Email Address
Site
Index
If you
haven't already done so, please read the Hawthorne section on
the Camera Towns page.
Hawthorne Chronology
Hawthorne, pop. 80,000, is just southeast of
LAX.
This page contains details of some 2004 - 2006 trials
of Hawthorne tickets.
Some of Hawthorne's tickets can be ignored. If your
"ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it
is what I call a "Fake Ticket." For more details, see the Fake
Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.
Hawthorne ticket trials are held in the Inglewood
courthouse, every Tuesday afternoon in Department N.
Arraignments for Hawthorne tickets are done Monday thru Thursday
mornings in Division 1, mixed in with Inglewood tickets. See the Inglewood
Chronology for information about Div. 1 and Hawthorne's
arraignments.
Ticket counts and signal timing for Hawthorne's cameras are
available
at: Hawthorne
Documents.
Hawthorne may hold the California record for the most
tickets at a single intersection - at one time its Rosecrans / Hindry
cameras were issuing about 1000 tickets per month - mostly on right
turns.

For more about
the buttons, see the You Don't Have to Shop There section on the
Action page.
Hawthorne, Aug. 3, 2004:
Details of First Major Trial Session
Hawthorne's camera system began operation in March 2004, and the Aug. 3
trial
session was the first trial session with multiple red light camera
defendants. Seven camera cases were scheduled for Division
"N," Comm. William R. Torres' courtroom, at 1:30, along with a
number of non-red light camera cases. All defendants had
posted full cash bail prior to trial - there were no "OR" cases on
the calendar. Six "camera" defendants showed up. Before
court came in to session, the bailiff offered traffic school to
everyone in the courtroom. Two camera defendants told him
they wanted it. A couple minutes later, Hawthorne police
Officer Mark Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any
camera defendant who wanted to see it. All of the camera
defendants, including both of those who had already elected traffic
school, chose to view their video. The showing was done in a small
room adjacent to the courtroom, one defendant at a time.
After the viewings, all defendants but one elected to take traffic
school.
At about 2:00 p.m. Comm. Torres came in and immediately announced
the names of eight non-camera defendants whose cases were being
dismissed because the officer was unavailable. After those
defendants left, there were nine total defendants remaining in the
courtroom. The non-camera tickets were heard first, and every
defendant was quickly found guilty, with little or no explanation
by the judge. Most did not ask for traffic school. The
one non-camera defendant who asked for traffic school was granted
it (it was Second Offender traffic school).
The sole red light camera trial, for a violation of the double left
at Rosecrans and Hindry, began with Officer Escalante testifying to
two foundational elements of the camera system: That there
had been a thirty-day "grace" or warning ticket period when the City's
system was first started (it was never made clear whether there had
been a grace period at Rosecrans / Hindry), and that warning signs
had been posted at the subject intersection. He then showed
the video of the violation on a large movie screen which was
visible to everyone in the courtroom. The judge asked how
long the yellow was. Officer Escalante said it was set at 3.0
seconds [compare to the 3.6 at nearly all lefts in Inglewood, except
for the 3.0 at Centinela / Florence], and that since the
approach speed for a left turn is 25 mph (he did not state the
source of that figure), that the minimum yellow required was 2.5
seconds. (For more about the length of this yellow, see
the left turn section of Defect # 2 on the Home Page.)
The defendant argued that the warning sign was too close to the
intersection (it is about 120 feet away), and that there should be
more warning signs, including one in the median to the east of the
intersection.
The judge asked if the public had been notified prior to the
start-up of the Rosecrans / Hindry camera. Officer Escalante
explained that there had been a general notification in March when
the city's system was first launched, but no new notification
immediately before the start-up of the Rosecrans / Hindry camera,
as it had started-up sometime after the initial system
launch. He explained that they were not required to re-notify
upon each new intersection installation.
The defendant briefly repeated his concern about the signs, then
rested his case. He was found guilty, with no explanation by
the judge. He requested traffic school, and was granted
it.
The trial session ended at 3:05
p.m.
The personnel at the Inglewood
/ Hawthorne courthouse evidently do not appreciate having a citizen
invade their territory and help defendants fight their
tickets. I was thrown out of the building three times in the
week of Aug. 2 - 6 !
Hawthorne, Aug. 24, 2004
Trials: All Tickets Dismissed - But Not Likely to Happen
Again
The Aug. 24 session started with Hawthorne police Officer
Mark Escalante grabbing me and threatening to arrest me for talking
to the defendants who were waiting to get into the courtroom, and
ended with all red light camera tickets being dismissed. I
hope that the former situation will not be repeated, and I imagine
that Officer Escalante will take steps to ensure that the latter
does not happen
again.
Here are
the details of the Aug. 24 trial session.
I did not attend the Aug. 10 or 17 trial sessions. The
calendar for the Aug. 24 trial session included approximately fourteen
Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only about eight defendants
showed up.
Before Div. N court came
into session, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone in the
courtroom. One defendant told him he wanted it. I'm not
sure if that defendant had a regular ticket, or a camera ticket.
A couple minutes later, Officer Escalante offered to show
the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted to see
it. All of the camera defendants chose to view their video.
The showing was done in a small room adjacent to the courtroom, one
defendant at a time. After the viewings, two camera
defendants elected to take traffic school. One of the
two asked for and (later) got Second Offender traffic
school.
At about 2:10 p.m. the judge came in, but it was not Comm. Torres,
whose name is on the door at Div. N. It was Comm. John L.
Mason, who also has filled-in in Div. 1 downstairs (see Inglewood
section, below). Comm. Torres' name sign remained up on the
bench, so the defendants may not have known that it was a different
judge. Comm. Mason immediately announced the names of six
non-camera defendants whose cases were being dismissed because the
officer was unavailable or had "no independent recollection."
He also dismissed one red light camera case, because the file was
not available.
Then the trials began. Two non-camera tickets were
heard first. A defendant ticketed for 80 mph in a 65
presented a novel defense. He said that his car had a rebuilt
transmission, which unbeknownst to him had altered the speedometer
reading, and that he had been unaware of his excessive speed as it
was late at night on an empty freeway. He argued that to
convict him it was necessary to find that he had intended to
speed. The judge
took the case under advisement, and told the defendant that if he
later found him guilty, he would reduce the charged speed to less
than 80 (so he would be eligible for traffic school) and allow him
to go to Second Offender traffic school. The second
non-camera defendant was cited for changing into the carpool lane
over a double-double yellow. She was found guilty and was
offered traffic school, which she was not familiar with. The
judge explained how it worked, but she ended up refusing his
offer.
Comm. Mason then
provided a reading of rights tailored for the upcoming red light
camera cases.
Then Officer Escalante gave his standard testimony, which would apply
to all of the camera
tickets. He explained that the car must be going at least 15
mph for the camera to trip, and that it takes a 12-second long
video of the violation. Officer Escalante also testified that
the City had met its legal (foundational) obligations, by giving thirty
days of warning tickets, from 3-19-04 to 4-18-04 at the city's
first camera at Hawthorne Blvd. at El Segundo Blvd. [but not on
camera installations made after that initial launch], posting the
required warning signs, advertising the installation of the system,
and providing yellow phases meeting CalTrans guidelines, including
yellow times of 3.0 seconds on left turns. He noted that the
city had filed, with the court, a survey of the timing of the
lights. He then said that the People were ready to
proceed.
The first defendant was represented by a lawyer. He had two
red light camera tickets. The police were not prepared to
proceed on the first ticket, which was at Rosecrans and Hindry, so
it was dismissed.
The lawyer said that he'd like to ask some questions about the
second ticket, but would also like to get Second Offender traffic
school for his client. Comm. Mason replied: "I won't
deny traffic school because you tried the case."
