Email Address
Site Index

If you haven't already done so, please read the Inglewood section on the Camera Towns page

Inglewood Chronology

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

Some of Inglewood'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.

For more about the buttons, see the Action page.

Inglewood, Aug. 6, 2004 Trials:  Crenshaw / 108th Tickets Thrown Out, But Only If...
On Aug. 6 I attended my first trial session of Inglewood tickets.  I learned that one judge (of the two hearing Inglewood tickets) is throwing out all the tickets at one intersection (Crenshaw at 108th) - while the other will not.  And, that those tickets are only being thrown out if the defendant appears in court at an arraignment or at a not-guilty trial! 
I learned that on Dec. 9, 2003 the yellows on [nearly] all of Inglewood's left turn cameras were increased from 3.0 seconds to 3.6 [ late note, made 11-10-04:  during a Nov. 5 trial session, I found out that the yellow for turns from Centinela onto Florence is 3.0 seconds], and that pre-Dec. 9 tickets from those locations were being thrown out by one judge, but not by the other.  But only if contested at a not-guilty trial.
Based upon my Aug. 6 observations, I recommend that if you have a Crenshaw / 108th ticket, you take your ticket to court - either an arraignment or a trial.  [ And, based upon my observations of Aug. 20 - see below - you should do the same for pre-Aug. 19 ticket at Prairie / 111th. ]  And if you have a pre-Dec. 9 left-turn ticket, plead not guilty and take your ticket to trial.  I also recommend that you not allow your arraignment or trial to be heard by Commissioner John L. Mason - file a Peremptory Challenge to remove him from your case.  See Challenges for how and when to do that.

I also learned that the personnel at the Inglewood courthouse do not appreciate having a citizen invade their territory and provide defendants with information to help them fight their tickets.  I was thrown out of the building three times in the week of Aug. 2 - 6 !

Here are the details of the Aug. 6 trial session.

