be processing refunds and claims.

Unlike East LA, some other cities that have malfunctions have refused to make refunds of any kind. For a blatant example, see the Bakersfield section.

East LA: No Automatic Refunds for Community Service, Traffic School Fees, Increased Insurance Premiums - To Get a Refund, File a Claim!
Added 6-9-03: If you did Community Service in lieu of paying your Atlantic / Whittier fine, you will not automatically be receiving a check. You should file a claim with the county - for at least the $270 or $320 value of your labor and the (approx. $30) Community Service fee. If you went to traffic school, or experienced higher insurance premiums as a result of your Atlantic / Whittier ticket, you should file a claim. The county has stated: "The county will evaluate each claim individually on its merits, and respond fairly and promptly."
On June 21 an article in La Opinion reported that as of June 19, the county had received only one* claim for the reimbursement of community service, and only fifty-six for reimbursement of traffic school fees.

Added 11-5-03: *A November 3 letter from the county said: "The County has not received any claims... from persons seeking reimbursement for community service nor has the County reimbursed any persons for community service."
The county claim form is available at: http://bos.co.la.ca.us/PDFs/AssessmentAppealsClaimForDamages.pdf.

East LA: Many Whittier / Atlantic Tickets Not Reversed
The May 16 Times article indicated that there are about 2000 tickets that were not reversed.
On May 19 I called the County and asked why, and was told that only tickets with a 0.5 or lower "Late Time" were reversed. In response, I asked them to consider reversing the 0.6 tickets as well - based upon the 2.9 seconds yellow imprint (" 1Y2⁹ " or " 2Y2⁹ ") seen on the actual tickets. On May 22 they called back and explained their rationale for not reversing the 0.6 tickets.
I now plan, in the near future, to send the County a letter arguing why the 0.6 (and possibly 0.7 - see Defect # 7 on the Home Page) tickets should be reversed. In order to write that letter, I need to learn much more about Whittier / Atlantic tickets, and how the equipment works. I would like to hear from anyone who got a 0.6 or 0.7 camera ticket at Whittier / Atlantic, or even a speeding ticket on Whittier near the intersection (within 1/2 mile).

For more information about Whittier /Atlantic, see the Other California Towns, Step 2, section on the Your Ticket page, and Defect # 5 on the Home page.

To contact CHP headquarters, the elected officials representing East LA, the local Chamber of Commerce, or CalTrans, see the Links page of this website. To contact your State legislator, see the Action page of this website.

West Hollywood, pop. 38,000, is 5 miles west of downtown Los Angeles.

The City's cameras are provided by ACS (see Defect # 5 on the Home page), and the tickets are issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff, under contract.

Ticket counts for West Hollywood's cameras are available at: WeHo Documents.

Read Defect # 5 on the Home page.

The Beverly Hills courtroom which was the scene of some of Culver City's detoured trials (Oct. 2002), is also the regular venue for both the City of West Hollywood and the City of Beverly Hills' red light camera tickets. Trials of the WeHo tickets are held on Thursday mornings. I attended for my first time on Oct. 24, 2002. On that morning one West Hollywood defendant demonstrated to Comm. Hugh Bobys (retired as of 2004) that the yellow at one intersection was too short, and Comm. Bobys let him go - not guilty! The judge also said something about asking the DA to have the signals adjusted. On Nov. 11 the City provided me with copies of their signal timing charts, and those charts did not reflect any recent lengthening of the yellows. Perhaps it was done shortly after the charts were copied for me. City Prosecutor Lisa A. Vidra (who also is Culver City's prosecutor) has assured me that the signals have been adjusted. But in West Hollywood it's easy to find out what the yellow interval is - the camera system used there actually imprints the programmed yellow time right on the ticket.
Added 6-12-03, updated 6-16-03:
On June 12 a Los Angeles Times article announced that Comm. Bobys had dismissed a number of West Hollywood tickets, because of the yellow being too short (June 12, page B1).
But later on the same day the article was published, Comm. Bobys heard a 40-minute argument by the City's red light prosecutor (William Litvak, whose firm fills that position for a number of cities) which convinced him to reverse himself, and not dismiss any more tickets because the yellow is too short. Comm. Bobys said: "As I said I looked at the CalTrans manual myself, last year, on the Internet. It was quite clear to me that the duration set by the CalTrans standard was 3.5 seconds in a 35 mile-an-hour zone. It's beyond me how one is expected to comply with a manual which you can't find out what it actually says. Or it's very difficult to do so. No continuances for rulings on traffic tickets. I'm not going to take this under submission. I've already given it a great deal of thought. I do agree with Mr. Litvak's argument. I am going to accept the argument that actually 3.0 seconds is the minimum below which the Legislature intended as a floor below which the traffic departments of the various cities could not go. I might be wrong. If you feel like you would like to appeal my decision Mr. Ramirez, I would have no quarrel. I am persuaded by Mr. Litvak's arguments as to substantial compliance, the intention - there's certainly no bad faith. I am truly concerned what the impact would be. I think he's right. I don't think the legislature wanted to take over the business of micromanaging traffic flow throughout the State of California."
(Transcribed from official audio tape of June 12 hearing. For a lengthy WeHo trial transcript, see the link in WeHo - More, below.)
(During his long appearance before Comm. Bobys, Prosecutor Litvak cited at least 11 document exhibits as the foundation for his arguments as to the legislature's intent, etc. A couple days later I asked the court if I could look at the exhibits, and was told that they had not been retained - they had been returned to Mr. Litvak.)
In another article the following day, The Times wrote:
"But West Hollywood officials say they have no intention of reviewing closed cases and refunding fines, which they estimate would cost about $4 million." (Times, June 13, page B4.)
Although the article didn't say as much, City officials may have wanted us to assume that the City could not afford to make refunds.
Their actual bank balance sheets say otherwise.

July 2002:

April 2003:

The City of West Hollywood is rich, and rapidly getting richer.
The scans above are from City Treasurer's reports, a public document. In case the images are not clear enough for you to read, the figures are:
July 2002: $31,906,455
April 2003: $48,587,510

June 16, 17 and 19, 2003, At the Courthouse
On June 16 and 17, I observed one morning and two afternoon sessions, but not including any 'not guilty' trials of WeHo tickets (which are held on Thursday mornings). I plan to observe some of those in the near future.
During my visit to the courthouse, I talked to a lot of defendants and many of them showed me their tickets.
The first thing I noticed was that you can't read the numbers on the tickets that WeHo mails to defendants. The very critical tenths digit is a smaller font size, so no one could tell for sure how late they were after the red, or how long the yellow was. The tenths digits were not legible on any ticket I saw - and we looked at them in good sunlight, with as many as two pairs of reading glasses at once! A sample ticket posted by the West Hollywood sheriff illustrates the illegibility very well.
I also noticed that many of Comm. Bobys' policies are different from those of Comm. Amado of Culver City, whose court I have attended a lot.
If you ask for extra time to pay the fine, Comm. Bobys will give you a few months, whereas Comm. Amado will allow you 11 or 12 months. Comm. Bobys allows 'second offender' (12-hour) traffic school, Comm. Amado does not. If you ask for Community Service, it is 47 hours in Comm. Bobys' court, versus 51 in Comm. Amado's. That difference is probably due to the hourly wage being higher in Beverly Hills. I also noticed that in Comm. Bobys' courtroom they do not play a City-produced red light camera video prior to the trials, as they do in Culver City.
Comm. Bobys has on his bench (as does Comm. Amado) a computer terminal linked directly to the company that issues and archives the tickets. The terminal gives him instant access to the company's digital copies of ticket photos. At arraignment, when a defendant tells him "It's not me," he is often able to dismiss the ticket "on the spot."

I attended the June 19 trial session for West Hollywood tickets, and purchased a copy of the official tape of that session ($10.00).
The first part of the tape has now been transcribed, and is available here: WeHo Trial Transcript
It is a good way to find out how an actual trial goes.

June 27, 2003: The "WeHo" Amendment !
On July 8 the author of Assembly Bill 1022 amended it in an attempt to clarify that CalTrans' minimum yellows must be complied with. Unfortunately, such an amendment will have little effect, as "Truth in Evidence" will prevail. See the Action page.

April 2004: New Judge in WeHo
Comm. Bobys has retired. The new judge is the Hon. Julius M. Title.

To contact West Hollywood officials, the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, or CalTrans, see the Links page of this website.
To contact your State legislator, see the Action page of this website.

Culver City, pop. 40,000, is in west LA, 3 miles north of LAX.

Culver City was the inspiration for the creation of this website.

Until Dec. 2009 the City's contract with RedFlex included a cost-neutral clause, whereby the City and RedFlex would have been forced into open-ended negotiations if the City's fine revenue was not enough to cover the monthly rent. For more details about the City's contract, see Set # 7 on the Culver City Documents page (link below). Also see Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

For more about the buttons, see the You Don't Have to Shop There section on the Action page.

See also the information about driver's photos, in the Culver City chronology at Nov. 7, 2002, and Jan. 9, 23 and 30 and May 30, 2003.

(4)

City of Costa Mesa, California (System Closed)

Costa Mesa, pop. 110,000, is immediately north of Newport Beach, in Orange County.

Costa Mesa closed its camera system on July 22, 2010. The City says it will continue to prosecute tickets issued before the closure.

Detailed information about Costa Mesa is on two different pages.
Costa Mesa documents, including a table showing camera locations and number of tickets issued, are at Costa Mesa Documents.
Details of some Costa Mesa trials are at Costa Mesa Chronology.

Unlike most other cities, Costa Mesa's camera tickets didn't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly had the capability to do so). A possible motive to leave it off could have been so that they could cite for very short Late Times (like 0.1 second) without widespread criticism (including some from judges) about "Mickey Mouse" tickets. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 12 on the Costa Mesa Documents page, for more information.

Costa Mesa has, in the past, refunded/reversed a large block of tickets due to yellow lights that were too short. Details can be found on the Chronology page, linked above. However, not all cities that have been caught with too-short yellows have made refunds. For a blatant example, see the Bakersfield section.

Fremont, pop. 190,000, is in the East Bay, 10 miles north of San Jose and 25 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Fremont is a RedFlex town. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Beverly Hills, pop. 34,000, is 8 miles west of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Beverly Hills' cameras are available at: Beverly Hills Documents.

If you drive in Beverly Hills, have a look at the MRCA section, below, as stop sign cameras have come to Franklin Canyon Park.

See the June 16 - 19 West Hollywood entry, above, for much more information (including a trial transcript) about the Beverly Hills court, which hears both cities' tickets.

Ticket counts for San Diego's cameras are available at: San Diego Documents.