The lawyer said he wanted to ask about some foundational
issues. He asked Officer Escalante, "Who checks the
system?" Officer Escalante said that it is a man at RedFlex
in Arizona, who does it remotely, by wire, daily. Under
further questioning, Officer Escalante testified that he did not
know who the local "tech" is who responds to problems, or what time
the daily checks are done. The lawyer then asked if there was
a "log" for the day of the violation, showing that the camera was
functioning properly. Officer Escalante said there was
none. The lawyer asked if the system is assumed to be working
properly if a citation is issued. Officer Escalante said
"yes." The attorney then moved for dismissal of the case,
because of lack of foundation and hearsay. He noted something
that I did not understand, about the business record exception to
the hearsay rule.
The judge said he tended to agree, that the situation reminded him
of what had once been said about breathalyzers, "we got a reading
so it must be working." He then granted the motion to reject
the foundation, and asked Officer Escalante if he had any other
evidence. Officer Escalante replied "no." Comm. Mason then
dismissed the case, and commented that (in the future) the police
should "bring the records."
I went out of the courtroom for about two minutes. When I
returned, Comm. Mason and Officer Escalante were having a
discussion about dismissing the rest of the red light cases -
possibly initiated by Officer Escalante. Comm. Mason then
dismissed the rest of the cases - about four.
Hawthorne, Aug. 30, 2004 Arraignments:
Right-Turn
Ticket Dismissed
During the Aug. 30 arraignments, Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein dismissed
a right-turn ticket at Rosecrans and
Hindry. More dismissals could be coming. While there is no
guarantee of
what will happen, I recommend that you take your Rosecrans/Hindry
right-turn ticket to an arraignment.
Hawthorne, Aug. 31, 2004 Trials: Six of Nine
Dismissed
The calendar for the Aug. 31 weekly trial session included
thirteen Hawthorne
red light camera cases; however, only nine defendants showed up.
Before Div. N court came into session, the bailiff offered traffic
school to everyone in the courtroom. No one took the
offer. A couple minutes later, Officer Escalante
offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted
to see it. Some of the camera defendants chose to view their
video. After the viewings, one defendant told him she wanted
school, and was (later) granted Second Offender traffic school.
At 2:01 p.m. Comm. Torres came in, and immediately told four camera
defendants that their cases were being dismissed. He did not
say why, but I believe it was because the face photos were of poor
quality. He then told 8 - 9 non-camera defendants that their
cases were being dismissed, because the officer wasn't
present. There was one more "no officer" dismissal later in
the session.
Then the trials began. Three routine non-camera cases were
heard first, and dealt with.
Then Officer Escalante gave his standard testimony that would apply
to all the camera tickets. He covered the same things that he
testified to on the 24th, plus he noted that he had, for each
ticket, a letter from RedFlex certifying that the camera was
calibrated and working properly on the date of the
violation.
The first camera defendant had a ticket for a right turn from
northbound Hindry onto Rosecrans. Officer Escalante showed a
DMV (driver's license) photo on the screen and the judge asked the
defendant if that was him. The defendant said "no."
Officer Escalante asked him if it was his brother; the
defendant said "it's not me at all." The judge noted that the
DOB's (and other info) did not match, and dismissed the case.
Officer Escalante said he would re-file it (presumably against
someone else).
The next camera defendant was told, as soon as he came forward,
that his case was being dismissed because the face photo was not to
the court's standards.
The next camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from
westbound Rosecrans, to Hindry. Although the face photo was
unclear and very small even when enlarged on the screen, she did
not challenge it. She claimed the signal was yellow.
Comm. Torres came down off the bench and accompanied her over to
the screen to point out the red signal. After some more
argument by the defendant, he found her guilty.
The next camera defendant was the one who had earlier asked for
Second Offender traffic school. She was granted it.
The last camera defendant's ticket was also for a left turn from
westbound Rosecrans, to Hindry. The photo was also of poor
quality, but he did not challenge it. He said that he had
heard that the signal was faulty; however, he offered no
evidence as to what the fault was. He was found guilty.
Neither of the camera defendants who were found guilty asked the
judge for traffic school. However, they told me later that
the clerk offered it to them.
Hawthorne, Sept. 7, 2004 Trials: Seven
of Ten Dismissed
The calendar for the Sept. 7 weekly trial session included seventeen
Hawthorne red light camera
cases; however, only ten defendants showed up. In the hallway
(before the doors were opened) everyone discussed their tickets -
all but one were at Rosecrans and Hindry. I looked at a
number of defendants' tickets, and noticed that the data strip at
the top of the photos was printed so poorly that it was not
possible to read important figures like the Late Time or the speed
of the vehicle.
Before Div. N court came into session, the bailiff offered traffic
school to everyone in the courtroom. No one took the
offer. A couple minutes later, Hawthorne police
department Officer Mark Escalante offered to show the ticket video
to any camera defendant who wanted to see it. Most of the
camera defendants chose to view their video. After the
viewings, no one opted for school.
At 1:58 p.m. the judge came in. It was Comm. John L. Mason,
not Comm. Torres. If there was an announcement of the
substitution, I did not hear it, nor did Comm. Mason have his name
sign up on the bench. Comm. Torres' sign was absent,
though. There was no sign at all.
Comm. Mason immediately told eight non-camera defendants
that their cases were being dismissed, because the officer wasn't
present. There was one more "no officer" dismissal later in
the session.
Then the trials began. Three routine non-camera cases were
heard first. Two were speeding tickets, and were dismissed
when the officers, under questioning by the judge, admitted that
they had not performed every possible calibration of their radar
gun before using it on the date in question. A carpool
ticket, with two counts, was partly dismissed and partly
upheld.
Then Comm. Mason gave his instructions for the red light camera
cases. Among other things, he said that defendants could ask
foundational questions, if they felt that the foundation had not
been properly laid. After that, he announced the names of 5
defendants whose cases were being dismissed, because of poor
photos.
Then Officer Escalante gave his standard testimony that would apply
to all the camera tickets. He covered the same things that he
testified to on Aug. 31st.
The first camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from
westbound Rosecrans onto Hindry. The video showed that he was
late by a car length. He was found guilty, and asked for
traffic school, which was granted.
The next defendant had a ticket for a right turn from northbound
Hindry to eastbound Rosecrans. He argued that he was cited
for running a red arrow (subsection (c) of CVC 21453) but there was
no red arrow. Officer Escalante asked to amend the charge to
"(a)" but the judge said it was too late to do so and dismissed the
case. Officer Escalante said that they had since corrected
that problem.
The next defendant had a ticket for a left turn from westbound
Rosecrans onto Hindry. Like the first camera defendant, she
was in the #2 (furthest from the center of the street) left turn
lane and was a car length late. She was found guilty, and got
traffic school.
The court and the police had thought that the next defendant was a
"no show." But then he responded to his name being called,
and the police, after a pause, asked for his case to be
dismissed. I could not tell if it was because of bad face
photo, or for some technical reason.
The last defendant had a ticket for a left turn from southbound
Hawthorne onto El Segundo. He was in the #2 lane and was a
car length late. He was found guilty and was offered traffic
school, which he took.
The session was over at 3:00 p.m.
Hawthorne, Sept. 14, 2004 Trials: All Tickets
Dismissed
The calendar for the Sept. 14 weekly trial session included thirteen
Hawthorne red light camera cases;
however, only nine defendants showed up. In the hallway (before
the doors were opened) everyone discussed their tickets - 5 or 6
were Hindry at Rosecrans right turn tickets where the defendant had
been cited (incorrectly) for CVC 21453(c). (See notes from
Sept. 7 trials for details.)
At 1:44 p.m. Comm. Torres came in. Comm. Torres immediately
told all 9 camera defendants that their cases were being dismissed,
because the officer wasn't available. In the remaining cases
where the defendants had failed to show up, their bail was
forfeited and a conviction was entered.
Moral of the story: Show
up for your trial!
Hawthorne, Sept. 16, 2004:
Arrested, Witnesses Needed
At 8:15 on the 16th, I was arrested for distributing highwayrobbery.net
literature
outside the Inglewood courthouse (where the Hawthorne tickets are
heard). If you saw the incident, please contact me. For
more details, see the Sept. 17 entry in the Inglewood
section.