Division 1 is the courtroom of Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein.  The Division 1 calendar showed twenty-seven Inglewood red light camera cases and six other matters.  Six of the red light camera defendants were on "O.R." - they had not been required to post bail.
At 10:15 Commissioner John L. Mason, who was sitting in for Judge Birnstein, announced that there would be a $30 fee added to any fines paid later than the end of the business day. 
Comm. Mason then talked about tickets at Crenshaw and 108th.  He said that the usual Div. 1 judge, Judge Birnstein, had been dismissing all tickets at that intersection, but that he would not.  [Comm. Mason did not indicate why Judge Birnstein was dismissing those tickets, but it could be because 108th takes a "jog" at Crenshaw making it a confusing intersection, or it could be because there was no 30-day period of warning tickets before that camera went into operation.]  Comm. Mason offered to continue the Crenshaw / 108th cases to a later date when Judge Birnstein would be able to hear them.  He explained, carefully, that the Crenshaw / 108th defendants would need to waive their right to a trial within forty-five days in order for him to be able to continue their cases.  All six defendants agreed to a continuance.
At 10:37 Officer Dean Young of the Inglewood Police Department gave his standard testimony, which would apply to all of the camera tickets.  He explained the operation of the system:  That the car must be going at least 15 mph for the camera to trip, and that it takes a twelve-second long video of the violation.  Officer Young also testified that the City had met its legal (foundational) obligations, by holding a public hearing before installing the cameras, publishing notices in local media, giving thirty days of warning tickets (from 9-12 to 10-11-03) [but probably not on camera installations made after the launch of the initial group of cameras], posting the required warning signs, and providing yellow phases meeting or exceeding CalTrans guidelines, based upon Approach Speed.  He then said that the People were ready to proceed.
Comm. Mason asked Officer Young what the duration of the yellow actually was.  Officer Young replied that it was presently 3.6 seconds at left turns [late note, made 11-10-04:  during a Nov. 5 trial session, I found out that the yellow for turns from Centinela onto Florence is 3.0 seconds] and 4.0 on straight through movements, but that prior to Dec. 9 the left turn yellows were at 3.0, the minimum suggested by CalTrans.  He noted that the City had increased the left yellows on their own accord.
Comm. Mason next asked Officer Young if the tickets at lefts with less than 3.6 seconds of yellow (pre-Dec. 9) should be dismissed.  Officer Young answered "no," that all cities, including LA, use 3.0 for their yellow phase for left turns [he didn't mention that LA will not use photo enforcement on left turns - see the LA section above, and Defect # 9, Churning, on the Home page].
Comm. Mason then began to hear the cases. 
The first defendant was a woman who said that her case had been continued three times, that the signal malfunctioned, and that Judge Birnstein had ordered the police to go out and videotape the operation of the signal, with the defendant present.  Comm. Mason, noting that testimony had already been taken by Judge Birnstein, offered to move the case to another courtroom where Judge Birnstein evidently was present.   He also moved the case of a man who had a ticket at the same intersection and had also been to court previously.
The next defendant's ticket was at Prairie and 111th.  The police showed the video on a large portable movie screen that was positioned so everyone could see it.  The defendant said that the intersection was confusing and as a result he mistakenly stopped at the second set of limit lines.  Comm. Mason looked at the video a second time and dismissed the case, noting that defendant's car had moved out of frame.
At 11:09 Judge Birnstein came in and took over the bench in Div. 1, to handle the two cases that had been referred to her (above).  The female defendant provided two witnesses who said the signal had malfunctioned.  The defendant testified that it still was malfunctioning.  [Sorry, the name of the intersection wasn't given.]  Both police officers (Young and his partner, Officer Simon Hollis) testified that it was OK.  Judge Birnstein said that she found defendant's witnesses credible and that since the left arrow was not visible in the photos, she had reasonable doubt about the violation.  Dismissed.
The male defendant (at the same intersection) asked Officer Young how long the yellow should be.  Young replied that for left turns, CalTrans advises that it should be at least 3.0 seconds.  Judge Birnstein then offered him traffic school, and he took it.
Judge Birnstein then left the bench, but returned a moment later, saying that Comm. Mason was busy and that she would hear some more cases. 
She asked the next defendant if she wanted traffic school, or to proceed with the trial.  The defendant chose to proceed.  She told the judge that a man had been following her.  The judge asked her how close he was when she made her left turn and what he looked like, then dismissed the case, ruling that an emergency is a defense.
The next defendant had a pre-Dec. 9 left turn ticket.  Judge Birnstein dismissed it immediately.
The next defendant chose not to proceed, and to go to traffic school.
The next defendant told the judge, "Let's look at the photos if you think that's me."  The judge said she could see the defendant's mustache and that she thought it was him.  The defendant changed his plea to guilty, took traffic school, and also asked for and got 6 months to pay the fine.
The next defendant was ticketed for a left at Centinela and Florence.  She claimed that there had been an emergency, that her passenger, who was present in court and was using a crutch, had experienced a severe pain in his leg.  However, she could offer no document showing a hospital or doctor visit on the day of the violation.  Judge Birnstein said that the level of emergency was insufficient, found the defendant guilty, and allowed traffic school.
The next defendant was ticketed for a left from northbound Prairie onto Century.  He said that he had trouble getting the vehicle into gear.  Judge Birnstein looked at the video [which to me looked like he accelerated into the red light] and asked him if he wanted traffic school, or to proceed with the trial.  He took traffic school.
Judge Birnstein then left the bench, and Comm. Mason returned.
The next defendant whose name was called evidently had a case that needed to be heard by Judge Birnstein.  Comm. Mason asked the defendant why he hadn't seen her.  The defendant said he kept raising his hand but was overlooked.  Comm. Mason continued his case to a later date when he could be seen by Judge Birnstein.  The defendant agreed to waive his right to speedy trial.
The next defendant had a pre-Dec. 9 left turn ticket, at the left from southbound Prairie onto Century.  She had not received the ticket in the mail, so had come to court in order to see the video.  After seeing the video, she did not offer a defense.  Comm. Mason found her guilty, offered her traffic school and gave her six months to pay the fine.
The last defendant was ticketed for a left from westbound Manchester onto Crenshaw.  Her case was immediately dismissed at the request of the police, without any explanation as to why.
The trial session ended at 11:50.

Inglewood, Aug. 16, 2004 Arraignments:  More Tickets Thrown Out
The Aug. 16 Div. 1 morning arraignment session calendar had fifteen Inglewood camera tickets and two from Hawthorne.  Judge Birnstein was on the bench, and in her opening speech noted that she would be dismissing all tickets at Crenshaw / 108th - of which there was about six.  She allowed a number of defendants who pled not guilty to have O.R., and granted Second Offender traffic school to one defendant who asked for it.