The City of San Diego system was re-started in 2003. They will be issuing warning tickets for 30 days on each new camera they install (for comparison to other towns, see Defect # 6 on the Home page). The new system had a grace period of 0.5 second until July 18, 2006, when the city council ordered it reduced to 0.1 second (see July 18 Union Tribune story).
If you have a San Diego ticket, see Defect # 8 - C.

(8)

City of Los Angeles
Operating cameras in or near the following locations:
Canoga Park, Westchester, The Valley (and More)

( Cameras at the Eastside Gold Line light rail crossings, and along the Orange Line Busway in the Valley, are covered in the Metro/MTA section, below.)

November 2005 - New Camera Vendor Approved

On Nov. 18 the LA City Council approved a contract with Nestor Traffic Systems, to replace ACS as the supplier of the City's cameras. See this article for details.

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 - $159 including all fees. See the LA City Documents page for more info about the change.

If you have a City of LA ticket, see Defect # 8 - C and Defect # 9 - B & C in the expanded version of the Home page.

Please also note: Some tickets at intersections in or very close to the City of LA are issued by other agencies, such as Metro - MTA (tickets near busway or light rail crossings) and Los Angeles County / CHP (unincorporated areas).

(9)

City of El Cajon, California

El Cajon, pop. 95,000, is an eastern suburb of San Diego.

Some of El Cajon's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for El Cajon's cameras are available at: El Cajon Documents .

(10)

City of Vista, California

Vista, pop. 85,000, is 30 miles north of San Diego and 5 miles inland of Oceanside and Carlsbad.

Some of Vista's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Vista's cameras are available at: Vista Documents .

(11)

City of Encinitas, California

Encinitas, pop. 60,000, is on the coast 20 miles north of San Diego.

Aug. 2008 note: If you have an Encinitas ticket, please see Set # 3 on the Encinitas Documents page (link below), and contact me.

Some Encinitas tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Encinitas's cameras are available at: Encinitas Documents .

(12)

City of South Gate, California

South Gate, pop. 94,000, is 8 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of South Gate's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

South Gate's old red light camera contract, which expired on Aug. 26, 2008, paid RedFlex more money if more tickets were issued. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10, and Set # 2 of South Gate Documents.

South Gate's new 2-year contract, which was signed on Aug. 26, 2008 and became effective that date, is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "pay-per-ticket" clause.

Ticket counts for South Gate's cameras are available at: South Gate Documents .

(13)

City of El Monte, California (System Closed)

El Monte, pop. 113,000, is 12 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of El Monte's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for El Monte's cameras are available at: El Monte Documents .

On Oct. 21, 2008, the El Monte city council voted to end the issuance of tickets, effective Nov. 30, 2008. But they will continue to prosecute tickets issued before that date.

Ticket counts for Long Beach's cameras are available at: Long Beach Documents

If you asked for a trial and got a "Trial Date" letter or a "Notice of Trial After Written Plea" containing a statement similar to this one formerly found in notices from the Long Beach court,

you should file a Peremptory Challenge. And if it is too late to file a PC, you could try a Challenge for Cause - the prejudice being that by pre-determining your penalty, the court has pre-judged your case. See: Challenge Forms.

In fairness, it should be noted that on June 29, 2004, Long Beach withdrew the above language from their forms. Later, Supervising Judge Andrews sent me a letter:

On Nov. 23, 2004 an independent website in Long Beach published a report suggesting that accidents had increased during the time the City's cameras were in operation.

If you have a non-camera ticket - issued to you by a LBPD officer who pulled you over - and he cited you for violation of a Long Beach Municipal Code section rather than a section of the California Vehicle Code, see Section 8 on the Links page.

Hawthorne, pop. 80,000, is just southeast of LAX

(For tickets at the intersection of La Cienega and 120th, see the LA County section, below.)

Some of Hawthorne's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Information about Hawthorne is on two different pages -

Ticket counts and signal timing for Hawthorne's cameras are available at: Hawthorne Documents.
Details of some 2004 - 2006 trials of Hawthorne tickets are at: Hawthorne Chronology.

Hawthorne issued warning tickets at its first camera location only. As a result, a published 2008 appellate court decision (P. vs. Fischetti) could affect thousands of tickets Hawthorne issued. Another city has already been forced to suspend the operation of most of its cameras, for 30 days. See Defect # 6 and Defect # 10, on the Home page.

Right Turns

Hawthorne has, in the past, issued many right turn tickets under the wrong section of the Vehicle code. If you have an old right turn ticket in Hawthorne, or any other town, see FAQ # 27 and the Sept. 7 and Sept. 28, 2004 entries in the Hawthorne Chronology.

For more about the buttons, see the You Don't Have to Shop There section on the Action page.

(16)

City of Inglewood, California

Inglewood, pop. 115,000, is just east of LAX.

(For tickets at the intersection of La Cienega and 120th, see the LA County section, below.)

Some of Inglewood's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Inglewood's tickets are heard by some of the same judges who hear Hawthorne tickets.

Details of some 2004 - 2005 trials of Inglewood tickets are available at: Inglewood Chronology.

Ticket counts for Inglewood's cameras are available at: Inglewood Documents.

Inglewood's pre-2009 system issued warning tickets at its first camera location only. As a result, a published 2008 appellate court decision (P. vs. Fischetti) could affect thousands of tickets the City issued prior to 2009. Another city has already been forced to suspend the operation of most of its cameras, for 30 days. See Defect # 6 and Defect # 10, on the Home page.

Some of Bakersfield's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Bakersfield: On Sept. 3, 2004 the Bakersfield police department issued a press release revealing that it would be overturning 613 citations issued between April 30 and May 14 at Ming and South Real, because the proper warning signs were not posted there during that period. The press release also revealed that the Department had initially decided not to dismiss charges against 292 people who had already paid their fines, but re-evaluated that decision after The (Bakersfield) Californian made inquiries.
It is also interesting that they issued that many tickets in just half a month. That would be about 1200 tickets in a full month - a rate higher than I have seen anywhere, anytime. Ticket counts for Bakersfield's cameras are available at: Bakersfield Documents.

There are two other defects that probably warrant further refunds of tickets. If you have a straight-through (not a left turn) ticket at Ming/South Real and the violation date is before July 20, 2004, or a straight-through ticket at Ming/99/Valley Plaza before June 8, 2005 (and possibly later), you may be entitled to a dismissal, or a reversal if you have already paid it.
For more information, read Sets #'s 3 - 9 at: Bakersfield Documents.
Whether or not you're able to take the time to go through the steps necessary to get a dismissal or reversal, if you can see that the yellow was too short at "your" intersection, I would like to suggest that you take a little time now to file a complaint with the Attorney General in Sacramento. He has an on-line complaint form at: http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm.

(18)

City of Montclair, California (System Closed)

Montclair, pop. 33,000, is 30 miles east of Los Angeles

In 2009, Montclair removed its Nestor cameras.

Ticket counts for Montclair's former cameras are available at: Montclair Documents.

(19)

City of Indian Wells,California (System Closed)

Indian Wells, pop. 3000, is immediately east of Palm Springs and immediately west of Indio.

Ticket counts for Indian Wells' cameras are available at: Indian Wells Documents.

System Inactive

Indian Wells shut down its ACS system sometime in 2004, and the contract ended in July 2005. The city's official position was that they might re-start it in early 2006. See this article for details. However, as of March 2009 there were no cameras in the City.

(20)

City of Del Mar, California

Del Mar, pop. 5000, is 15 miles north of downtown San Diego

Some of Del Mar's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Del Mar's cameras are available at: Del Mar Documents.

(21)

City of Santa Clarita, California
Operating cameras in or near the following locations:
Newhall, Saugus, Valencia (and more)

Santa Clarita, pop. 167,000, is 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of Santa Clarita's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The city's contract with RedFlex includes an illegal clause, whereby the city does not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if fine revenue is insufficient to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for Santa Clarita's cameras are available at: Santa Clarita Documents.

(22)

City of San Juan Capistrano, California

San Juan Capistrano, pop. 33,000, is on the coast midway between Los Angeles and San Diego.

The city signed a contract with Nestor on June 29, 2007. The contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city was not required to pay Nestor the full rent if the fines collected were insufficient to do so. On Nov. 21, 2008 an appellate court found that Nestor's similar "cost neutral" contract with the City of Fullerton was illegal. To read that decision, see the expanded version of Defect # 10 - B. On Feb. 2, 2009 San Juan Capistrano signed a contract amendment, effective that date, changing the contract to "flat rate." Thus, for violations occurring Feb. 3 or later, Defect # 10 - B will not apply.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket Counts for San Juan Capistrano's cameras are available at: San Juan Capistrano Documents.

(23)

City of Rancho Cucamonga, California

Rancho Cucamonga, pop. 118,000, is 35 miles east of Los Angeles.

The mayor signed the city's contract with RedFlex on Oct. 18, 2007.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for Rancho Cucamonga's old Nestor camera system and current RedFlex system are available at: Rancho Cucamonga Documents.

(24)

City of Garden Grove, California

Garden Grove, pop. 171,000, is 20 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

Some of Garden Grove's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Garden Grove's cameras are available at: Garden Grove Documents.

(25)

City of Stockton, California

Stockton, pop. 234,000, is 50 miles east of San Francisco.

Some of Stockton's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Stockton's cameras are available at: Stockton Documents.

Stockton issued warning tickets at its first camera location only. As a result, a published 2008 appellate court decision (P. vs. Fischetti) could affect thousands of tickets Stockton issued. Another city has already been forced to suspend the operation of most of its cameras, for 30 days. See Defect # 6 and Defect # 10, on the Home page.

(26)

City of Fresno, California (System Closed)

Fresno, pop. 405,000, is 216 miles north of Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Fresno's cameras are available at: Fresno Documents.

Shut Down

On Sept. 1, 2005, Fresno shut its Nestor system down. See this article for details.

(27)

City of Cerritos, California

Cerritos, pop. 57,000, is 12 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

The tickets are issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff, under contract with the City.

If you have a Cerritos red light camera ticket, please be sure to contact me.

Ticket counts for Cerritos' cameras, are available at: Cerritos Documents.

(28)

City of Mesa & Other Arizona Locales

Mesa, pop. 450,000, is east of Phoenix.

Mesa has both red light cameras and speed camera vans.
Even though it is not in California, Mesa is listed here because an event in Mesa shows how lengthening the left-turn yellow can dramatically lower the number of violators. See: City of Mesa, Arizona, Documents.
If you have received a photo ticket (speed or red light) issued anywhere in Arizona, you MAY be able to ignore it. For more info, see Set # 6 on the Mesa Documents page.