Hawthorne,
Sept. 21, 2004 Trials: Thirteen of Fourteen Dismissed - Many
for Right Turns
The calendar for the Sept. 21 weekly trial session included seventeen
Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only fourteen defendants
showed up. In the hallway (before the doors were opened)
everyone discussed their tickets, and 7 or 8 were for Hindry at
Rosecrans right turns where the defendant had been cited
(incorrectly) for CVC 21453(c). (See notes from Sept. 7
trials for details.)
Before Div. N court came into session, the bailiff offered traffic
school to everyone in the courtroom. No one took the
offer. A couple minutes later, Officer Escalante
offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted
to see it. Some of the camera defendants chose to view their
video. After the viewings, none of the defendants told him
they wanted school.
At 2:14 p.m. Comm. Torres came in, and immediately dismissed three
camera tickets, at the request of the police. He then told nine
non-camera defendants that their cases were being dismissed,
because the officer wasn't present.
Then the trials began. A routine non-camera case was heard
first, and dealt with.
Then Officer Escalante asked for the dismissal of five more camera
tickets. Then he gave his standard testimony that would apply
to all the camera ticket trials. He covered the same things
that he testified to on Aug. 31st.
The first camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from
westbound Rosecrans onto Hindry. She argued that the signal
phasing was wrong, and that the yellow was too short. She was
found guilty, and did not request traffic school.
The next camera defendant had a ticket for a right turn from
northbound Hindry onto Rosecrans. He argued that he had been
cited for the wrong code section. Officer Escalante noted
that the citations were supposed to have been amended, but this one
wasn't. The judge dismissed the case, noting: "It's the
details."
Then four more tickets at the same location were quickly
dismissed.
The last camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from
westbound Rosecrans to Hindry. He argued that the arrow shown
in the photo was not red, but amber. The judge eventually
agreed, and dismissed the case, noting: "You're going to have
to perfect your
equipment."
The session ended at 3:00.
Hawthorne, Sept. 28, 2004 Trials: Three
Dismissed, Two
Suspended Sentences, Two Guilty
The calendar for the Sept. 28 weekly trial session included sixteen
Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only seven defendants
showed up. In the hallway (before the doors were opened)
everyone discussed their tickets. All of them were at the
Rosecrans / Hindry intersection, with four being for right turns from
northbound Hindry, and three being for left turns from westbound
Rosecrans. Three of the four right-turn defendants had
received a notice of a motion by the city to amend the citation
number to 21453(a). While we were all out in the
hallway, Officer Escalante arrived, and again threatened to arrest
me for "interfering with a police operation." He did not
physically grab me as he had on Aug. 2. After Div. N's doors opened and
the defendants filed
inside and were seated, the bailiff offered traffic school to
everyone, but no one took it. A minute later, Officer
Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant
who wanted to see it. Most of the defendants chose to view
their video. After the viewings, none of the defendants told him
they wanted school.
At 1:58 p.m. the judge came in. It was Comm. John L. Mason,
not Comm. Torres. Comm. Mason's name plate was up on the
bench.
Then the trials began. He immediately dismissed, at the
request of the police, the ticket of a camera defendant who had
made a right turn from Hindry but had not been sent an amendment
(to the correct VC section number). He then dismissed nine
non-camera cases, because the officers weren't present.
He then tried four routine non-camera cases. All four defendants
were found guilty, and were offered traffic school. Then he
dismissed one more non-camera case, because the officer wasn't
present.
Then the camera cases began. Officer Escalante said that he
had a certified letter from Clint Smith, the City's traffic
engineer, stating that the approach speed for left and right turns
is 25, and that the City's yellow lights (for lefts and rights) are
set at 3.0 seconds, which exceeds the length required for that
approach speed. He also testified that for each case he had a
certified letter from Angie Moreno of RedFlex, stating that the
system was functioning properly as of the time of the
violation. Finally, Officer Escalante testified that on some
of the citations [right turns] a letter had been sent to the defendants
by Certified mail, notifying
them of a motion by the City to correct the VC section number to
21453(a).
Of the six remaining camera defendants, two were dismissed because of
poor photos, two were found guilty, and two were given suspended
sentences (no fine, but still a point on record unless defendant
attends traffic school). All who requested traffic school were
granted it.
Hawthorne, Oct. 5, 2004 Trials: New Judge; Four
Dismissed, Five Guilty
I
was thrown out of the courthouse just before the Oct. 5 not-guilty
trial session (for giving copies of CVC 21455.5 to some defendants), so
the following information comes from an Oct. 27 review of the files at
the clerk's office.
There were sixteen cases on the calendar, all from Rosecrans / Hindry.
At least eight of them were for right turns from Hindry.
The files of most of those right-turn defendants contained an
amendment, filed by the City, changing the code section from 21453(c)
to 21453(a). Two defendants failed to show up, and forfeited their
bail. Of the defendants who were present, four of their cases
were dismissed at the request of the City, and five were found guilty.
All who requested traffic school were granted it.
There were also five trials by declaration ("TBD"). [Prior to
reviewing the records of this court session, I wasn't aware that there
could be a number of TBD's on the calendar. In the future, I will
routinely review the records for TBD's, and report on them here.]
Four of the TBD's resulted in a guilty verdict, and one was
dismissed. Among those found guilty was a defendant who argued
(correctly) that he had been charged for the wrong code section
(21453(c)) for his Hindry right turn. And there was no amendment
(to 21453(a)) in his file. The dismissal was for a defendant who
complained that he had received his (re-issued) citation forty-two days
after the date of the violation.
According to the records, the cases were heard by Reginald A. Dunn, who
retired from his judgeship in 2002.
Hawthorne, Oct. 12, 19 and 26, 2004 Trials: Six
Dismissed, Twenty-Three Guilty; All But Two at Rosecrans / Hindry
All three sessions were heard by Reginald A. Dunn, a retired judge.
More than two-thirds of the Rosecrans / Hindry tickets were for
Hindry right turns.
Two of the six dismissals were at the request of Officer Escalante.
The other four were because of poor quality "face" photos, where
the defendant resisted the impulse to answer questions such as:
"Is that you in there?" or "Do you recognize yourself?"
(You have the right to not testify.)
During one of the trials, the defendant
argued that the photo could be any one of a number of his employees who
had access to the truck. The photo wasn't totally blurry - the
officer quipped, "Do you have a twin brother?" and the judge said, "I
think it is you - I see shades and a nose." But then the
judge said,
after taking another look at a blow-up of the photo, "If he murdered
somebody, I don't see why I should treat a traffic case any
differently." He then dismissed the case.
Two defendants tried to raise the issue of the lack of thirty days of
warning tickets (Defect # 6) when the Rosecrans / Hindry camera was
started (it was started about a month after the first camera in the
system), but were not sufficiently familiar with VC 21455.5 (warning
tickets vs. public noticing) to be able to respond to Officer
Escalante's claim: "The law says all we have to do is at the
beginning of the system - we can put them up anywhere we want after
that and not have to give noticing."
All who requested traffic school, or second offender school, were
granted it.
Hawthorne, Nov. 2, 2004 Trials: No More Face
Photos?
Comm. Torres was back. There were fourteen camera cases on the
calendar. Two were trials by declaration. I will review the records of
them in a week or so, and report on them here.
At the beginning of the session, Officer Escalante requested that two
cases be dismissed. (One had a fuzzy photo, the other had been issued
to the wrong car or the wrong defendant.)
After viewing the video, two defendants changed their pleas to guilty
and took traffic school.
Four cases were forfeited as the defendant did not show up.
A defendant with a Hindry right-turn ticket argued that he didn't have
enough time to stop. He was found guilty.
The next defendant had a ticket for a left from westbound Rosecrans.
He brought a witness, who was driving the car in the other left
turn lane. She testified that the signal wasn't red. The
defendant questioned why the witness hadn't received a ticket too, as
the video showed her running the light too. Officer Escalante
examined the video and said that she had cut the corner, had missed the
loop, so had not been ticketed. He said he would now send her a
ticket! The defendant argued that it had been 10 - 11 hours since
RedFlex had "pinged" the camera to test it. Then he rested his
case and was found guilty.