Inglewood, Aug. 17, 2004 Arraignments:  Warning Signs Missing at Prairie / 111th
After the arraignment session of Aug. 17, I drove around and looked at some of Inglewood's camera installations.  I noticed that at Prairie and 111th, there were no warning signs on 111th on either side of Prairie.  They are required to be "visible to traffic approaching from all directions."  See Defect # 4 on the Home Page.
To document the absence of the signs, I took pictures down the length of 111th near Prairie.  They are posted here:  Inglewood Documents.

Inglewood, Aug. 20, 2004 Trials:  Prairie / 111th Warning Sign Dismissals
The Aug. 20 trials were heard by Judge Birnstein.  Officers Young and Hollis represented the People.
Approximately ten Crenshaw / 108th tickets were dismissed immediately.  (For why, see the Aug. 6 entry, above.)  At the same time, approximately 2 - 3 tickets at Prairie / 111th were dismissed.  If there was an explanation as to why the Prairie tickets were dismissed, I didn't catch it.
The first three defendants to try their tickets had left-turn violations at Century / Crenshaw.  Two were found guilty and were offered traffic school.  One had her case dismissed because the driver in the photo didn't look like her.
The fourth defendant had a ticket for a left turn at Centinela / Florence.  He was found guilty and was offered traffic school.
The fifth defendant had a ticket at Prairie / 111th.  I was not present for her trial, so the following is based on what she told me about it.  The judge apparently thought the yellow seemed short (after watching the video) and so asked the officers to time the yellow, which was supposedly set at 4.0, slightly in excess of the minimum required in a 40 mph zone, 3.9 seconds.  The officers re-played the video and, using some kind of hand held device, timed the light at 3.7 and 3.75.  The judge then dismissed the ticket, because the yellow was too short.  The defendant, rather than leaving immediately, asked the judge if she could point something else out, and told the judge that while there were warning signs on Prairie, there were no signs on 111th Street.  The judge asked the officers about that, and they told her that the signs had been put up on 111th on Aug. 19.  The judge said she would be dismissing all tickets at that intersection, including (possibly) retroactively.  (See also the Aug. 17 entry, above.)
There was one more defendant, but I have no information about his trial.
(Inglewood trials are on the 1st and 3rd Fridays, so there was no Aug. 13 trial session, and there will not be one on the 27th.)

Inglewood, Aug. 23, 2004 Arraignments:  Dismissals at Two Intersections Confirmed
For the Aug. 23 morning arraignment session, Judge Birnstein was on the bench and in her opening speech she noted that she would be dismissing all pre-Aug. 19 tickets at Prairie / 111th, as well as dismissing all tickets at Crenshaw / 108th.
Questions left unanswered:
1.  Will the dismissals be retroactive to the beginning of the program, or just tickets that haven't yet been paid?
2.  Will the tickets dismissed be only those where the defendant asked for an arraignment or trial, or will it be all tickets?
3.  Will the Inglewood police department continue to issue new tickets at Crenshaw / 108th, pending the planned re-design of the signals?  On Aug. 25 I called a captain at the Inglewood PD (lower level staff had refused to comment) and asked him this question.  He said that, pending further review, the department will continue to issue Crenshaw / 108th tickets.

Inglewood, Aug. 25, 2004:  Letter to City Council
On Aug. 25 I sent the Inglewood City Council a letter asking them to stop issuing tickets at Crenshaw / 108th, and to refund all tickets previously issued there as well as those issued prior to Aug. 19 at Prairie / 111th.  I asked that the matter be agendized for the council meeting of Aug. 31.

Inglewood, Sept. 3, 2004 Trials:  Officers are No Shows, Tickets Dismissed
The Friday Sept. 3 trials were heard by Judge Birnstein.   There were 38 red light cases on the calendar.
About 18 defendants were present and their cases were dismissed.  The officers did not show up as one was on vacation and the other was ill.  In the remaining cases (about 20) where the defendant had failed to show up, their bail was forfeited and a conviction was entered.  Moral of the story:
Show up for your trial !

(Inglewood trials are on the 1st and 3rd Fridays, so there was no Aug. 27 trial session, and there will not be one on Sept. 10.)

Inglewood, Sept. 14, 2004:  Crenshaw / 108th Camera Disarmed
For a few days it was a rumor, but now we have confirmation that the Crenshaw / 108th camera has been shut down pending the re-design of the intersection.  The shut-down date was Sept. 7.