On Feb. 20, 2009 the AAA auto club's national office designated Arizona as a "strict enforcement area" - the first time that the club has awarded that title to an entire state. The warning will be provided to motorists getting maps or route advice from AAA for travel to or through Arizona.

For a book on how to fight speed camera tickets like those issued by Mesa, see the Speeding Ticket section on the Links page.

(29)

City of Upland, California (System Closed)

Upland, pop. 67,000, is 32 miles east of Los Angeles.

Some of Upland's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Upland's pre-2004 contract with RedFlex was amended in Dec. 2005, and I believe that the amendment ended the "grandfathering" of the contract's pay-per-ticket compensation agreement. As a result, all tickets issued after that date may be invalid.

On Mar. 9, 2009, the city council voted to shut the system down. Ticketing will cease by June 15. In the memo recommending that the cameras be removed, the police chief wrote:
"The contract issue is currently under court scrutiny, and, pending the outcome, has the potential to invalidate citations previously issued. The system appears to have little influence on the number of red light related collisions at monitored intersections. At times rear end collisions have actually increased."
See Subsection B. of Defect # 10 about the contract issue.

Ticket counts for Upland's cameras are available at: Upland Documents.

(30)

City of Oxnard, California

Oxnard, pop. 152,000, is on the coast 50 miles west of Los Angeles.

Oxnard's contract with RedFlex includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city does not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for Oxnard's cameras are available at: Oxnard Documents .

(31)

City of Pasadena, California

Pasadena, pop. 135,000, is 5 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Pasadena's cameras are available at: Pasadena Documents .

Unlike most other cities, Pasadena's camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 3 on the Pasadena Documents page, for more information.

(32)

City of Fullerton, California (System Closed)

Fullerton, pop. 125,000, is 15 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Fullerton's contract with Nestor included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay Nestor the full rent if there weren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.
In Nov. 2008 a Fullerton defendant got an appellate court decision ruling that the contract violated Section 21455.5(g) and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence from the camera. See the Fullerton Documents page, or the expanded version of Defect # 10 - B, for more info.

A June 2009 article in the Orange County Register indicated that the City had terminated the contract.

Unlike most other cities, Fullerton's camera tickets didn't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 2 on the Fullerton Documents page, for more information.

Ticket counts for Fullerton's cameras are available at: Fullerton Documents.

(33)

City of San Jose, California

San Jose, pop. 990,000, is 40 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Despite rumors to the contrary, San Jose never had red light camera enforcement in the past -- but it may have them in the future! In Fall 2008 the city council voted to discuss getting red light cameras, ignoring a recommendation by the police chief that the money and effort be directed towards enforcement by live officers. On May 4, 2009 a city council committee voted to start a "pilot" program. In May 2010 a city council committee voted to delay the program until at least Fall 2010, due to budget considerations. Staff Report.

What the City did have in the past was another kind of camera enforcement. From 1997 to 2007 it had semi-automated speed enforcement ("photo radar") by RedFlex, with cameras mounted in three manned mini-vans that parked at over 100 different locations. The City called the program "NASCOP."

In early 2007 the legality of NASCOP came under intense scrutiny. In response the City discontinued the program, in March 2007. If you have an old (unresolved) NASCOP ticket from the City, do not pay it! According to City staff, the City has asked the court to stop processing NASCOP-related tickets.

See Set # 3 on the San Jose Documents page. ( For more details about the efforts to make speed cameras legal in California, see the Hot Legislation section on the Action page. Also see the MRCA entry, below.)

Ticket counts for San Jose's speed cameras are available at: San Jose Documents.

See more info about San Jose in the Humor section on the Links page.

If some other California city or agency has issued you an automated photo radar speeding ticket, please let me know - because such enforcement is illegal.

(34)

City of Santa Ana, California

Santa Ana, pop. 308,000, is 28 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Special note, Aug. 6, 2009: If you have a Santa Ana ticket, please be sure to contact the editor of this site.

Some of Santa Ana's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Two 2008 appellate court decisions could affect thousands of Santa Ana tickets. See Docs Set # 2 on the Santa Ana Documents page, and Defect # 6 and Defect # 10-B, on the Home page.

Ticket counts for Santa Ana's cameras are available on the Santa Ana Documents page.

(35)

City of San Francisco, California

San Francisco, pop. 777,000, has a land area of 47 square miles.

San Francisco's cameras are provided by ACS - read Defect # 5 on the Home page.

Ticket counts for San Francisco's cameras are available at: San Francisco Documents . (Big file, can take 30 - 60 seconds to load.)

(36)

City of Fairfield, California (System Closed)

Fairfield, pop. 110,000, is 40 miles northeast of San Francisco.

Some of Fairfield's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

According to a March 2009 article in the Daily Republic,

"Fairfield pulled the plug on the camera in December 2008 because the camera's manufacturer, RedFlex Traffic Systems, was facing legal action. The case has now reached the California Supreme Court.
City Attorney Greg Stepanicich said the camera... will be in use again once the RedFlex matter has been resolved."

In Oct. 2005, Fairfield fired a 21-year-veteran sergeant who (allegedly) made public a ticket-quota system in the City. See this article for more details.

Ticket counts for Fairfield's cameras are available at: Fairfield Documents.

(37)

City of Sacramento, California

The City of Sacramento, pop. 396,000, is 75 miles northeast of San Francisco.

(For County of Sacramento info, see the next section on this page.)

Until late 2008 the City's system was provided by ACS, and the tickets were signed by the Highway Patrol - as was the County's system. On Dec. 1, 2008 the County signed a contract with RedFlex for a new joint system to include the City.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract specifies that for a ticket to be issued, the Late Time must be 0.2 secs. or greater.

The contract is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.

Ticket counts for the City's former system, and info about several appeals, are at Sacramento City Documents.

(38)

County of Sacramento, California
Operating cameras in or near the following locations:
Citrus Heights - see also the City of Citrus Heights section - (and More)

The County of Sacramento, pop. 1,125,000 (including the City of Sacramento), is 75 miles northeast of San Francisco.

(For City of Sacramento info, see the previous section on this page.)

Until late 2008 the County's system was provided by ACS, and the tickets were signed by the Highway Patrol - as was the City's system. On Dec. 1, 2008 the County signed a contract with RedFlex for a new joint system to include the City.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.

The contract specifies that for a ticket to be issued, the Late Time must be 0.2 secs. or greater.

Ticket counts for the County's former system, and info about several appeals, are at Sacramento County Documents.

(39)

City of Whittier, California

Whittier, pop. 84,000, is 10 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

(For tickets at the intersections of Carmenita at Leffingwell and Telegraph at Colima, see the LA County section, below.)

Special note, Nov. 28, 2009: If you have a Whittier ticket, please be sure to contact me before paying it.

Ticket counts for Whittier's cameras are available at: Whittier Documents .

On May 20, 2009 the City signed a new contract with Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. providing:
"There are no up-front costs to you [the City] for any of our [Nestor's] services. All of our programs are intended to be entirely violator funded. You will incur direct costs only if you terminate this contract without cause before we have recouped our installation costs."
This clause, by limiting Nestor's pay to not more than the amount of fines paid to the City by violators (in other words, 100% of fines), may violate the CVC 21455.5(g) prohibition of "percentage" contracts. See Defect # 10-B.

(40)

LA County / CHP
Operating cameras at the following locations:
East LA, Rowland Heights, South Whittier, Wilshire/Sepulveda in Westwood/West LA, Near Covina, and Near El Segundo/Hawthorne

( Cameras at the Eastside Gold Line light rail crossings are covered in the Metro/MTA section, below.)

The tickets are issued by the CHP, under contract with the County.

The cameras are provided by ACS - read Defect # 5 on the Home page. The County of Los Angeles signed the contract with ACS in April 2004. The contract, currently extended to April 2010, includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the County does not have to pay ACS the full monthly rent (the so- called "fixed fee") if there aren't enough fines to cover the rent. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The County, jointly with the Highway Patrol, operates cameras at these intersections:

Covina: Cypress & Hollenbeck, NBD and SBD (in an unincorporated inside but not part of the City of Covina, which has its own section on this page),
East LA: Whittier Blvd. & Atlantic, EBD and WBD (also see the East LA section, above), and First at Eastern, EBD and WBD,
Rowland Heights: Colima & Batson, EBD and WBD,
West LA/Westwood: Wilshire & Sepulveda, NBD, SBD, EBD and WBD,
South Whittier: Telegraph & Colima, EBD and WBD (near La Mirada), and Carmenita & Leffingwell, NBD and SBD (near Santa Fe Springs, which has its own section on this page, and
Del Aire: La Cienega & 120th, SBD (near Hawthorne and El Segundo, where the 105 and 405 meet).

Camera-by-camera ticket counts are posted at LA County Documents.

(41)

City of Montebello, California

Montebello, pop. 61,000, is 8 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The city's contract with RedFlex includes an illegal clause, whereby the city does not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if fine revenue is insufficient to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for Montebello's cameras are available at: Montebello Documents .

(42)

City of Ventura, California

Ventura, pop. 101,000, is on the coast 53 miles west of downtown Los Angeles.

Ventura's 2006 contract with RedFlex includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city does not have to pay RedFlex the full monthly rent (the so- called "fixed fee") if there aren't enough fines to cover the rent. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The 2006 contract did not require Ventura to ticket rolling rights, and the City chose - correctly - to give it very little emphasis. Because of the resulting low fine revenue (combined with the cost neutral terms), by late 2008 Ventura had paid RedFlex $1.7 million less than the cumulative "fixed fee" - money that RedFlex probably never will be able to collect. In Nov. 2008 the contract was amended to penalize the City should it choose not to enforce right-hand turn violations. See Set # 2 of Ventura Documents .

(43)

City of Berkeley, California

Berkeley, pop. 105,000, is 8 miles east of San Francisco.

Per a 2003 report to the city council, the City was to have cameras at Shattuck / University, University / Sixth, and Adeline / MLK. (In Aug. 2005, Transol was acquired by Nestor.)

To see examples of the standard reports generated by Nestor (which could be obtained by making a request to the City), see the reports received from the City of Fullerton (also a Nestor customer), Set # 4 on the Fullerton Documents page.

If you have a Berkeley ticket, have asked to look at the records, and are getting a run-around, please contact me.

Some 2010 Alameda County appeal court decisions (Singh, Blankenship) addressed the confrontation issue (Defect # 10 - D).

If you have a non-camera ticket - issued to you by a Berkeley officer who pulled you over - and he cited you for violation of a Berkeley Municipal Code section rather than a section of the California Vehicle Code, see Section 8 on the Links page.