The last defendant had been cited under CVC
Section 21453(c) for a right turn from Hindry. He argued that it
was the wrong section. Officer Escalante said that he had sent
the defendant an amendment, changing the section to 21453(a), on June
8. The defendant said that he never got it. Officer
Escalante re-checked his paperwork, apologized, and said that it had
been sent on Oct. 25. Comm. Torres asked him why he had waited so
long to mail the amendment. After Officer Escalante tried to
explain, Comm. Torres said, "I heard some of these cases over 1-1/2
months ago and we had a problem... It's unfair. If you have proof of
service before today, I'll accept it." Officer Escalante said he
didn't, so Comm. Torres dismissed the case.
A
noticeable change during the trials was that Officer Escalante didn't
show the "face" photos during his courtroom presentation of the
evidence, and neither the defendants nor the judge said anything about
it or requested that the photos be shown.
Hawthorne, Nov. 9, 2004 Trials: Police Dismiss
More Than Half of Cases; I Get Banned from Courtroom; I
Recommend "Challenging" Comm. Torres
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres. There were approx. twenty
camera cases on the calendar. Six of them were Trials by
Declaration ("TBD").
At the beginning of the session, the bailiff offered traffic school to
everyone, and two camera defendants took it. Later, when Officer
Escalante began his presentation of the camera tickets, he requested
that eight cases be dismissed. Among the eight names he read off
were the names of the two defendants who had earlier requested traffic
school. I do not know if the guilty pleas they had made (in order
to get traffic school) were changed to 'dismissed.' (I talked to
the six other 'dismissed' defendants to find out why their tickets had
been dismissed. Two had not received the amendment letter for
their northbound Hindry right-turn ticket, and three had very fuzzy
face photos. I couldn't discover the reason for the dismissal of
the sixth ticket.)
The six defendants who argued their cases all lost. All but one
were ticketed at Rosecrans / Hindry. During these trials, Officer
Escalante did not display the "face" photos to the judge, and only one
defendant raised the issue. All who lost and asked for traffic
school were granted it.
In the intervals between the six trials, Comm. Torres announced the
names of an additional five defendants. When they didn't answer,
he said their cases were "forfeit." I noticed that four of the
five were defendants who were on the calendar for a TBD. At the
end of the trial session I asked the bailiff, and then the court clerk,
about the TBD's. The judge heard me make the inquiry with the
clerk, and announced that the only person who has the right to inquire
about an item on the calendar is the defendant. I then left the
courtroom. A few minutes later, while I was seated outside the
courtroom, the bailiff came out and told me that the judge had banned
me from attending any further trials in his courtroom.
Based upon the very low success rate of defendants who have recently
argued their cases before Comm. Torres, I am now making the following
recommendation: If your case is not one of those dismissed at the
request of the officer and you have been called forward for your trial,
do a Peremptory Challenge to remove Comm. Torres from your case.
See the Challenges
page of this website. I also recommend doing a Peremptory
Challenge if you are doing a Trial by Declaration.
Hawthorne, Nov. 10, 2004: Yellow Increased at
Northbound Hindry
On Nov. 10, 2004 I received the signal timing charts for Rosecrans /
Hindry. (Signal timing charts show the length of the yellow, as
programmed into the signal controller.) The newest chart showed a
"Date Completed" of 9-29-04 and also indicated that the yellow for
northbound Hindry was increased from 3.0 seconds, to 4.0 seconds,
probably on that same date. Since drivers in the northbound
left-turn lane have the option of going straight across (into the
shopping center), I believe that the yellow was lengthened because 3.0
seconds would be illegally short for that through movement.
If you have pre-Sept. 30 northbound Hindry ticket, especially one for
turning left or going straight through, you could fight it based upon
the length of the yellow.
Copies of the old and new signal timing charts for Hindry are posted on
the Hawthorne Documents
page.
Hawthorne, Nov. 13, 2004: Ticket Counts Arrive;
Rosecrans / Hindry is Highest in State
On
Nov. 10 the City sent me a RedFlex "Customer Violations Report"
containing
camera-by-camera data. The Report showed that the Rosecrans /
Hindry cameras have been issuing about 1000 tickets per month, the most
I have seen at any intersection in California. The runners-up are
Harbor / Warner in Santa Ana, which recently averaged 744 tickets per
month, Ming / South Real in Bakersfield, which briefly averaged 660
tickets per month, and Firestone / Atlantic in South Gate, which
averaged 620 tickets per month during the first half of 2004. For
more info about Santa Ana, Bakersfield or South Gate, see the Camera
Towns page.
For more details about Hawthorne, see the Hawthorne Documents page.
Hawthorne, Nov. 16, 2004
Trials: Most Cases Dismissed
I have been banned from Div. N, so this report is based on my
observations from the hallway.
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres. There were forty-six cases
on the calendar, of which twenty-five
were camera cases. Four of the camera cases were Trials by
Declaration ("TBD").
At 2:05 p.m. about eight non-camera defendants stormed out of the
courtroom. Their cases had been dismissed as the officers had not
shown up for the trial.
At 2:45 p.m. six or seven camera defendants came out, in a group.
Their cases had been dismissed "in the interest of justice," probably
at the request of Officer Escalante. All but one of them had poor
face photos on their tickets. Two camera defendants whose cases
would have been among those dismissed, had failed to show up so their
cases were probably not dismissed.
There were five trials, four of which resulted in guilty
verdicts. One case was taken under submission. During the
trials, Officer Escalante continued his new practice (first seen Nov.
2) of not voluntarily showing the face photos to the judge.
Two defendants asked that the photo be displayed. One of
the two questioned the photo's adequacy, but the judge said he thought
it was the defendant in the photo. However, that defendant had a
short Late Time (0.27) on a Hindry right turn ticket, so the judge took
the case "under submission," with the verdict to be mailed to the
defendant. The other defendant of the two didn't raise the
issue of the quality of the photo. However, he did ask for the
guidelines (Defect # 10), and Officer Escalante replied, "We
issue tickets to people who run the light." The defendant did not
then follow-up with a request for the written guidelines.
Doing the math, I estimate that six defendants failed to show up for
the trial session (plus the two whose cases would have been dismissed
per Officer Escalante's request).
When the session was over I showed Officer Escalante the timing charts
with the new longer yellow for northbound Hindry (see Nov. 10 entry,
above). He said he hadn't been aware of the change, and that I
may have miss-interpreted the chart. Then the elevator
came,
and he left.
Hawthorne, Nov. 23, 2004 Trials: Five Dismissed,
Three Convicted
There
were fewer cases than usual. Other than that, this session was
very much like the Nov. 16 session, except that three defendants opted
to grab traffic school right away, even before Officer Escalante could
make his request for dismissal of some cases (of which there would be
five).
During the trial session Officer Escalante came out into the hallway
briefly and told me he believed the northbound Hindry yellow had not
been increased.
After the session was over, I called the County Public Works
Department, which is responsible for the signal settings, and confirmed
my interpretation of the charts. I then called the police
department and left a message for Officer Escalante, giving the Public
Works phone number.
Hawthorne, Nov. 30, 2004 Trials: Two Dismissed,
One Guilty, One "Under Submission"
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres. There were just twelve
camera cases on the calendar, and six of those were Trials by
Declaration.
One defendant took traffic school right away, without trying his case.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the first case to come to
trial, because, he said, it looked like the defendant stopped (before
making his right turn from Hindry). The ticket could also have
been dismissed because there was no face in the face photo - just
windshield. But Officer Escalante did not show the face photo to
the judge.
The next defendant was another Hindry right turn. He had
previously done a Trial by Declaration wherein he argued that he had
been cited under the wrong code section. He had been found
guilty. This was his Trial de Novo. A few days before, he
had received an amendment of the code section, and he was again found
guilty.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the next case after the
defendant got him to display the face photo.