Inglewood, Sept. 16, 2004:  Arrested, Witnesses Needed
At 8:15 on the 16th, I was arrested for distributing highwayrobbery.net literature outside the Inglewood courthouse.  If you saw the incident, please contact me.

Inglewood, Sept. 17, 2004 Trials:  Threatened with New Arrest; Trials Mostly 'Continued'
I went back to the Inglewood courthouse the day after my arrest, to watch the bi-monthly trials of Inglewood tickets.  I got there early, as I wanted to get literature to the people who were coming in for their trials.  The court order I allegedly violated on the 16th says:

So I made a big sign and stationed myself forty-five feet from the entrance and thirty-five feet from the exit.

(The lady in red is at the entrance, the guy in very dark clothing has just come out of the exit, and I am at the right edge of the photo, holding my sign.)

Ten minutes later,

they told me I could not be anywhere in the Plaza.  I probably would have been re-arrested were it not for the presence of the reporter who took these photos.  It was getting near the time for the trials to begin, so I put my sign and literature back in the car, got my note pad and went into the courthouse to watch.  There were no further face-offs with the deputies.  The trials were a disappointment, though.

Here are the details of the Sept. 17 trial session.
The Division 1 calendar showed thirty-eight Inglewood red light camera cases and eight non-camera traffic matters.  When I went inside the courtroom I noticed that Comm. John L. Mason's name plate was up on the bench.
At 10:07 Comm. Mason came in.   He handled the "other matters" first, then at 10:37 turned his attention to the camera cases.
He said that the usual Div. 1 judge, Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein, had been dismissing all tickets at Crenshaw and 108th, but that he would not necessarily do so - it would depend upon the evidence presented to him.  Comm. Mason offered to continue the Crenshaw / 108th cases to December when, he said, Judge Birnstein would be back and able to hear them.  Fourteen defendants agreed to a continuance.
Then there were two dismissals, one from a trial by declaration, and one because the ticket was "issued in error."
Then Officer Young (Officer Hollis also was present) brought up Prairie / 111th.  He said that while Judge Birnstein's position was to dismiss those tickets (because of missing signs), he now had some law that would enable those tickets to stand.  Comm. Mason told Officer Young to show it to Judge Birnstein, and proceeded to continue two of the four Prairie / 111th tickets to December.  One Prairie / 111th defendant said he would like to have his trial today.   (The trial never occurred - I don't know what happened to his case. )  The fourth Prairie / 111th defendant was not present, so his bail was forfeited and a conviction was entered.  The same fate - bail forfeiture - befell six no-show defendants with Crenshaw / 108th tickets.
Then the trials began.  Two defendants, one with a ticket for a left turn on northbound La Brea at Century, and the other with a ticket for a left turn on northbound Crenshaw at Century, argued their cases, lost, and were granted traffic school.  By then it was noon, so Comm. Mason called for a recess until 1:30.  That announcement brought approx. three defendants up to the gate.  One said he had a trial at a different court at 1:30.  He was given a continuance.  Another defendant said she couldn't wait, and elected to take traffic school.  Another defendant had a Crenshaw / 108th ticket which had not been disposed of earlier, because a Chinese interpreter was needed.  The interpreter had recently arrived, so Comm. Mason agreed to delay the recess and hear the case.  Comm. Mason asked the defendant if he wanted to continue his case to December, to see Judge Birnstein.  The defendant pled guilty and took traffic school instead.  I did not hear Comm. Mason tell the defendant (via the interpreter) about Judge Birnstein's practice of dismissing Crenshaw / 108th tickets, and I do not know whether or not the defendant had found out about that from any other source or if he understood enough English to have comprehended the earlier announcement about it.  Court then recessed for lunch.
Comm. Mason came back on the bench at 2:05.  The first defendant asked for and was granted a continuance so that he could confer with a lawyer.  The next defendant pled guilty and got traffic school.  The next defendant, who had a ticket for a left turn at southbound La Brea / Century, lost and was granted traffic school.  The two remaining defendants did not return from lunch, and their cases were forfeited.

Inglewood, Sept. 20, 2004 Arraignments:  Judge Birnstein Still Here
Based on what Comm. Mason said during the Sept. 17 trials (above), I expected that Judge Birnstein would be absent.  But she was present, and handled the morning arraignment session.