(44)

City of Compton, California (System Closed)

Compton, pop. 92,000, is 6 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

On Nov. 16, 2004 the City sent me the following data summary.
"Since the inception of the Red Flex Camera Program, July 1, 2002 to-date in the City of Compton, the accumulative total of violator citations issued is 15,951. The number of citations paid is 4,820. The resulting citation difference of 11,131 are rejects, photos not clear, or other related factors.".

The Compton system was shut down around 2007.

(45)

City of Emeryville, California

Emeryville, pop. 10,000, is 8 miles east of San Francisco.

Some of Emeryville's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Red dots are Emeryville camera locations.
Major businesses shown: Home Depot, Office Depot, Babies R Us, Ikea, Best Buy, Michaels, Courtyard hotel, Four Points Sheraton, Bay Street Shops (Abercrombie & Fitch, Apple, Game Stop, Godiva, Harry and David, Jody Maroni's Sausage Kingdom, Williams-Sonoma), Powell Street Plaza (Trader Joe's, BevMo, Ross).
Map by MapPoint.com

Ticket counts for Emeryville's cameras are available at: Emeryville Documents .

Some 2010 Alameda County appeal court decisions (Singh, Blankenship) addressed the confrontation issue (Defect # 10 - D).

(46)

City of Gardena, California

Gardena, pop. 58,000, is 7 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of Gardena's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

On Oct. 6, 2004 RedFlex announced that Gardena had awarded it a contract for up to ten cameras, for a fixed fee of $6070 per camera per month ( = up to $728,400 per year ), for a term of five to nine years.

The contract, signed Sept. 28, 2004, includes an illegal clause, whereby the city does not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if fine revenue is insufficient to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for Gardena's cameras are available at: Gardena Documents .

(47)

City of Escondido, California

Escondido, pop. 119,000, is 18 miles north of San Diego.

If you have an Escondido ticket issued before 2009, don't pay it! Fight it. See Set # 2 of Escondido documents.

Some of Escondido's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Escondido's cameras are available at: Escondido Documents .

Escondido has issued warning tickets for 30 days on each new camera it has installed (for comparison, see Defect # 6 on the Home page).

(48)

City of Lynwood, California

Lynwood, pop. 66,000, is 5 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

Lynwood signed a pay-per-ticket contract with RedFlex on Dec. 18, 2003, just before the effective date of CVC 21455.5(g). The contract provided:
"RedFlex will be paid $89 for the first three Citations issued on a single day from a particular Designated Intersection. RedFlex will be paid $80 for the fourth and subsequent Citations issued on a single day from a particular Designated Intersection."
Then, on Dec. 18, 2008 it signed a new contract, effective that date, including an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The new contract penalizes the City should it choose not to enforce right-hand turn violations.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Lynwood's cameras are at: Lynwood Documents.

(49)

City of Marysville, California

Marysville, pop. 13,000, is 42 miles north of Sacramento.

On Dec. 21, 2004 the city signed a contract with RedFlex. The contract includes a "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. On Nov. 21, 2008 an appellate court found that the similar "cost neutral" contract in the City of Fullerton was illegal. To read that decision, see Subsection B. of the expanded version of Defect # 10. Also, see the article on the Marysville Documents page.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(50)

City of Maywood, California (System Closed)

Maywood, pop. 29,000, is 3 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of Maywood's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Maywood closed its camera system on July 1, 2009 after the city council voted 3 - 2 on a motion to deny a one-year extension of the contract (Ayes: Aguirre, Calderon, Martin).

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Maywood Documents.

(51)

City of Modesto, California

Modesto, pop. 206,000, is 90 miles east of San Francisco.

Ticket counts, and a map of camera locations, are at Modesto Documents.

Some of Modesto's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract with RedFlex was signed on June 8, 2004, and includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(52)

City of Oceanside, California

Oceanside, pop. 158,000, is on the coast 30 miles north of San Diego.

Oceanside signed a contract with RedFlex on Dec. 17, 2003, and the system began operation on Dec. 11, 2004, with 30 days of warning tickets from all four cameras. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Oceanside's cameras are at: Oceanside Documents.

(53)

City of Roseville, California (System Closed)

Roseville, pop. 110,000, is 10 miles north of Sacramento.

The Roseville cameras were shut down in 2007. History:

On Dec. 17, 2003, the City signed a contract with Transol. The contract specified that the City was to pay Transol $48 per citation paid at the court. (In Aug. 2005, Transol was acquired by Nestor.)

In Oct. 2007 the City Council voted to shut down the cameras.

On June 18, 2008, the City Council approved a contract for a new system, to be installed by RedFlex. The new contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city would not have had to pay RedFlex the full rent if the fines received were insufficient to cover it. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. The contract also penalized the City if "...the City or Police waives more than 10 percent of valid violations forwarded to the Police for acceptance..." (see "Quotas" in Defect # 9).

The contract seemed to provide a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthened the yellows. The contract read:
"Cost neutrality is guaranteed except as follows: If the Customer [the City] fails to maintain the yellow light change interval that meets minimum standards according to federal, state, and local laws, guidelines, and/or rules."
The passage was open to two conflicting interpretations.
1. The City would be required to maintain yellows at least as long as the length specified by the laws and rules - but could make them longer.
2. The City would be required to maintain the exact length specified by the laws and rules, and could not set longer yellows.

On Mar. 25, 2009, City staff indicated that the City had not been able to reach agreement with RedFlex on locations for cameras, and that as a result they would not be going ahead with installation unless arrangements could be made with another vendor.

On Sept. 4, 2009, in an article headlined "City Pulls Plug on Red Light Cameras," the Roseville Press-Tribune wrote: "Camera contractor RedFlex Traffic Systems 'came back and basically said we can’t find any intersections that would be financially feasible for us to do this and still guarantee cost-neutrality,' said Roseville Police Spokeswoman Dee Dee Gunther."

Ticket counts for Roseville's cameras are at: Roseville Documents.

If you have a non-camera ticket - issued to you by a RPD officer who pulled you over - and he cited you for violation of a Roseville Municipal Code section rather than a section of the California Vehicle Code, see Section 8 on the Links page.

(54)

City of San Mateo, California

San Mateo, pop. 91,000, is 15 miles south of San Francisco.

If you have a ticket from San Mateo - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page - and contact me!

Some of San Mateo's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

In 2004 the city signed a 5-year contract with RedFlex, including an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there wasn't enough fine income to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. In Nov. 2009 they approved a new contract without the clause.

Ticket counts for San Mateo's cameras are available at: San Mateo Documents .

(55)

City of Solana Beach, California

Solana Beach, pop. 14,000, is on the coast 15 miles north of San Diego.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Dec. 30, 2003, and began issuing warning tickets in Oct. 2004.

Some of Solana Beach's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Solana Beach's cameras are available at: Solana Beach Documents .

(56)

City of Davis, California

Davis, pop. 55,000, is 16 miles west of Sacramento.

The City signed a contract with Nestor on Aug. 1, 2005. The contract included a "cost neutrality" clause whereby the city would not have to pay Nestor the full rent if fines were insufficient to cover the rent. On Nov. 21, 2008 an appellate court found that Nestor's similar cost neutrality contract with the City of Fullerton was illegal. (To read that decision, see Subsection B. of the expanded version of Defect # 10.) On Apr. 7, 2009, Davis signed a contract amendment removing the cost neutrality clause from its contract.

Unlike most other cities, Davis' camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 1 on the Davis Documents page, for more information.

(57)

City of Poway, California

Poway, pop. 50,000, is 15 miles northeast of downtown San Diego.

Some of Poway's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Poway signed a contract with RedFlex on Oct. 22, 2004.

Ticket counts for Poway's cameras are available at: Poway Documents .

(58)

City of Union City, California (System Closed)

Union City, pop. 65,000, is in the East Bay, 14 miles north of San Jose and 23 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Some of Union City's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Program Closed

In March 2005 the city signed a contract with RedFlex. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.)
On June 7, 2010 an Oakland Tribune article revealed that Union City would not be renewing the contract, which expired during June.

Big Refund in 2005

In late Sept. 2005 the City announced that it would refund or dismiss approx. 3000 tickets issued prior to Sept. 17, due to the yellow times having been set too short. Here is an article about the refund.
As of Sept. 26, the City was still deciding what to do about the approx. $270,000 it spent (or owes) RedFlex for issuance of the now-dismissed tickets. City Manager Larry Cheeves, who until 2003 was the City's Director of Public Works, told me, "If it (the oversight) was internal, we won't pursue it with RedFlex."

Not all cities that have found too-short yellows have made refunds. For a blatant example, see the Bakersfield section.

Some 2010 Alameda County appeal court decisions (Singh, Blankenship) addressed the confrontation issue (Defect # 10 - D).

Ticket counts for Union City's cameras are available at: Union City Documents.

(59)

City of San Leandro, California

San Leandro, pop. 72,000, is in the East Bay, immediately south of Oakland and 12 miles east of San Francisco.

On Sept. 6, 2005 the city council gave preliminary approval to a contract with RedFlex, for cameras at five intersections. According to an article in the Sept. 8 San Leandro Times, the contract will include a (illegal) "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The staff report prepared for the Sept. 6 council meeting also contained this remarkable sentence:
"Conclusion. Although San Leandro has not yet experienced a serious problem with traffic collisions directly related to red light violations, the city is continuing to experience an increase in the overall amount of traffic flow throughout the community."

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Some 2010 Alameda County appeal court decisions (Singh, Blankenship) addressed the confrontation issue (Defect # 10 - D).

(60)

City of Murrieta, California

Murrieta, pop. 93,000, is 30 miles south of Riverside, at the junction of the I-15 and I-215.

On Oct. 18, 2005, the City signed a contract with Nestor. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay Nestor the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. On Nov. 21, 2008 an appellate court found that Nestor's similar "cost neutral" contract with the City of Fullerton was illegal. To read that decision, see Subsection B. of the expanded version of Defect # 10.

To see examples of the standard reports generated by Nestor (which could be obtained by making a request to the City), see the reports received from the City of Fullerton (also a Nestor customer), Set # 4 on the Fullerton Documents page.

(61)

City of Rocklin, California

Rocklin, pop. 32,000, is 15 miles northeast of Sacramento.

On Sept. 13, 2005 the City signed a contract with RedFlex.

Some of Rocklin's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Regarding the requirement for 30 days of warning tickets (See Defect # 6), the contract does not make it clear whether there will be a thirty day warning period each time a new camera is installed, or just one warning period at the time of the installation of the first camera.