The next defendant asked for traffic school before arguing her case,
even though she had not received an amendment letter for her
incorrectly-cited Hindry right turn.
The case of the last defendant, who was a lawyer, was taken "under
submission," with the decision to be mailed to the defendant. He
told me that the judge had indicated that verbal guidelines (see Defect
# 10) were OK, and that the lack of thirty days of warning tickets
didn't matter. He also said that Officer Escalante had said that
there had not been any change to the length of the Rosecrans/Hindry
yellow.
After the session, Officer Escalante told me that he was going to
convince the judge that everyone who fights their ticket should be
denied traffic school.
On Dec. 1, I phoned Sgt. Kauffman at the police department and told him
about the new timing chart. He agreed to check-out the new charts.
Hawthorne, Dec. 7, 2004 Trials: Four Dismissed,
Three Convicted
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres. There were twenty-two
camera cases on the calendar, of which four were Trials by Declaration.
I have been banned from Div. N, so this report is based on my
observations from the hallway.
Six defendants took traffic school right away, without trying
their cases or even waiting to see if theirs would be one of the cases
where Officer Escalante would request dismissal.
Then the trial session began.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the first case, without
specifying why (he doesn't have to). However, it may have been
because the face photo was very blurry.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the next case, because he had
not brought the video/photo evidence with him.
The next defendant brought up the longer yellow, and told me that
Officer Escalante denied that it had been increased. However, it
turned out that his ticket was for a left from westbound Rosecrans (for
which the yellow has not yet been increased). He was found
guilty.
The next defendant had a northbound Hindry ticket, but did not bring up
the longer yellow. He was found guilty.
The next defendant had two tickets. One was a northbound Hindry
ticket for which she had not received an amendment. It was
dismissed. The other ticket was dismissed because Officer
Escalante thought that the video was no good.
The next defendant was found guilty. I could not get any details
about her ticket, as she was too upset.
After the session, Officer Escalante told me that in the future there
would be no more traffic school granted after trial because "You just
pi$$ed-off the judge." (At previous trial sessions Officer
Escalante told me that he was trying to convince Comm. Torres to deny
traffic school to those who fought their tickets and lost. If
Officer Escalante has truly succeeded in changing the judge's policy
and you see the judge deny post-trial traffic school to a defendant at
your trial session, I suggest that you do a Peremptory Challenge to
get a different judge - unless you have a very blurry face photo.)
Hawthorne, Dec. 14, 2004 Trials: Traffic School
Still Available, So Far
Comm. Torres was absent, and the trials were heard by Comm.
Mason. There were
twenty-three camera cases on the calendar, of which four were Trials by
Declaration. There were also thirty-two non-camera cases on the
calendar.
This report is based on my observations from the hallway, and
interviews with defendants.
In the hallway before the session began, I noticed that several
defendants had tickets for right
turns from Hindry, but had not received amendment letters (amending the
code section to 21453(a)).
After the defendants were seated in the courtroom, Officer Escalante
announced to everyone there (including about 20 non-camera defendants)
that the judge would not grant traffic school after trial. He
announced that it was because of (my) meddling. Shortly after
making
that announcement, Officer Escalante went into the back room (judge's
chambers?), then emerged and made a revised statement about traffic
school, that the granting of it would be at the judge's
discretion. Around this time, there was a rush of about ten
people who grabbed traffic school. There are two versions of the
exact sequence of events. One defendant told me that the rush
occurred
before Officer Escalante's revised announcement. Another
defendant said that the rush was after the revised announcement.
Right
after the judge came onto the bench, there was another rush of (about
thirteen) people leaving the courtroom. They had non-camera
tickets, and their cases were dismissed by the judge because the
officers had not shown up. There was one more non-camera
defendant whose officer didn't show up, but for some reason she waived
her right to a speedy trial, to allow the case to be continued to a
later date so that the officer would have another chance to show up.
During the time the judge was hearing the non-camera cases (which are
heard first), Officer Escalante and his team - Officer Sepulveda and a
new addition, Officer Michael Mullen - were showing photos of their
violations to defendants who wished to see them. After seeing
their photos, several more camera defendants elected to take traffic
school rather than go to trial.
When the camera trials began, Officer Escalante asked the Court to
dismiss two tickets, for unspecified reasons.
The first defendant to argue his case had a ticket for the left turn
from westbound Rosecrans, and argued that the 3.0 yellow was too
short. Officer Escalante countered that the 3.0 met a state
guideline. The defendant was found guilty.
The next defendant also had a westbound left ticket. He argued
that the camera was out of calibration, because the time stamp on the
ticket disagreed with the time on his receipt from the CostCo gas
station nearby. Officer Escalante countered that the CostCo clock could
be off and that in any case the exact time didn't matter, "You still
ran through the light." Comm. Mason offered the defendant a
continuance, so that he could bring in an expert witness, but the
defendant declined, and was found guilty.
The next defendant also had a westbound left ticket. He admitted
that he ran the light. He then asked Officer Escalante if ever in
his patrol experience he had not cited someone for running a red light,
because of extenuating circumstances. He said, "Yes." The
defendant argued that his car, which he had just picked up from the
nearby Ford dealer, was running out of gas and sputtering and that he
kept going, to avoid stalling in the intersection and jamming-up
traffic. The judge felt that there was sufficient "necessity," and
found the defendant not guilty.
The next defendant had a ticket for a right turn from Hindry. He
had received an amendment letter changing the cited section from (c) to
(a), but only two days before. Comm. Mason initially discussed
offering the defendant a continuance, since the amendment was so
recent. Then, after some discussion, he decided that the correct
section for the violation was 21453(b), and found the defendant not
guilty.
During this trial session, all who requested traffic school were
granted it.
During this trial session, the
Hawthorne red light camera team continued their new (and unique)
practice of
not showing the judge the face photos.
During this trial session, although he did not do it as part of
official testimony, Officer Escalante stated that he still believed
that the yellow time on northbound Hindry had not been increased from
3.0 to 4.0.
Hawthorne, Dec. 21, 2004 Trials: Most Cases
Dismissed
There were 36 camera cases on the calendar, including three Trials by
Declaration.
Shortly after the defendants were admitted into the courtroom, two
people with camera tickets exited. They had elected to change
their pleas to guilty and take traffic school, without
waiting for the judge to come in.
After the courtroom had been open for about half an hour, all the
remaining camera defendants exited at once - their cases had been
dismissed
because there was no evidence against them - the Hawthorne PD red light
camera team had
not arrived. The defendants had been told that the officers had
not come because there was an unspecified computer problem that made
the (digital)
ticket files unavailable.
Hawthorne, Dec. 28, 2004 Trials: Most Cases
Continued
There were sixteen camera cases on the calendar, including two Trials
by Declaration.
Three people elected to take traffic school without waiting for the
judge. One more asked for it a little later.
Three cases were dismissed, one because the defendant had a northbound
Hindry right-turn ticket and had not received an amendment of the
charges. It was not clear why the other two were dismissed.
The remaining camera cases all were continued to Jan. 4 - possibly
because the judge had become ill. Each of those defendants should
check to see if that new date is beyond 45 days (speedy trial) from the
date they pled not guilty and paid their bail.
Hawthorne, Jan. 4, 2005 Trials: New Judge; Six
Dismissed, Six Convicted
For
the New Year, Comm. Torres' courtroom has been re-designated as
Department 8, and the Department N sign and red light camera ticket
case load has been moved to the courtroom of Comm. John R. Johnson.
On Jan. 4, Officer Escalante was absent, so the Hawthorne police were
represented by Officer Michael Mullen.
One person elected to take traffic school without waiting for Comm.
Johnson to come in. His face photo was a total blur, but he was
convinced that all the police needed to show the judge was the photo of
the license plates.
When the judge began hearing the cases, Officer Mullen immediately
asked for the dismissal of four cases.
The next case was dismissed because the face photo was very blurry - a
"4" on my Photo Grading
scale. With the photo blown up all the way on the screen in the
courtroom, you could tell that the driver was the same age (+/- 25
years) and gender as the defendant, but that's all. The skin
color was wrong. The judge said, "I can't really tell if that is
one and the same person."