Inglewood, Sept. 20, 2004:  Advice about Prairie / 111th Tickets
If you have a Prairie / 111th ticket issued before Aug. 19, you can avoid all visits to court by using a Trial by Declaration to fight it by mail.  See the Trial by Declaration section on the Your Ticket page.

Inglewood, Oct. 1, 2004 Trials:  All Tickets Dismissed;  City Lawyer Argues about Prairie / 111th
The Friday Oct. 1 not-guilty trials were heard by Judge Birnstein.  The calendar included fifty-two red light camera cases, in two groups.  There was an 8:30 a.m. calendar including fourteen camera defendants who had previously appeared for trial before Comm. Mason, and had requested that their cases be continued to a later date so that they could appear before Judge Birnstein.  I was un-aware of the 8:30 session, and by the time I arrived at 9:20, all of their cases, which were tickets from Crenshaw / 108th, had been dismissed.  All fourteen defendants had showed up. 
The 10 a.m. calendar included thirty-eight camera defendants.  At 10:02 Judge Birnstein came back in.  She immediately told all the camera defendants present that their cases were being dismissed, at the request of the police, because the evidence (the photos) wasn't available - some kind of unspecified technical glitch.   But not all of the defendants had showed up.  In the six cases where the defendants had failed to show up, their bail was forfeited and a conviction was entered.
I will say it again:  Show up for your trial!
The next matter before Judge Birnstein was an appearance by a lawyer from the City, who argued, based on the Truth-in-Evidence section of the California Constitution, that the pre-Aug. 19 tickets at Prairie / 111th should not be dismissed.  Judge Birnstein ruled against him.  The City can, of course, take the matter to the appellate court.

Inglewood, Oct. 15, 2004 Trials:  Most Cases Continued; Defendant Shows No Foundation
The Friday Oct. 15 trials were heard by Comm. Mason.  The calendar included approximately thirty-five camera cases.
Comm. Mason started by dealing with the Crenshaw / 108th and Prairie / 111th tickets.  He offered to continue those cases to a date when they could be heard, and presumably dismissed, by Judge Birnstein.  Nineteen of the twenty defendants agreed to continuances.  The new dates given those defendants were not on a normal trial day (Fridays), but were actually arraignment days.  Comm. Mason said that Judge Birnstein would not be hearing the Friday trials again until December.
After the continuances, eleven cases remained.  Two of those changed their pleas to guilty and asked for traffic school as soon as their cases were called.  Three argued their cases and were quickly found guilty.  (One of the three said a truck blocked his view.  Another said, "It's ambiguous - they changed everything," but didn't give any detail.  The third was using an interpreter and was found guilty before he had presented a defense.)  All three asked for traffic school and were granted it.  Another defendant argued her case for a while, then asked for a continuance so that she could obtain documents regarding the length of the yellow light.  Two cases were dismissed at the request of the police.  Another case was dismissed because the defendant was a man and the pictured driver was a woman.  Another case, the first I have seen for a motorcycle, was dismissed because the face-photo quality was poor.  Comm. Mason said, "I don't like the resolution."
The last case of the day was the most interesting.  The defendant asked Officer Young if there were "uniform guidelines."  Officer Young told her there was none.  The defendant then made a motion to dismiss, for lack of foundation.  (See Defect # 10.)  Comm. Mason asked her the basis for her motion, and she said CVC 21455.5.  Comm. Mason asked Officer Young, "What about that?"  Officer Young replied that he hadn't created any guidelines.  Comm. Mason tried to look at 21455.5 but at first could only find a 2003 edition of the Vehicle Code, which did not contain the current version of the law.  Then he found that his desk copy of the Penal Code contained the 2004 Vehicle Code, and he read that to himself.  Then he asked Officer Young why he didn't have the guidelines.  Some of the officer's answers were:  "We haven't had a need to create those - only Officer Hollis and myself operate this...."  "We're not sure what uniform guidelines are yet."   The discussion continued for a few more minutes, with Comm. Mason's final comments being:  "You'd better do something about that.  There should be a place where they [defendants] can go and find the guidelines."  Then he dismissed the case.

Inglewood, Nov. 1, 2004 Arraignments:  Fourteen Crenshaw / 108th and Prairie / 111th Tickets Dismissed
Judge Birnstein handled the Monday morning arraignment session.  She announced: "If you tell me you weren't driving the car that day I will dismiss it today if I think it doesn't look like you or the photo is so unclear that I can't tell."
A little later, she announced the names of fourteen defendants with either Crenshaw / 108th or pre-Aug. 19 Prairie / 111th tickets, and told them that their cases were being dismissed.
I didn't watch the rest of the session.