Ticket counts for Rocklin's cameras are available at: Rocklin Documents.

(62)

City of Laguna Woods, California

Laguna Woods, pop. 20,000, is in Orange County, 12 miles southeast of Santa Ana. It is mostly within the gates of Leisure World.

On July 11, 2005 the City signed a contract with RedFlex. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The original contract includesd an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there weren't enough fines to cover the cost. In late Jan. 2010 the city council voted to remove that clause. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Laguna Woods Documents.

(63)

City of Loma Linda, California (Closing Dec. 2010)

Loma Linda, pop. 21,000, is 6 miles southeast of San Bernardino.

Some of Loma Linda's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

On Sept. 13, 2005 the city council gave preliminary approval to a contract with RedFlex. The draft contract presented to the council includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

At its Dec. 8, 2009 meeting the city council voted to have the city manager negotiate with RedFlex for termination of the program. However, a Jan. 17, 2010 article in the Sun indicated that after negotiations with the city manager, RedFlex had refused to end the program before the Dec. 2010 end of the contract term. At its Apr. 13, 2010 meeting the city council voted to notify RedFlex that the City will not renew the contract.

Ticket counts for Loma Linda's cameras are available at: Loma Linda Documents.

(64)

City of Los Alamitos, California

Los Alamitos, pop. 13,000, is 5 miles northeast of Long Beach.

In July 2005 the City signed a contract with RedFlex. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The original contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause (see Defect # 10 - B), whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there weren't enough fines to cover the cost. On Nov. 4, 2007 the Orange County Register published an article which revealed that in January 2007 an Orange County Superior Court Commissioner dismissed a Los Alamitos ticket and "...issued an opinion opposing the agreements (the contract)." After that court decision, the city revised its contract, eliminating cost neutrality but adding a clause allowing delayed payment for 90 days after new camera installations:

"Customer may pay, in arrears, the Fixed Fee for the first ninety (90) days after the expiration of the Warning Period to allow for collection by Customer of sufficient fines to pay the Fixed Fee."

(65)

City of San Bernardino, California

San Bernardino, pop. 184,000, is 55 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The City's Nestor system began operation on Aug. 1, 2005, with a month of warning tickets.

If you have a 2008 San Bernardino ticket from Mt. Vernon and Ninth - even one that you already have paid - read this article and please note: On Jan. 7, 2009 city staff told me that they had asked the court to refund any fines already paid, and to dismiss those tickets not yet paid, for incidents photographed at Mt. Vernon/Ninth up to 1 p.m. on Nov. 17, the period during which the yellow was too short. City staff said that it would take around a month for refunds to be processed by the court. If you paid a fine on a pre-Nov. 18 Mt. Vernon/Ninth ticket, and have not received a refund check by mid-February, contact the office of the city attorney, at San Bernardino City Hall.

The City's original contract with Nestor included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city was not required to pay Nestor the full rent if there wasn't enough fine revenue to cover the cost. On Nov. 21, 2008 an appellate court found that Nestor's similar "cost neutral" contract with the City of Fullerton was illegal, and on Jan. 20, 2009 the San Bernardino City Council voted to remove the cost neutral clause from its contract. That change became effective on Feb. 4. For more information, see the San Bernardino Documents page.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: San Bernardino Documents.

Unlike most other cities, San Bernardino's camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 3 on the San Bernardino Documents page, for more information.

(66)

City of Capitola, California

Capitola, pop. 11,000, is on the coast 75 miles south of San Francisco and just east of Santa Cruz.

Capitola's system began operation on Oct. 1, 2005.

Capitola's contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay ATS the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. Please note that there could be a contract or amendment later than the one linked here.

(67)

City of Santa Fe Springs, California (System Closed)

(For tickets at Carmenita and Leffingwell, see the LA County section, above.)

Santa Fe Springs, pop. 16,000, is 10 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Santa Fe Springs signed a contract with Transol in December 2003. (In Aug. 2005 Transol was acquired by Nestor.) In October 2006 the City cancelled the Nestor contract. On Aug. 25, 2008 the council voted to look into getting a new camera system. As of March 2009 there were no cameras in the City.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Santa Fe Springs Documents.

(68)

City of Yuba City, California

Yuba City, pop. 34,000, is 25 miles north of Sacramento.

On Oct. 21, 2005 the city signed a contract with RedFlex. An article in the Oct. 19 (or 18?) Appeal-Democrat provides more details.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Defendants having Yuba City tickets should also read Set # 1 and Set # 2 of Marysville Documents - see the Marysville section (# 49) on this page.

(69)

City of Millbrae, California

Millbrae, pop. 22,000, is south of San Francisco and just north of San Mateo.

If you have a ticket from Millbrae - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page - and contact me!

On March 14, 2006 the city council approved the implementation of a red light camera system, and also the police department's selection of American Traffic Solutions ("ATS") to be the supplier of the system. The staff report did not reveal why there was no competitive bidding.

On June 13, 2006 the city council held the public hearing required by CVC 21455.6. A contract was approved by unanimous vote, as Mayor Gottschalk had predicted in his June 8 State of the City address: "On June 13, the City Council again will approve a proposal to install red light traffic cameras at Rollins Road and Millbrae Avenue, which could generate additional revenue for the City (but more importantly improve traffic safety)."

Millbrae's system began issuing real tickets on Oct. 18, 2006. Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Until an early 2010 amendment, Millbrae's contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay ATS the full rent if the City's fine revenues were insufficient to cover the rent. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. (The effective date of the amendment is believed to be Feb. 4, 2010, but it could be as early as Dec. 31, 2009 or as late as Feb. 18. See the amendment.)

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Millbrae Documents.

(70)

City of Newark, California

Newark, pop. 43,000, is in the East Bay, 9 miles north of San Jose and 24 miles southeast of San Francisco.

The city council approved Newark's contract with RedFlex in March 2006.

Until Jan. 20, 2010 the contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if the City's fine revenue was insufficient to cover the rent. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The Newark PD has extensive materials on its website.
If the above link ceases to work, drill down: www.newark.org > Departments > Police > Field ops > Red light cameras.

Some 2010 Alameda County appeal court decisions (Singh, Blankenship) addressed the confrontation issue (Defect # 10 - D).

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Newark Documents.

(71)

City of Baldwin Park, California

Baldwin Park, pop. 75,000, is 14 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The city council approved Baldwin Park's contract with RedFlex in Jan. 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. Please note that there could be a contract or amendment later than the one linked here.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

The contract also says: Definitions. 1.30 "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

(72)

City of Cathedral City, California

Cathedral City, pop. 36,000, is just southeast of Palm Springs.

The city council approved Cathedral City's contract with ATS in 2005.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay ATS the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Cathedral City Documents.

(73)

City of Santa Maria, California (System Closed)

Santa Maria, pop. 72,000, is 60 miles northwest of Santa Barbara.

On Nov. 24, 2009 the City announced that its camera vendor had "notified the City that it will terminate the program" and that the cameras would be removed within 30 days. On Dec. 4 City staff told me that about a week previously the City told the court to stop accepting any fines that came in on the red light camera tickets, and to notify anyone who contacted the court about their ticket (or tried to pay the fine) that the ticket was dismissed. This will not affect fines that the court received prior to the City's order, though. If you have a Santa Maria ticket which you have already paid, please be sure to contact me.

The City has said that it is looking for a new camera vendor. For more info, see the Santa Maria Documents page (linked below).

****

The city council approved Santa Maria's contract with Nestor in November 2006.

The contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay Nestor the full rent if fines were insufficient to cover the rent. On Nov. 21, 2008 an appellate court found that Nestor's similar "cost neutral" contract with the City of Fullerton was illegal. To read that decision, see Subsection B. of the expanded version of Defect # 10.

To see examples of the standard reports generated by Nestor (which could be obtained by making a request to the City), see the reports received from the City of Fullerton (also a Nestor customer), Set # 4 on the Fullerton Documents page.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Santa Maria Documents.

(74)

MRCA - Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Southern California

The MRCA is a little-known State-created agency which manages a number of large and small parks in the Greater Los Angeles area. Among those are Franklin Canyon near Beverly Hills, Temescal Gateway in the Pacific Palisades, Topanga State Park, Reseda, and the Hollywood Bowl Overlook.

Evidently tired of toiling in obscurity, in March 2007 the MRCA contracted for the installation of two kinds of automated enforcement not permitted by California law (and found nowhere else in California): (1) Photo enforcement at stop signs (illegal because CVC 22450, the usual Code section for a stop sign violation, is not included in CVC 40518, the Code section authorizing the use of a mailed Notice to Appear), and (2) photo enforcement of speed* (illegal because CVC 21455.6 says: "The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction"). The photo enforcement at stop signs is by "fixed" (permanently installed) cameras; the speed enforcement was to be done by mobile units - maybe some recycled from the City of San Jose, which in 2007 was forced to discontinue its RedFlex photo radar program. (For more info about San Jose, see their section, above.)
The fine was $100 in 2007. As of early 2010 it was $125.
In 2010 a class action suit was filed against the MRCA. (See related article, listed below.)

The MRCA began issuing tickets in Summer 2007.

A further illegal provision was found in the contract between the MRCA and RedFlex, the provider of the camera equipment. The contract's Exhibit D specified* that MRCA would pay RedFlex $20 (fixed cam) or $40 (mobile cam) for each image processed, a blatant violation of the CVC 21455.5(g) prohibition of such "pay-per-ticket" schemes. See Subsection B of Defect # 10.

The MRCA stop-sign cameras use "non-visible" infrared light for illumination - so humans may not see a flash! To see close-up pictures of an MRCA stop-sign cam, see FAQ # 7.

Stop Sign Cam Enclosure on Hillside in Franklin Canyon** Non-standard Warning Sign*** Loops in Pavement, Franklin Canyon

*In May 2008 the contract was amended to remove the provision for speed
enforcement and to set compensation to RedFlex at a flat rate of $4,400 per
month per camera location. The timing of the amendment coincided with the
failure of SB 1325, a 2008 bill that would have allowed the use of
photo radar throughout California. (There was a new bill in 2009, which also failed - see Hot Legislation.)
**If to your eye the cam enclosure looks PhotoShopped-in, click on the photo
for a higher-resolution image.
***In addition to the small warning signs attached to the stop signs (depicted above),
the MRCA also has made up a triangular sign. To see it, go to Defect # 4.

If you ignore a MRCA ticket, you will get a collection letter from a law firm in Ohio.