The next defendant, who had a ticket for the northbound Hindry right
turn, argued that the City should put up a sign telling people they
must stop. That argument didn't work, so he asked that the face
photo be shown. The blown-up photo showed a very blurry face,
with the sun visor covering the place where the eyes would be. It
was a "5" on my scale - age, gender and skin color were evident.
The judge said, "It's kind of washed-out." The defendant didn't
further pursue the issue. He did not ask the judge, "Are you sure
it's me." He was found guilty.
The next defendant, who had a ticket for an Imperial/Freeman right
turn, argued that he didn't know he was supposed to stop. That
argument didn't work, so he asked for the face photo to be shown.
The blown-up photo was an "8" on my scale, with the driver in
half-profile. The defendant said that he had an 18-year old
son. The judge said that the photo didn't look like that
age. The defendant was found guilty.
The next defendant had a very early Rosecrans/Hindry ticket, from
April. The judge asked Officer Mullen about the grace (warning
ticket) period. I thought I heard Officer Mullen reply that
there had been a grace period at Rosecrans/Hindry beginning March
19. Later, I asked Officer Mullen about that testimony, and he
said that
he believed he had testified that there had not been a grace period at
that intersection. The defendant didn't put on any defense, but
elected to ask for traffic school, which was granted.
The next defendant had a ticket for the northbound Hindry right which
showed his speed as being 19 mph. He argued that a car couldn't
make the turn at that speed. That didn't work, so he asked that
the face photo be shown. It was a "3" on my scale - the skin
color was correct, but it was just an outline of a head, no
features. The defendant did not ask the judge, "Are you
sure it's me." He was found guilty.
The next defendant said that a man in an orange vest had a wire
attached to the camera and was clicking a button at the time her
violation occurred. She said that she parked and approached him
but he would not identify himself and told her "None of your
---damn
business" when she asked what he was doing. She said she left
three messages on the Hawthorne traffic bureau number to discuss her
ticket, but never received a call back. She was found guilty.
The next defendant argued that the yellow was too short for the left
from westbound Rosecrans, and that it was a "trap." The judge
asked Officer Mullen if RedFlex had anything to do with the setting,
and he replied "None at all." She was found guilty.
The last defendant, a cab driver, said, "It's not me." The face
photo was blurry but you could see the driver's eyebrows and a partial
profile, which looked a lot like the defendant but also a looked a
little younger (to me) - an "8" on my scale. The cabbie also
presented some paperwork, from his dispatcher, which he said showed
that he was not driving that vehicle at the time of the
violation. The judge said he had "Reasonable doubt," and found
him not guilty.
During this trial session, all who requested traffic school
post-conviction were granted it.
Based upon Comm. Johnson's acceptance of what I think are
very blurry photos, I am now making the following
recommendation: If your photo is very blurry, do a Peremptory
Challenge to remove him from your case. See the Challenges page of this
website.
Also, Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein, who sat in Div. 1 and
handled the
arraignments of both Hawthorne and Inglewood tickets, received a
new assignment for 2005. Information about the new judge in Div.
1 will be found in the Inglewood section of this website.
Hawthorne, Jan. 11, 2005 Trials: City Wants to Change It Back to the Way It
Was
The Jan. 11 trials were heard by Comm. Johnson, and
Officer Mullen represented the Hawthorne police.
At the Tuesday
Hawthorne trial sessions, the
court calendar (the list of cases to be heard that day) is
typically about half regular old-fashioned traffic
tickets, and half red light camera tickets. The regular tickets
are tried first, which provides a time period of an hour or so during
which the red light camera team moves to a small room just outside the
courtroom and shows the video of their violation to any camera
defendant who wishes to view it.
The last "yellow ticket" trial before the red light camera ticket
trials began was of a lady who was accused of running a stop
sign. The Hawthorne motorcycle officer who had ticketed her used
the red light camera team's LCD projector to show the court a hand-held
video he
had made of the alleged violation. The judge found her not
guilty, because while she didn't stop at the limit line, she did almost
stop ten or so feet later - she slowed-down to 2 - 4 mph (my
estimate). The
judge contrasted that with the fifteen mph threshold for red light
camera tickets.
The first camera ticket was dismissed after the defendant asked the
judge if he thought the face photo looked like her. In his reply,
the judge's mentioned "poor camera work" and said, "I'm not going to
speculate."
The next defendant immediately asked the judge for Second Offender
traffic school - which was granted.
When the next defendant came forward, the police immediately make a
request for dismissal, which was granted. His ticket was for a
Hindry right turn. I don't know why it was dismissed.
The next defendant's ticket was for the left turn from westbound
Rosecrans. The officers routinely "freeze frame" the video at the
instant the light turns red, and the video for this defendant showed
him 4 - 5 feet before the limit line. (At trial, the Hawthorne
police have not been displaying the Late Time, so beginning now I will
post estimates of those Late Times based upon the freeze frame distance
and a minimum (Threshold) speed of 15 mph, or 22 feet per
second.) I estimate that this defendant was 0.2 late. He
was found guilty and given traffic school.
The next defendant's ticket for also for the same left turn. The
judge said she was no more than ten feet late. I estimate a 0.4
Late Time. She was found guilty and given traffic school.
The next case was for a Hindry right turn. The defendant said his
Late Time was 0.14, and the video showed him to have been about five
feet late. His ticket was from before Sept. 29, and he argued
that had the yellow been longer (as it was after Sept. 29) he would not
have gotten a ticket. Officer Mullen testified that the
City was asking the county
(which maintains and sets the signal) to change the northbound Hindry
yellow back to 3.0. (For more details about the northbound Hindry
yellow, see the Nov. 10 entry above, and Set # 1 on the Hawthorne Documents
page; and if you would like to let the county know your opinion about
the change the City is requesting, contact the members of the Los
Angeles
County
Board of Supervisors listed
on
the Links page.) The judge took the case under submission, and
directed the officers to submit documentation about the length of the
yellow, within one week. He said, "I will decide on the basis of
whether the yellow was in compliance with the law."
The last defendant had a ticket for the northbound left at Hawthorne
Blvd. and El Segundo. He was 6 - 7 feet late. I estimate a
0.3 Late Time. He was found guilty.
During this trial
session, the
Hawthorne red light camera team continued their new practice of
not voluntarily showing the judge the face photos.
Hawthorne, Tuesday Jan. 18, 2005 Trials: Fifteen
Dismissed, Four are Guilty;
Judge Gives Opinion on Northbound Hindry Yellow Time
For this trial session the Hawthorne red light camera team (Officer
Mullen and Ms. Ibarra) arrived at 2:20 p.m., later than usual, and for
the first time did not offer defendants a preview of the photos.
And, during the trials they continued their new practice of not
voluntarily showing the judge the face photos.
Before any camera ticket trials began, the judge dismissed thirteen
camera tickets. He did not say why, but it was probably at the
request of the City. Later, during the camera ticket trials, he
dismissed one more without specifying why.
The first camera ticket defendant to go to trial had a westbound
Rosecrans left-turn ticket. She was found guilty and was granted
traffic school.
The next camera ticket defendant had what is in Hawthorne a rare ticket
(for going straight-through
an intersection), southbound at Hawthorne Blvd. at El Segundo
Blvd. He asked for his face photo to be shown. Officer
Mullen replied that "the machine was down" so that he could not display
the face photo on the screen. He offered a print of the
photo. The judge examined the print, said he could not tell if
the pictured driver was the same as the defendant, and dismissed the
case.
The next defendant had a ticket for the right turn from
Hindry. She immediately asked for traffic school, and was granted
it.
The next defendant also had a Hindry right-turn ticket. Hers was
on Sept. 14,
before the yellow was raised from 3.0 seconds to 4.0 seconds.
When she (briefly) raised the issue of the yellow, Comm. Johnson said,
"My understanding is that the three seconds was in compliance with the
legal requirement." The defendant was found guilty, and was
granted traffic school.