Inglewood, Nov. 5, 2004 Trials:  Majority of Cases Continued; Of Cases Tried "Live" Two are Convictions, Eight are Dismissals
The trials were heard by Comm. Mason.  The calendar included forty camera cases, nine of which were Trials by Declaration ("TBD").
Comm. Mason started by dealing with the Crenshaw / 108th and Prairie / 111th tickets.  He offered to continue those cases to a date when they could be heard, and presumably dismissed, by Judge Birnstein.  Fourteen defendants agreed to continuances.  The new date (Tuesday Dec. 7) given those defendants was not on a normal trial day (Fridays), but was actually an arraignment day.  At least one defendant with a Crenshaw / 108th or Prairie / 111th ticket didn't show up for the trial session, so his bail was forfeited and a guilty plea was entered.
Then the trials began.  Officer Young requested that the first case be dismissed.  Later, I looked at that defendant's ticket, and it had no photos at all - the spaces were blank!
The next ticket had a poor face photo.  The judge commented (about the poor photos):  "It's not fair to (defendants), it's not fair to the court."  Then he dismissed the ticket.
There were six more dismissals because of poor photos.  The requests to dismiss were initiated by Officer Young.  Five of those requests were made after he had displayed the face photo.  One was made before he displayed the photo.   During one of these cases, Officer Young testified that the yellow for turns from Centinela onto Florence is 3.0 seconds, not the 3.6 that we had thought was the minimum time (for left turns) throughout Inglewood.
Two defendants, with face photos of medium quality (Grade 7 on this website's scale of 1 to 10) were found guilty.  One took traffic school, but the other didn't ask.
Another defendant argued that it could be his brother driving.  The judge offered him a continuance (to a later Friday trial date) so that he could bring his brother into court.
The last "live" defendant was there for his Trial de Novo - a new trial after losing a TBD.  He questioned whether the camera was working properly, and said he wanted to subpoena people from RedFlex.  The judge granted a continuance so that he could do so.
The remaining matters were TBD's - nine of them.  Six evidently were on tickets from either Crenshaw / 108th or Prairie / 111th, so the judge continued them to Dec. 7.  On the remaining three he reviewed the videos (displayed on the screen by the officers), and found them all guilty.  Since the TBD defendants weren't present to permit identification, the judge didn't discuss the face photos.

The Nov. 5 tickets were at the following intersections^[4].  The Late Time, or "duration," is in ( ).
Century / Crenshaw:  3 eastbound lefts (0.34) (0.63) (0.83), 1 northbound left (unknown);
Centinela / Florence:  1 eastbound straight (0.17), 1 southbound left (0.75);
Prairie / Century: 1 southbound left (0.30).

Inglewood, Nov. 19, 2004 Trials:  Six Dismissed, Seven Continued, One or Two Convicted
This session was very much like the Nov. 5 session.  I hope to provide more details in the near future.

Inglewood, Dec. 3, 2004:  Ticket Counts Received;  Trial Session Too
Ticket counts for Inglewood's cameras are now available at:  Inglewood Documents.
I hope to write about the Dec. 3 trial session, in the near future.

Inglewood, Dec. 14, 2004:  RedFlex to Pay Towards 108th Remodel
At the council meeting of Dec. 14 the city manager announced that RedFlex had agreed to pay 1/2 of the estimated $60,000 cost of remodeling the Crenshaw / 108th intersection.  Their $30,000 share would equal 4% of the $750,000 I estimate RedFlex earned for issuing Crenshaw / 108th tickets.  There was no mention of refunds to ticketed motorists.

Inglewood, Jan. 3, 2005 Arraignments:  Comm. Mason Dismisses Eight Crenshaw / 108th Tickets
  For 2005, Judge Birnstein has been moved to another assignment.  As of Jan. 3, a new judge's name was not posted at the Div. 1 courtroom door or on the court directory.  Comm. Mason handled the arraignments.  There were eight Crenshaw / 108th tickets on the calendar, and he dismissed all of them.  He also indicated that he would dismiss the Prairie / 111th tickets issued before Aug. 19.

Inglewood, Jan. 5, 2005 Night Court Arraignments:  Six or More Crenshaw / 108th Tickets Dismissed
On Jan. 5 Comm. John R. Johnson handled the night court arraignments.  There were at least six defendants with Crenshaw / 108th tickets.  With regard to those tickets he stated, "I understand there's a problem with that intersection so I am going to dismiss it in the interest of justice."