To read more about the MRCA go to their ticket site, their main site, or their staff report - see item V.(b) there - and a website about the MRCA's director (alternate copy). Ticket counts for the MRCA's cameras are available at: MRCA Documents. If you have a ticket and want to contact the MRCA, their number is (310) 858-3834.

(75)

MTA - Metro
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro operates buses, subways, and light rail in Los Angeles County.

The tickets are issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff, under contract with Metro.

Metro has red light cameras at road crossings along its Orange Line east-west busway in the San Fernando Valley, along the Eastside Gold Line light rail in East LA, and along the Blue Line light rail which runs north-south between downtown LA and Long Beach.

The cameras are provided by ACS - see Defect # 5 on the Home page.

Metro's contract with ACS includes a clause whereby ACS is required to "...maintain... the existing rates of citations...." See "Quotas" in Defect # 9, and Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

At least one Orange Line camera detects an unusual proportion of very high Late Times, compared to other locales (depicted in graph below). For more about that, see the Metro Documents page.

(76)

City of Lancaster, California

Lancaster, pop. 145,000, is 40 miles north of Los Angeles.

The city council approved Lancaster's contract with RedFlex in July 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

(77)

City of Redwood City, California

Redwood City, pop. 76,000, is 20 miles south of San Francisco.

The city council approved Redwood City's contract with RedFlex in April 2007.

If you have a ticket from Redwood City - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page - and contact me!

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Redwood City Documents.

(78)

City of Walnut, California

Walnut, pop. 33,000, is 20 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

Walnut may send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Walnut Documents.

(79)

City of Citrus Heights, California

Citrus Heights, pop. 88,000, is 8 miles northeast of Sacramento.

The city council approved Citrus Heights' contract with RedFlex in Dec. 2007.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. Please note that there could be a contract or amendment later than the one linked here.

The contract possibly provides a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthen the yellows. The contract reads:
"Cost neutrality is guaranteed except as follows: If the Customer [the City] fails to maintain the minimum yellow light change interval as established by Section 21455.7 of the California Vehicle Code."
The passage is open to two conflicting interpretations.
1. The City is required to maintain yellows that are at least as long as the length specified by the Code - but can be longer.
2. The City is required to maintain the exact length specified by the Code, and may not set yellows that are longer.

The contract also specifies that there shall be equipment to issue citations for right turn violations, and penalizes the City should it choose not to enforce those violations.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

(80)

City of Riverside, California

Riverside, pop. 248,000, is 50 miles east of Los Angeles.

The city council approved Riverside's contract with RedFlex in Aug. 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Some of Riverside's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Riverside holds both the California record for the most tickets issued by a single camera in one month - 2481 tickets at Indiana/Arlington in Oct. 2009 - and also holds second place, with 2441 tickets at Tyler/91, in Apr. 2009. Complete ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Riverside Documents.

(81)

City of Moreno Valley, California (System Closed)

Note: The Moreno Valley courthouse handles the red light camera tickets for a number of Riverside County cities, so "Moreno Valley" is printed prominently on all those tickets, and that has led to some confusion. Please double check your ticket to make sure what city issued it.

At a Dec. 15, 2009 study session the Moreno Valley city council voted to terminate the program. The program ended on Jan. 31, 2010.

The city council approved Moreno Valley's contract with RedFlex in July 2007.

Some of Moreno Valley's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The City's contract with RedFlex includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the subject intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Moreno Valley Documents.

(82)

City of Belmont, California

The city council approved Belmont's contract with RedFlex in Feb. 2008, and after some delays the cameras were to go live in April 2010.

If you have a ticket from Belmont - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page.

The contract does not include a "cost neutrality" clause, but does include a clause that requires the City to enforce on right-hand turns. (See Defect # 9 - B.) Based upon figures found in an Apr. 2010 staff report, there could be thousands of right turn tickets monthly at Ralston and Old County. Please note that there could be a contract or amendment later than the one linked here.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

(83)

City of Highland, California

Highland, pop. 54,000, is just northeast of the City of San Bernardino.

The city council approved Highland's contract with RedFlex in Mar. 2008.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Highland Documents.

(84)

City of San Carlos, California

If you have a ticket from San Carlos - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page.

If you have a San Carlos camera ticket for a straight-thru violation before Jan. 29, 2009, do not pay it! The yellow light at Industrial and Brittan was set at 3.0 seconds when it should have been set at 3.2, the minimum required in a 30 mph zone. On Feb. 3, 2009 the City announced it would dismiss/reverse 411 tickets, refund the fines/points on those already paid, and even reimburse traffic school tuition. At 5 p.m. on Thursday Jan. 29 they reset the yellow to 3.2 and resumed issuing tickets. KPIX Report of 2-4-09.

The city council approved San Carlos' contract with RedFlex in Nov. 2007. Because of very low ticket volume and the resulting monthly deficit, on Apr. 12, 2010 the city council voted to ask staff to negotiate with RedFlex to end the program early, before the contractual Oct. 2011 expiration date. Staff report.

The contract does not include a "cost neutrality" clause, but does include a clause that requires the City to enforce on right-hand turns. (See Defect # 9 - B.)

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

(85)

City of Glendale, California

Glendale, pop. 198,000, is 6 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

The city council approved Glendale's contract with RedFlex in Aug. 2007.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Glendale Documents.

(86)

City of Napa, California

Napa, pop. 72,000, is 35 miles north of San Francisco.

The city council approved Napa's contract with RedFlex in June 2008.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract penalizes the City should it choose not to enforce right-hand turn violations.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of each intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Napa Documents.

(87)

City of Redding, California

Redding, pop. 92,000, is 167 miles north of Sacramento.

The city council approved Redding's contract with RedFlex in Feb. 2007.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(88)

City of Daly City, California

Daly City, pop. 106,000, is just south of San Francisco.

If you have a ticket from Daly City - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page - and contact me!

The city council approved Daly City's contract with RedFlex in Mar. 2007.

Some of Daly City's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Daly City Documents.

(89)

City of Yucaipa, California (System Closed)

Yucaipa, pop. 54,000, is 15 miles southeast of San Bernardino.

The city council approved Yucaipa's contract with RedFlex in Dec. 2007.

The system was activated on Mar. 1, 2009.

After just over a year of operation, the system was closed, for financial reasons. The last day of operation was June 30, 2010. See this article.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract included a possibly illegal clause giving the City the right to terminate the contract if fines were insufficient to cover the monthly rent for the system. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also said: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

(90)

City of Grand Terrace, California

Grand Terrace, pop. 14,000, is just north of Riverside.

The city council approved the City's contract with RedFlex in Apr. 2007.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the City will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Grand Terrace Documents.

(91)

City of Oroville, California

Oroville, pop. 13,000, is 70 miles north of Sacramento.

The city council approved Oroville's contract with RedFlex in Aug. 2007.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

(92)

City of South San Francisco, California

South San Francisco, pop. 60,000, is just south of San Francisco.

All Tickets up to Mar. 10, 2010 Canceled!

On Mar. 12, 2010 the City announced that it would refund/dismiss all camera tickets issued between Jan. 27 and Mar. 10, 2010. Previously, on Feb. 5, 2010, the City had announced that it would be refunding/dismissing all tickets issued from the beginning of the program up to Jan. 27, 2010, due to a "technical error" (the City failed to hold the formal public hearing required by CVC 21455.6 when in 2006 it approved its contract with the camera supplier - see the expanded version of Defect # 6). The estimate of the number of tickets involved in the first refund/dismissal is 7000. The number of tickets involved in the second refund/dismissal has not been announced. If you have a South San Francisco ticket from Mar. 10 or before, call the City's hotline, (650) 829-3777, and leave your name, ticket number, and phone number. Because of the huge number of tickets involved, it could take a couple months for the court and the City to straighten everything out.
For more info, read Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page.

The probable reason for the refund/dismissal of tickets issued after Jan. 27, 2010 is in this Feb. 22 KGO-TV story (a defendant who is an attorney claimed that her post-Jan. 27 ticket was invalid because the City should have issued warning tickets for the first 30 days after the Jan. 27 "re-approval" of the contract).
Also, read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page.

****

On Apr. 14, 2010 the City held the required public hearing. The announced purpose of the hearing was to determine if the city wished to continue the camera program, or to cancel the contract during the one-year trial period. The contract provides that to cancel, the City would need to notify ATS at least 60 days before the one-year anniversary of the Start Date of the program, which the City says was Aug. 19, 2009. However, the contract defines Start Date as "the date of the first issued and payable notice of a violation..." and there could be some question as to whether the notices issued beginning last August were indeed "payable," since the city felt it was legally compelled to refund/reverse all of them.

The staff report prepared for the Apr. 14 hearing contained a strong recommendation to continue the program. A copy of the contract was attached to the staff report. The council approved the program's continuance, 3 - 2 (noes: Addiego, Gonzalez). I think that the City made a number of procedural errors during the public hearing, and that as a result could be forced to hold a new public hearing. If you remain concerned, you could write to the council. Their email addresses are available here.

Also heard during the hearing was that ATS would not be refunding any of the camera rent it has collected so far, and that the City has continued to pay them the full rent even during the current suspension of ticketing. Then, on Apr. 22 the San Mateo County Times reported that the City has agreed to pay $250,000 to the Superior Court, "for its troubles involving the City's legal snafu over red-light cameras." Assuming a grand total of 8000 refunds/dismissals, that works out to $31.25 per ticket. The settlement with the Court was formalized in a ten-page agreement.

The History

The city "approved" its contract with American Traffic Solutions in Sept. 2006, but did not start issuing tickets until Aug. 2009. The contract provides that the first year of operation is to be a trial period, with the City having the option to cancel the contract, without penalty, so long as it gives notice 60 days before the trial period ends.
"4(f): First year ("pilot year") terms: With 60 day written
notice, on the first anniversary of the Start Date, either party
shall have the option to terminate this Agreement."
No one has addressed, in public, whether the May 2010 re-start of the program will re-start the one-year trial period.

Until a Nov. 10, 2009 amendment, the contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay ATS the full rent if there weren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10. The Nov. 2009 amendment was not included in the version of the contract "re-approved" in April 2010. No one has addressed, in public, whether the amendment was deliberately left out, or left out in error.

The contract also says: "1.3.13 ATS shall provide the Customer with an optional one-time warning period up to 30 days in length at the outset of the program." (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of South San Francisco Documents.

(93)

City of Menlo Park, California

Menlo Park, pop. 31,000, is 20 miles south of San Francisco.

If you have a ticket from Menlo Park - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page - and contact me!

The city council approved the city's contract with RedFlex on Dec. 5, 2006.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Menlo Park Documents. If you have a Bayfront/Willow ticket for a violation before July 3, 2010, be sure to read Docs Set # 3 on that page.