The last defendant also had a Hindry right-turn ticket. She
asked for the face photo to be shown, and it was an "8" on my photo grading
scale. The judge said, "It appears to be one and the same
person." The defendant requested Second Offender traffic school,
and was granted it.
Hawthorne, Tuesday Jan. 25, 2005 Trials: Ten
Dismissed, Three are Guilty
The Hawthorne red light camera team resumed their usual practice
of providing a preview of the photos, and was a little over halfway
through the previewing when Comm. Johnson announced six camera cases
that
were to be dismissed. The
camera team stopped the previews, in order to have time to move their
equipment and set it up in the courtroom.
The first camera defendant to go to trial had a Hawthorne Blvd. at El
Segundo ticket. Her case was dismissed immediately, at the
request of Officer Mullen, due to an unspecified "technical problem."
The next defendant had a Hindry right turn ticket with a Late Time of
over thirteen seconds. She was found guilty and granted traffic
school.
The next defendant's ticket was dismissed immediately, at the request
of Officer Mullen, with no reason specified. Later, the defendant
explained to me that while he was previewing the photos he had asked to
see the if the blown-up face photo was better than the one printed on
his ticket, but had been told that he would he would see a better one
in the courtroom.
The next defendant had a left-turn ticket at Hawthorne Blvd. at
Imperial. He said he had a brake problem. He was found
guilty and granted traffic school.
The next defendant had a Hindry right-turn ticket with a Late Time of
over six seconds. She said she wasn't sure that it was her in the
photo - that she and her family all worked nearby, and that the figure
in the photo (about a "5" on my photo grading scale) could be her
mother or her sister. Comm. Johnson told Officer Mullen that he
would listen to his argument as to why the photo proved the case
against the defendant. Officer Mullen explained that she was
listed as the registered owner, and that to him it looked like the
defendant. The judge said he had to be convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt. He asked the defendant if she was testifying
that it was her sister. The defendant replied that it might have
been her sister or her mother. The judge suggested that if the
defendant would sign an affidavit naming the driver, the case would be
dismissed. The defendant repeated that she wasn't sure if it was
her mother or her sister. The judge dismissed the case. This trial is an example of how close a
judge can
come to convicting you - when it may not have been you - and also is an
example of
what may be improper arm-twisting by a judge. The transcript of
this trial is available here.
The next defendant had a
Hindry right-turn ticket. She was found guilty and granted
community service and traffic school.
The last defendant had a Hindry right-turn ticket. It was
dismissed immediately at the request of Officer Mullen. Rather
than leaving, the defendant asked if she could add something.
Permission granted, she complained that her video showed that she had
made a complete stop, and that the ticket should have been dismissed at
arraignment - or before - instead of forcing her to put up the bail and
go to trial.
Hawthorne, Tuesday Feb. 1, 2005 Trials: All Dismissed
Comm. Johnson was downstairs presiding in Div. 1 so Comm. Torres
handled the Feb. 1 trials in Dept. N. This report is based on my observations
from the hallway.
There were 21 camera
tickets on the calendar, of which two were Trials by Declaration.
After Officer
Mullen gave him a preview of the video, one gentleman elected to
take traffic school without waiting for Comm. Torres to come in.
His face photo was blurry, but he did not wish to challenge it.
When the judge began hearing the cases, Officer Mullen immediately
asked for the dismissal of six cases. One of the six was an "It's
not me." In another of the six, the defendant's car was legally
10 - 15 feet into the intersection - the ticket should have been issued
to the driver behind her. The remaining four tickets had blurry
face photos or other technical defects.
The first camera trial lasted 25 minutes. It was a ticket for a
Hindry right turn before Sept. 29. The defendant asked Officer
Mullen why the yellow had been increased. Officer Mullen could
not explain why, to the judge's satisfaction. The judge dismissed
this case and four others at the same intersection.
The last defendant had a ticket at Hawthorne Blvd. at El Segundo
Blvd. The face photo showed only the nose and chin of the
driver. He asked the judge if he was sure it was him. The
judge dismissed the case.
Doing the math, it appears that six defendants didn't show up for their
trial. When a defendant doesn't show up, their case is marked
"guilty" and they don't even get traffic school. Moral of
the story:
Show up for your trial !
Hawthorne, Tuesday Feb. 8, 2005 Trials: Eleven
Dismissed, Six are Guilty
Comm. Torres handled the Feb. 8 trials. Officer Mullen
represented the City of Hawthorne. This report is based upon
my observations from the hallway. There were 34 camera tickets on
the calendar, of which eight were Trials by Declaration.
When the judge began hearing the cases, he immediately dismissed ten
cases, at least four of which were northbound Hindry tickets. One
more case was dismissed because the file was not available.
After the dismissals, two defendants grabbed traffic school without
trying their cases.
The first two defendants to try their cases had post-Sept. 29 tickets
for right turns from northbound Hindry, with large Late Times.
They were found guilty and were granted traffic school.
The next defendant had a ticket for a left from westbound Rosecrans,
with a Late Time of 1.02. He may have argued that the face photo
was not sufficient clear. He was found guilty and was granted
traffic school.
The last defendant had a ticket for a right turn from northbound
Hindry. The photos showed that he had actually come to a full
stop, but with the front wheels of the car just past the second line of
the crosswalk. Comm. Torres ruled that the stop was too late, and
found the defendant guilty. The defendant told me that when
(earlier) he went to view the photos at the police department, Officer
Mullen told him that had it been up to him, the ticket would not have
been issued.
Doing the math, it appears that nine defendants didn't show up for
their
trial. When a defendant doesn't show up, their case is marked
"guilty" and they don't even get traffic school. Moral of
the story:
Show up for your trial !
Hawthorne: Feb. 2005 Appellate Decision May Apply
A February 2005 appellate court decision (People vs. Fischetti)
could
affect
thousands
of tickets issued in Hawthorne. It has already
forced another city to suspend the operation of most of its cameras,
for 30 days. See
Defect # 6 and Defect # 10, on the Home page.
Hawthorne: Feb. 15, 2005 Trials: No Report
I was not able to attend the Feb. 15 trials.
Hawthorne, Tuesday Feb. 22, 2005 Trials: Most Cases
Dismissed - Traffic School Availability in Question
The trials were heard by the Hon. John J. Lynch, a retired judge, who
noted that the last time he had handled traffic cases was in
1993. Officer Mullen represented the City of
Hawthorne. There were 32 camera tickets on
the calendar, of which four were Trials by Declaration.
Just before he began hearing the camera cases Judge Lynch announced,
several times, that defendants who wanted
traffic school should ask for it "when your name is called instead of
waiting until all the testimony is given."
When he began hearing the camera cases, he immediately dismissed eleven
cases all at once, at the request of the police.
He then read out the names of all the remaining defendants, and asked
each to indicate if they wanted traffic school. The first two
defendants asked for school. The third asked, "If I go to trial
and lose can I still get traffic school?" The judge said,
"Maybe. It is at my discretion." That defendant decided not
to request school. The judge then read out the names of twelve
more defendants, two of whom asked for school.
He then called the
first case for trial, an Imperial / Freeman right turn ticket.
While it did not affect the case, it was interesting that the 12-second
video showed that there was a police car right behind the violator's
car. After Officer Mullen displayed the photos, the defendant
asked him if the City had issued warning tickets for 30 days when it
started the camera. Officer Mullen said, "No." The
defendant did not follow that admission with a motion to dismiss.
He said nothing. Officer Mullen then displayed the face photo,
which to this observer looked a lot like the defendant. The judge
then said, "I haven't seen any evidence of the license plate
number." Officer Mullen responded by displaying the photo of the
license plate. Then there was fast-paced discussion between the
judge and Officer Mullen as to how the officer had connected the
license plate to the defendant. I think that I heard Officer
Mullen tell the judge that he had done a look-up on the DMV data
base; I also think I heard the judge ask the officer if he had a
copy of the information from the DMV with him in court, and that the
officer said he did not. The judge then said, "There being no
further evidence that this license plate is his... dismissed."