Inglewood, Jan. 7, 2005 Trials:  Nine Dismissed (Including Crenshaw / 108th), Eight Convicted
No new Div. 1 judge had arrived to replace Judge Birnstein, so Comm. Mason handled the trials.
No one elected to take traffic school without waiting for the judge to come in.
Comm. Mason began by dismissing five Crenshaw / 108th (and/or pre-Aug. 19 Prairie / 111th) tickets.
Another case was dismissed because the person in the photo clearly was not the defendant.
A cab driver's case was dismissed because his view of the signal was blocked by two large trucks  -  which showed in the video.
Another case was dismissed because the officers did not have the case file prepared and with them.
Another case was dismissed at the request of the officers - they said there was a (unspecified) problem with the face photo.
Another defendant said a policeman had directed him to get out of the way for an ambulance, so he ran the light.  He asked for his case to be continued so he could bring in evidence of the ambulance call.
The first defendant to be convicted argued that he had heard gunshots, so kept going rather than stopping.  The officers did not display his face photo, and the defendant did not bring it up, so we don't know if it was of sufficient quality or not.  He was found guilty.
Another seven defendants were found guilty.  The officers did display their face photos, and they all ranged from "5" to "9" on my Photo Grading scale.   When one of the defendants questioned the length of the yellow light for his left turn (which is claimed to be 3.6 seconds), Officer Young testified that he field-checked it monthly using five readings from a stopwatch, and that in April he read it at 3.61, and again in May it was 3.61.

The cases tried^[4] Jan. 7 were at the following intersections.  The Late Time, or "duration," is in (  ).

Prairie / 111th (before Aug. 19) or Crenshaw / 108th:  5 tickets (dismissed), directions and Late Times unknown;
Century / Crenshaw:   2 eastbound lefts (0.64) (0.51), 2 northbound lefts (0.38) (1.75);
Centinela / Florence:   1 southbound left (0.83);
Prairie / Century:  4 southbound lefts (0.36) (0.43) (1.01) (1.04), 1 northbound left (0.89);
La Brea / Century: 1 southbound left (0.71);
Prairie / 111th:  1 southbound thru movement (6.88).
The majority of the cases tried were for left turns, and of those left turn violations, three (27%) would not have occurred if the yellow had been set at 4.0 rather than 3.6.

Inglewood, Jan. 12, 2005 Night Court Arraignments:  Crenshaw / 108th Tickets NOT Dismissed
Night Court arraignments are every Wednesday at 5 p.m., and the judging job rotates among all the judges in the courthouse.  So, there is a different judge each week.  On Jan. 12, Comm. William Torres handled the Night Court arraignments.  There were at least three defendants with Crenshaw / 108th tickets, but he did not dismiss those, so the defendants had to plead not guilty and come back in a month, for a trial.

Inglewood, Jan. 21, 2005 Trials:  Eleven Dismissed, Nine Convicted
The trials were handled by retired Judge Eric G. Helgesen, on temporary assignment from the Assigned Judges Program, San Francisco.
No one elected to take traffic school without waiting for the judge to come in.
  Judge Helgesen began by dismissing, at the request of Officer Young,  five Crenshaw / 108th (and/or pre-Aug. 19 Prairie / 111th) tickets. (Later on in the trial session, there was another Crenshaw / 108th dismissal, for a defendant who had arrived a little late for the court session.)   Next, he dismissed four more Crenshaw / 108th and/or pre-Aug. 19 Prairie / 111th tickets that were contested via Trial by Declaration.
The eleventh dismissal came a little way into the trial session, for a defendant who Comm. Mason had allowed to continue his case in order to bring in more evidence.  Comm. Mason had promised the defendant that if he was not on the bench on the 21st, the case would be dismissed.  A telephone check was made to see if Comm. Mason was available to hear the case, but he was not.
Nine defendants (including the one remaining Trial by Declaration) were found guilty.  The officers did not voluntarily display any of the face photos.

The cases tried^[4] Jan. 21 were at the following intersections.  The Late Time, or "duration," is in (  ).

The cases tried^[4] Feb. 18 were at the following intersections.  The Late Time, or "duration," is in (  ).

****

Footnotes:  Footnotes are explained on the main Camera Towns page.