(94)

City of Redlands, California (System Closed)

Redlands, pop. 73,000, is 10 miles southeast of San Bernardino.

The city council approved the city's contract with RedFlex on Jan. 15, 2008.

If you got a Redlands ticket for a violation before November 2008, please be sure to contact me - even if you already have paid it.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

On Oct. 5, 2009 the police department announced that the program had been terminated.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Redlands Documents.

(95)

City of Victorville, California

Victorville, pop. 105,000, is 20 miles north of San Bernardino, on the route from LA to Las Vegas.

The city council approved the city's contract with RedFlex on Sept. 18, 2007.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of each intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Victorville Documents.

(96)

City of Covina, California

(For tickets at Cypress & Hollenbeck, see the Los Angeles County section, above.)

Covina, pop. 47,000, is 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The city council approved the city's contract with American Traffic Solutions in Sept. 2006.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The original contract signed in 2006 included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city was not required to pay ATS the full rent if fine revenue was not sufficient to cover the rent. However, an Aug. 1, 2008 amendment may have nullified the illegal clause, with the result that for violations beginning that date Defect # 10 - B may not apply. See the Covina Documents page, and Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The 2006 contract also says: "1.2.1 ATS shall provide the Customer with an optional one-time warning period up to 30 days in length commencing when the Dual Camera System begins operating." (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

(97)

City of Bell Gardens, California

Bell Gardens, pop. 44,000, is 6 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

The city council approved the city's contract with RedFlex on Oct. 7, 2008.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract possibly provides a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthen the yellows. The contract reads:
"Cost neutrality is guaranteed except as follows: If the Customer [the City] fails to maintain the minimum yellow light change interval as established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE]."
The passage is open to two conflicting interpretations.
1. The City is required to maintain yellows that are at least as long as the length specified by the ITE - but can be longer.
2. The City is required to maintain the exact length specified by the ITE, and may not set yellows that are longer.

The contract penalizes the City should it choose not to enforce right-hand turn violations.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means a period after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach, wherein only warning notices shall be issued, commencing within 3 days after the system has been installed. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Bell Gardens Documents.

(98)

City of Burlingame, California (System Closed)

Burlingame, pop. 28,000, is 10 miles south of San Francisco.

If you have a ticket from Burlingame - even one you already have paid - be sure to read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page.

Program Closed

The city council approved the city's contract with RedFlex on Jan. 26, 2007.
On May 24, 2010 a San Mateo County Times article revealed that the city would pay Redflex a $50,000 early termination penalty, and close the program May 31.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Burlingame Documents.

(99)

City of Corona, California

Corona, pop. 150,000, is 10 miles southwest of Riverside.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Nov. 5, 2008.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract possibly provides a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthen the yellows. The contract reads:
"Cost neutrality is guaranteed except as follows: If the Customer [the City] fails to maintain the minimum yellow light change interval as established by Section 21455.7 of the California Vehicle Code."
The passage is open to two conflicting interpretations.
1. The City is required to maintain yellows that are at least as long as the length specified by the Code - but can be longer.
2. The City is required to maintain the exact length specified by the Code, and may not set yellows that are longer.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the time period commencing on the Installation Date for the each Designated Intersection Approach and ending on the date that is thirty (30) days later. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Corona Documents.

(100)

City of Elk Grove, California

Elk Grove, pop. 140,000, is 10 miles south of Sacramento.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on May 23, 2007.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first Designated Intersection Approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

(101)

City of Commerce, California

( Cameras at the Eastside Gold Line light rail crossings are covered in the Metro/MTA section, above.)

Commerce, pop. 12,500, is just southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Jan. 2, 2007.

The tickets are issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff, under contract with the City.

If you have a Commerce ticket, be sure to read Set # 2 on the Commerce Documents page (see below for link).

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date. "Installation Date" means the date on which RedFlex completes the construction and installation of at least one (1) Intersection Approach.... See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras is available at: City of Commerce Documents.

(102)

City of Hayward, California

Hayward, pop. 140,000, is across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco, and 4 miles south of Oakland.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Nov. 9, 2007.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach... (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of Hayward Documents.

Some 2010 Alameda County appeal court decisions (Singh, Blankenship) addressed the confrontation issue (Defect # 10 - D).

(103)

City of Oakland, California

Oakland, pop. 370,000, is across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco, and just south of Berkeley.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Aug. 31, 2007.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach. (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Some 2010 Alameda County appeal court decisions (Singh, Blankenship) addressed the confrontation issue (Defect # 10 - D).

If you have a non-camera ticket - issued to you by a OPD officer who pulled you over - and he cited you for violation of an Oakland Municipal Code section rather than a section of the California Vehicle Code, see Section 8 on the Links page.

(104)

City of San Rafael, California

San Rafael, pop. 57,000, is north of San Francisco.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Mar. 3, 2009.

Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract is "flat rate" - it does not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.

The contract also says: Definitions. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date during which only warning notices shall be issued by RedFlex for a Violation. "Installation Date" means the date on which RedFlex completes the construction and installation of the RedFlex System at a Designated Intersection Approach.... See Defect # 6.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: City of San Rafael Documents.

(105)

Why Don't You Check the Cameras in Your Town? [2]

The "Watch List"
(And Rumor Control)

The following towns appear on various Internet lists of places that either have cameras or have signed a contract. Sometimes those lists are incorrect, premature (the city is just thinking about installing cameras), or out-of-date (the city has shut the cameras down). Please note that this "Watch List" is not fully up-to-date. Some cities listed here may have installed cameras. When I receive further information about any of them, it will be posted below. When a copy of a city's signed contract has become available, a new section will be added to the town-by-town listing, above.

