MRCA Docs - Main Page - Red Light Cams - Illegal Stop Sign(!) Cameras

The fine was $100 in 2007. As of early 2011 it was $175.

The photo enforcement at stop signs is by "fixed" (permanently installed) cameras; the speed enforcement, which was canceled before it started, was to be done by mobile units - maybe some recycled from the City of San Jose, which in 2007 was forced to discontinue its RedFlex photo radar program. (For more info about San Jose, see their section, above.)

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the MRCA under the California Public Records Act.

[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the MRCA.
[2] YTD = Year-to-date total.
[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of MRCA's system.
[4] Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine tickets issued.
[5] Quarterly data has been received - see links at footnotes [9] and [10] below - but has not been posted to the table above.
[6] The camera enforcement is believed to be in the park noted, but the exact location is not yet available.
[7] Source data: 12+ months Jul07 - Jul08
[8] Source data: 12 months Aug08 - Jul09
[9] Source data: 1 - 3 month periods, 2008 - 2009
[10] Source data received Jan. 2011

MRCA Docs Set # 3
The Contract

Evidently tired of toiling in obscurity, in March 2007 the MRCA contracted with RedFlex for the installation of two kinds of automated enforcement not permitted by California law (and found nowhere else in California): (1) Photo enforcement at stop signs (illegal because CVC 22450, the usual Code section for a stop sign violation, is not included in CVC 40518, the Code section authorizing the use of a mailed Notice to Appear), and (2) photo enforcement of speed* (illegal because CVC 21455.6 says: "The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction").
2006 Staff Report Recommending Signing of Contract - see item V(b) in the report
The MRCA claims that their program is legal:
Feb. 2008 Memo by MRCA's Attorney
Apr. 2008 Informal Opinion by AG

In 2010 two class action suits were filed against the MRCA, and in 2011 there was a decision by the Appellate Division (See the Class Actions page.)

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

*In May 2008 the contract was amended to remove the provision for speed
enforcement and to set compensation to RedFlex at a flat rate of $4,400 per
month per camera location. The timing of the amendment coincided with the
failure of SB 1325, a 2008 bill that would have allowed the use of
photo radar throughout California. (In 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010 there were legislative efforts to allow photo radar. They failed, but photo radar is an idea that won't go away - a new bill was launched in Mar. 2011. See Legislation.)

MRCA Docs Set # 4
More Coming

There may be some more MRCA information posted in the next few weeks. Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!

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