The defendant also had a second ticket, at the same intersection, also
for a right turn (no police car behind him this time, though).
Judge Lynch dismissed it very quickly.
Judge Lynch then called the next camera defendant and began hearing the
case, but it quickly became evident that the same problem would apply
to the new ticket. He dismissed the case, and thirteen more, four
of which were Trials by Declaration.
Hawthorne, Tuesday March 1, 2005 Trials: Eleven
Grab School, Seven Dismissed, Two Guilty
The 1:30 p.m. trial session was heard by Judge Lynch. It began
with a number of non-camera trials, which were completed by 2:30 p.m.
For the camera ticket trials, Officers Mullen and
Escalante
represented the City of Hawthorne. There were 26 camera tickets
on
the calendar, of which five were Trials by Declaration.
In the hallway before the session, all of the camera tickets I saw were
from Rosecrans / Hindry, mostly for the northbound right turn.
Just before Judge Lynch began hearing the camera cases, he announced,
"I'm going to call some names. If you want to go to traffic
school say so when your name is called." Eleven defendants told
him "Yes," they would like to go to traffic school. They were
told they could leave.
Officer Mullen then began to give his standard foundational testimony,
but the judge told him that he did not need to do so unless he had
something to add to the testimony he had given the previous Tuesday, or
if a defendant requested it.
Officer Mullen then requested that five cases be dismissed.
Included in the five was one defendant who had just asked for
school. It appears that her case was dismissed, anyway.
Officer Mullen then gave some foundational testimony apparently
related to the judge's question the previous week about the source of
the DMV information. He told the court that RedFlex was
authorized by the Hawthorne Police Department to view a limited "R.O."
(that's what it sounded like - registered owner?) via the DMV.
Judge Lynch then called the first case for trial. He
immediately asked the officers to display the face photo. It was
not very clear. He asked the officers how the defendant had been
identified. They told him that the registered owner, a leasing
company, had filed an affidavit naming her. The judge asked
if the registered owner was present, to testify. The officers
said they were not. The judge asked if the officers had the
affidavit with them. They said they did not. The judge
found the defendant not guilty.
The next case was very similar. A rental car. No affidavit
brought to court. Not guilty.
The next defendant had a northbound Hindry right turn ticket. The
judge looked at the face photo, which was somewhat better than the
first defendant's photo, and said, "That's enough to get started -
there's a similarity." The defendant's defense was that drivers
behind him went through the light, too - maybe the green arrow was
still on. He was found guilty. He asked for traffic
school. The judge said, "I'll authorize it - a right turn doesn't
seem to be a particular danger."
The
last defendant to be tried also had a Hindry right turn
ticket. The judge said, of the face photo, that there was
"enough similarity to proceed." The defendant asked whether the
camera had malfunctioned. Officer Escalante said he had an
affidavit, signed by a RedFlex employee, saying that it had not.
The defendant asked if he could question that employee (who was not
present). The defendant testified that the cameras sometimes
fail. He was found guilty. Later, he came back to ask for
Second Offender traffic school, but it was not granted.
Next, one of the defendants who earlier had elected to grab traffic
school without going to trial, asked if he could change his mind and
have a trial. The judge said, "He took traffic school and that's
what he got."
One defendant didn't show up for trial, so his case was forfeit.
The session concluded at 3:07 p.m.
Hawthorne, Tuesday March 8, 2005 Trials: Four Grab School, Three
Dismissed (Two More Could Have Been), Six Guilty
The
1:30 p.m. trial session was heard by the Hon. James Satt, a judge who
retired in 1988. (Judge Satt is the fourth judge to sit in
Dept. N since December! Does no one want the job?) The
session began
with a number of non-camera trials, which were completed by 2:55 p.m.
For the camera ticket trials, Officers Mullen and
Escalante
represented the City of Hawthorne. There were approx. 22 camera
tickets
on
the calendar, of which three were Trials by Declaration.
(In a hallway raise of hands before the session, all but two of the
camera tickets were
from Rosecrans / Hindry. Of the Rosecrans / Hindry tickets the
majority were for the right turn from Hindry onto Rosecrans.)
Judge Satt began by reading the names on five cases where the police
had requested dismissal. However, only three were dismissed, as
two of the defendants had failed to show up for the trial
session. The judge ordered a license suspension for one of the
two, as that defendant
had not posted any bail. The other simply forfeited his
bail. During the remainder of the trial session there were four
more "forfeits," and four defendants grabbed traffic school before
trying their cases.
The six remaining defendants were found guilty; all asked for traffic
school. The two who were eligible for regular traffic school were
granted it. The only question the judge asked those who
asked for Second Offender school ("2TS") was how long it had been since
their last attendance. The one person who was granted 2TS had
last attended nearly 18 months previously. The other three had
three, twelve, and fourteen months since their last attendance.
Based upon multiple factors, I am now making the following
recommendation: If your camera ticket comes to trial before Judge
Satt, and your case is not
one of those dismissed at the request of the police (either in the
group at the beginning of the session or later, immediately upon you
being called forward for the trial of your case), make a Peremptory
Challenge to move your case to another judge. See the Challenges page of this
website.
Hawthorne, Tuesday March 22, 2005 Trials: All Cases Dismissed
The session was heard by Judge Lynch, who also presided in
late February and early March.
There were 31 camera cases on the calendar, including six Trials by
Declaration.
No one elected to change their plea to guilty and take traffic school,
without
waiting for the judge to come in.
Immediately after Judge Lynch came in, he announced that the Hawthorne
PD red light camera team had
not arrived and that he would be dismissing the camera cases. He
then dismissed all 31 cases.
This was the third time the HPD team did not show up for a trial
session.
Hawthorne, Tuesday November 22, 2005 Trials: New Judge, No
Traffic School
Despite the lack of posts since March, I have attended all but one of
the Hawthorne trials since then.
Dept. N has had many different judges, and the current judge is the
Hon. Kenneth Vassie, a retired judge. He started his current
stint in Dept. N. on Nov. 15, and I believe that he will be there for a
total of six weeks, with his last red light camera trial session
probably being Dec. 20.
With just the occasional exception, Judge Vassie will not grant traffic
school to you, even if you ask for it immediately after entering his
courtroom, or right when you have been come forward for your case to be
heard. When a defendant asks for it, he explains that he cannot give it, that
the defendant was offered it "before" and that the defendant declined
the offer.
If your camera ticket comes to trial before Judge Vassie, and
your case is not
one of those dismissed at the request of the police (either in the
group at the beginning of the session or later, immediately upon you
being called forward for the trial of your case), and you want to get traffic school,
make a Peremptory
Challenge to move your case to another judge. See the Challenges
page of this website.
Hawthorne, Tuesday January 10,
2006 Trials: New Judge (again!), Lost Keys
I did not attend this session, but received the following report.
I just wanted to let you know
what happened yesterday 1/10/2006 in the court room.
Comm. Torres was presiding.
There
were approx. 40 people with red light camera tickets. Just before the
trial session began, Officer Escalante gave us each a private preview
of the video of our violations. After we reviewed the
video, Officer
Escalante, in a very private, friendly tone of voice advised each
person to ask for traffic school and not to go to trial because it is
obvious that you are "guilty" and you will have a better chance to get
traffic school if you do not go to trial.
Needless to say about 30 people
decided to do that. They should be sorry they decided to do so.
After listening to all
speeding, etc. cases, the time came to listen to Red Light Camera
cases. What happened is unbelievable.
Friendly Officer Escalante,
with regret, moved to dismiss all remaining cases because they can not
find the key to the room with all their equipment and evidence and they
are unable to present those cases.
It was pure luck but luck was
on our side.
****
For more discussion about the appropriateness of
camera enforcement on left turns, see the Churning Left
Turns section of
Defect # 9 on the Home page.
Footnotes: Footnotes are explained on the main
Camera Towns page.
---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net
|