Anaheim
On June 8, 2010 the city council voted to place a charter amendment banning cameras on the November 2010 ballot. If approved by Anaheim voters, the amendment would prevent any future city council from installing cameras unless they first obtained voter approval to remove the ban. See this article.
Atherton
On May 17, 2006 the city council voted to conduct a 12-hour test at three intersections. The agenda said, "...if the trial proves viable, staff recommends... permanent installation." As of Jan. 2009 there were no cameras, but on Jan. 13 the Transportation Committee agenda contained a report about cameras, and on Feb. 5 City staff indicated that they plan to do a test.
Beaumont
Per a press release dated Oct. 2004, Beaumont had signed a contract with Transol. However, as of Oct. 2005, no system had been implemented; city staff said they still intended to have a system, but were having problems with CalTrans.
(In Aug. 2005, Transol was acquired by Nestor.)
As of Nov. 2008, Beaumont still did not have a system.
Bell
Status as of Oct. 19, 2005: Per city staff, no red light cameras. Bell's inclusion on some Internet lists may be because of Maywood's cameras nearby.
Campbell
Status as of Oct. 6, 2005: Campbell never has had red light cameras but appeared on lists on some other websites as Campbell did at one time have automated cameras for speeding violations (and nearby San Jose had speed cameras until they were shut down in March 2007).
Chino
In 2005, Chino was looking into having red light cameras, but had not yet selected a vendor or signed a contract. On Dec. 6, 2008 PD desk said there were no red light cameras in the city.
Chula Vista
Status as of Jan. 30, 2009: The city had selected RedFlex as their vendor, but had not yet signed a contract.
Colton
Per a June 15, 2005 article in the (Bay Area) Daily Review, Colton was looking into having red light cameras. On Dec. 6, 2008 PD desk said there were no red light cameras in the city.
Cupertino - Shut Down
Status as of Oct. 6, 2005: Per Santa Clara County Sheriff's Dept., red light cameras may still be visible, but are not working. A Cincinnati Post article of Dec. 20, 2004 provided the history:
Officials in Cupertino, Calif., located in the Silicon Valley near San Francisco, stopped its camera program in January [2004] after three years of use. Although they initially planned on using seven cameras, four were installed in that period and only two were fully operational, with the other two plagued by technical glitches.
Cupertino ended up spending about $200,000 more each year to operate the program than the revenues it generated.
"The system was never really foolproof enough that the (courts) had full confidence in it," said Rick Kitson, a city spokesman.
But the cameras have some merit, Cupertino officials added.
"The red light enforcement programs are worthwhile efforts as safety programs," said Glenn Goepfert, the city's assistant public works director. "We did see initially a drop in red light running. It did start rising near the end, though."
Downey
Status as of Oct. 10, 2005: No red light cameras and no plans to install any. The Florence / Paramount intersection, reported on some websites as having a red light camera, does not. It has traffic flow monitoring cameras. The Firestone / Garfield intersection, reported to be in Downey, is actually in South Gate.
Fountain Valley
Status as of Oct. 19, 2005: Per city staff, no red light cameras. Fountain Valley's inclusion on some Internet lists may be because of Santa Ana's very busy camera at Harbor / Warner, just across the river.
Gilroy
From the May 7, 2009 Gilroy Dispatch: "We are in the exploratory stage of looking into red light enforcement cameras," said Gilroy Police Sgt. Jim Gillio. "There are no enforcement cameras in Gilroy. Prior to proceeding, we are researching the pros and cons of enforcement cameras to ensure that we make informed recommendations and decisions."
Hemet
The city manager signed a contract with Nestor on Jan. 8, 2009.
In Sept. 2009 Nestor, which had gone into receivership, was taken over by ATS, a competitor.
On Oct. 22, 2009 the Riverside Press Enterprise reported that the City was unlikely to go ahead with the program. The PE quoted Police Chief Richard Dana as saying, "I plan on putting out a memo to the City Council that we can't justify it, unless they wish to go ahead."
In his Dec. 18, 2009 PE column, Bob Pratte wrote: "When [ATS] officials examined the Hemet intersections, they backed out of the deal because they didn't believe the intersections would produce sufficient profits." He added: "Good riddance."
On May 11, 2010 the city council heard a report by the police chief. As reported by the PE, Chief Dana said, "It is my recommendation at this time to do nothing with regard to red lights. The chances are if we do it and we start making some money, we could lose a lawsuit and have to pay it back, which would be worse than never getting it in the first place."
Speaking about the contract's "cost neutrality" clause, Chief Dana said, "That essentially amounts to a quota."
On May 29 the PE reported that the council will hold a study session to reconsider the May 11 decision.
Hermosa Beach
Status as of April 6, 2005: Hermosa Beach was considering red light cameras. Some information is available at: Hermosa Beach Documents.
Hillsborough
A Jan. 29, 2006 article in the Oakland Tribune quoted Hillsborough Police Capt. Mark O'Connor as saying that his department hoped to permanently install cameras at El Camino Real and Floribunda. However, on June 19, 2006 Capt. O'Connor told me that a RedFlex test of the intersection revealed no violations during a 24-hour period, and that an installation would not be cost effective. (The test looked for straight-through violations, not turns.) On Dec. 5, 2008, city staff confirmed that there still is no contract, and no cameras.
Huntington Beach
On Mar. 2, 2009 the city council voted 5 - 2 (yes: Bohr, Coerper, Green, Hansen, Hardy) to sign a contract for RedFlex to study a number of intersections in town and to report back to the council in four to six weeks, for final approval. The program did not gain final approval - a June 2, 2009 Orange County Register article indicated that the police had rejected the program. The article said:
"Panicked drivers trying to avoid a ticket might slam on the brakes causing a rear-end crash, [Police Chief] Small said. Also, he said the number of major traffic collisions from drivers running a red light was not great enough to warrant the cost of the system."
The proposed contract was "flat rate" - it did not include an illegal "cost neutrality" clause.
Huntington Park
Status as of Dec. 6, 2005: At the council meeting of Dec. 5, the city council considered a police department memo and voted not to move ahead with a camera program. The City's inclusion on some Internet lists may be because of Los Angeles's cameras at Olympic and Soto nearby.
Indio
In 2005 Indio was looking into having red light cameras, but on Dec. 5, 2008 PD staff said there were no red light cameras in Indio. The inclusion on some Internet lists of a camera on Fred Waring Dr. at Miles is inexplicable, as the two streets do not intersect. Neighboring city Indian Wells did have several cameras along Fred Waring, but they are inactive.
Irvine - Shut Down
In late 2000 Irvine installed two red light cameras. They were removed mid-year 2001. Currently (Nov. 19, 2005) the supplier of that system, Nestor, lists Irvine (and Fresno, another discontinued system) on its website in a way ("Nestor Traffic Systems has provided its safety products and services to the following cities and states across the country") that could give the impression that Irvine has an active red light camera system.
La Puente
At their meeting of July 10, 2007 the council decided not to do a staff-recommended traffic study which could have led to the installation of cameras.
Lemon Grove
As of Nov. 23, 2009 a camera company had studied five intersections, to see how many violations occurred, but the city had not yet received the results.
Manhattan Beach
Status as of Mar. 10, 2006: At the council meeting of Mar. 7, 2006, the city council decided not to install cameras. The staff report is on-line on the City's website, under the city council agenda for that date.
Manteca
In May 2008 the city council approved a "revenue neutral" camera program to be supplied by Nestor Traffic Systems.
In June 2009 Nestor went into receivership. A June 17 inquiry to Manteca city staff indicated that cameras had not yet been installed, and that they were not sure they would be installed.
In Sept. 2009 Nestor was sold to ATS. Finally, an Oct. 12 Manteca Bulletin article indicated that the City had cancelled the contract, supposedly because ATS would not provide the collision avoidance systems offered by Nestor.
Martinez
On Feb. 7, 2007 the city council agreed, 4 - 0, to "...research utilization of cameras for traffic signal enforcement." Status as of Feb. 2, 2009: The city had selected RedFlex as their vendor, but had not yet signed a contract. Status as of June 17, 2009: Per the city clerk, the city still had not signed a contract.
Mission Viejo
Status as of Oct. 6, 2005: No red light cameras, and no plans to install any.
National City
At its meeting of June 1, 2010 the city council considered the adoption of a contract with RedFlex, and asked staff to report back in two weeks about price and legal issues (the proposed contract contained a cost-neutral clause - see Defect # 10 - B). As of the council agenda for July 6, the matter had not been brought back to the council. If National City signs with RedFlex, it will be RedFlex' first contract win in California in 15 months.
Palm Desert
Status as of Oct. 31, 2005: Palm Desert's inclusion on some Internet lists may be due to Indian Wells' red light camera at Eldorado / Fred Waring.
Palo Alto
A June 8, 2010 Daily Post article said that Palo Alto may be budgeting for red light cameras. The police department said that they don't yet have a proposal from a red light camera supplier and that the project is "in the research phase."
Paramount - Shut Down
In a press release dated July 20, 2006, RedFlex announced that it and the City had mutually agreed that effective Aug. 1, 2006 the City's single camera would be shut down, "due to a low incidence of red light running." Paramount's system went into operation on Sept. 1, 2004. Ticket counts for the camera are at: Paramount Documents.
Placentia
The city council held a study session on Feb. 7, 2006, and according to a Feb. 20, 2006 article in the Orange County Register, by April the police were to submit plans for a pilot program, with American Traffic Solutions running the cameras. On Dec. 8, 2008 city staff said there are no cameras in town.
Pomona
On Mar. 20, 2006 the city council heard a report by the police chief, in which he did not support the installation of cameras. Nevertheless, the council asked for more information and the chief said he would collect cost figures and ask camera companies to make presentations. On Dec. 6, 2008, PD staff said there were no cameras in the city.
Ridgecrest - Shut Down after Survey
In December 2003 they contracted with RedFlex for the installation of up to eight systems. The following exchange, found in the minutes of the June 2, 2004 meeting of the Ridgecrest City Council, explains why no cameras were installed.
"[A citizen] asked if we are proceeding with the RedFlex red light system at our major intersections. Chief Avery said RedFlex has completed their survey but no intersection meets their criteria but they have some other things they think we might be able to use." Per a Dec. 4, 2008 check with city staff, there still are no cameras.
Rio Vista - Contract Signed but Not Implemented
Status as of Nov. 6, 2008: Per City staff, "The contract [including an illegal cost-neutral clause] was approved by adoption of Resolution No. 2006-158 on December 7, 2006; however, enforcement actions on State Route 12 by the Rio Vista Police reduced the amount of red light runners and the camera was never installed."
San Bruno - Vendor Selected
On June 9, 2009 the city council voted to install cameras. The police chief told them that negotiation of a (cost-neutral) contract with RedFlex would be completed in 30 to 60 days. You can watch the meeting on YouTube. The city attorney's discussion of cost-neutrality is at 24:45. On May 11, 2010 the city council discussed a report from the police chief, and appeared not to be interested in moving forward with the program.
San Luis Obispo
Status as of Oct. 31, 2005: Per police department staff, no red light cameras. San Luis Obispo's inclusion on some Internet lists may be because of congestion-management or signal-timing cameras they have at some intersections.
San Marcos
Status as of Sept. 29, 2005: Per an article in the Sept. 29 North County Times, Councilmember Hal Martin would like to study installing red light cameras in San Marcos, while the other councilmembers, and the sheriff, didn't see a need for cameras.
San Ramon
Status as of Dec. 5, 2008: PD staff said no red light cameras in San Ramon. The inclusion on some Internet lists of cameras on Bollinger at Bishop Ranch may be because of the security cameras there.
Santa Monica
On Sept. 25, 2007 the city council approved a camera program. On Dec. 22, 2008, city staff indicated that they will not be accepting any of the four proposals received and will be recommending to the city council to not go forward with the project. On Jan. 13, 2009 the city council voted to adopt the staff recommendation.
Santa Rosa - Shut Down after Test
In approx. 2000 there was a brief test of red light cameras. Then they were removed. PD staff said: "They were not cost-effective." Status as of Nov. 7, 2008: Per city staff, still no cameras.
Turlock
The Turlock city council discussed cameras at their Apr. 14 and Apr. 28, 2009 meetings, and was considering signing a contract with RedFlex. However, according to an article in the May 13 Turlock Journal, Interim City Manager Gary Hampton said: "The city attorney and I don't see it being advantageous to the City of Turlock to engage in this effort that could result in us having to expend our valuable financial resources having to defend our red light cameras, at this time." Per the May 18 Modesto Bee, "Reid [TPD Lt. Ron Reid] said the cameras would not be positioned to catch right-hand turn infractions, which are seen as a less serious safety problem..."
West Covina
The City did a test in 2006, but did not sign a contract, and per a Dec. 4, 2008 inquiry to city staff, there are no cameras.
If you have a non-camera ticket - issued to you by a WCPD officer who pulled you over - and he cited you for violation of a West Covina Municipal Code section rather than a section of the California Vehicle Code, see Section 8 on the Links page.
Westminster
Status as of Oct. 19, 2005: Per public works staff, no red light cameras, and city council doesn't want them. Westminster's inclusion on some Internet lists may be because of Garden Grove's cameras on Westminster Boulevard at Brookhurst.

Tickets Issued by Sheriff, CHP: Disambiguation *
* Wikipedia uses this word, so I will too! It's not defined in my dictionary, but I think it means to clarify or explain something.

Some cities/counties/agencies use an outside law enforcement agency to issue their red light camera tickets. Sometimes only the name of the law enforcement agency (sheriff, CHP) is printed on the ticket, making it difficult to figure out what city, etc., contracted to have the cameras installed - and is prosecuting you. Many cities uses the local sheriff to issue the tickets, but sometimes it is not that simple. This section is meant to clarify the most confusing situations.

The CHP issues tickets for the cameras operated by the County of LA (you'd think the LA County Sheriff would be doing that). And, CHP officers handle the tickets issued by both the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento - but the tickets say they come from the County of Sacramento, or the Sacramento County sheriff.

The LA County Sheriff issues tickets for the MTA/Metro light rail and busway crossings (even though most are within the City of LA), and for the cities of West Hollywood, Commerce, and Cerritos (but NOT for the cameras operated by the County).

[1] Sources of Culver City figures: My estimate of the number of tickets is calculated using the city's budgetary estimate of income from all cameras, divided by the dollar amount the City receives per ticket (in Culver City in 2002, $79.38 - higher in 2004, see FAQ #16), and divided by the number of cameras in town. It is adjusted to compensate for whether that camera appears to catch a disproportionately higher, or lower, number of violators compared to the other cameras in town. Camera program revenue and expense is from City's Adopted Budget book, FY 2001-2, pages 2 and 191. Surplus is from City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ("CAFR"), FY ended June 30, 2001, page 4, line entitled: "Excess of revenues and other sources over expenditures and other uses." All figures/documents were obtained lawfully. Every city issues a budget book and a CAFR, and they are public documents.

[2] To report an illegal camera in your town (or that you've checked their yellow interval and they're OK), see the Action page.

[3] The precise grace time allowed is not stated here, to discourage deliberate running of the signals.

[4] These statistics are derived from courtroom testimony. They may not add up to the total number of tickets heard, as some tickets are disposed of before the officer has had a chance to complete his testimony and/or display the photos.

[5] See these cities' entries in the Site Index.

[6] See these cities' entries on this page.

Email: For the email address of the editor of this website, go to the Action page .

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

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