|
RED LIGHT
CAMERAS
|
|
www.highwayrobbery.net
|
|
If you
haven't already done so, please read the Santa Ana section on
the Camera Towns page City of Santa Ana Documents Be sure to read the "Countywide
Information," which is Docs Set # 6, below.
Violations Recorded (some months) and
Citations
Issued New 10-21-04, updated 5-6-05, 11-12-07
This table
made by highwayrobbery.net, using official monthly tabulations of
citations actually issued.
[ ] indicates a footnote. [1] Totals are as provided by the City. [2] YTD = Year-to-date total. [3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system. [4] Figures in red type are "raw" violations recorded by the cameras, and have been posted only for selected months, due to time limitations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are citations issued. [5] Figures in this
row cover
June 1, 2003 to Oct. 1, 2004.
[6] Each column represents one camera. [7] Figures in this row cover Jan. 1, 2007 to Sept. 25, 2007. Docs Set # 2
2008 - Two Appellate Cases Won! 2009 - Significant Trial Decision 2010 - Four More Appellate Cases Won! The first appellant fought her ticket based upon a number of foundational objections, among them that Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 says, in part: "Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days." For more details, and case documents, see People v. Anna V. The second appellant also fought his ticket on the warning ticket issue, and won at appeal. See People v. Fischetti (2008). In 2009 there was a trial decision on both the contract issue (Defect # 10-B) and the issue of the required public announcement (30 days before the commencement of the program). See People v. Lori A. & Murray And four more in 2010! (Mustapha, Romero, Khaled, Park) Docs Set # 3 Traffic School Santa Ana, Nov. 24, 2004 Trial Session: No Traffic School After Trial On Nov. 24 I attended the weekly Wednesday afternoon trial session in Div. C-46. In the hallway before the trial session, the SAPD officers were willing to discuss their ticket with any defendant who wished to do so. Among the things they told the defendants was that the judge didn't give traffic school to those who argued their cases and lost. The session was presided over by Commissioner Duane Thomas Neary. One defendant, before trying his case, asked Comm. Neary if he could still get traffic school if he tried his case. The commissioner replied, "Not very likely. Unless you show me some wonderful evidence during the trial, you're not going to be able to go to traffic school." Needless to say, that defendant and all but one of the others grabbed traffic school and did not try their cases. (For highwayrobbery.net's opinion about traffic school, see the editorial on the Links page.) Docs Set # 4 2002 Contract & Contract Renewals 2008, 2009, 2010 In 2008 the city
council extended their 2002 contract one year, to June 2009, at the
same rent 2002 Contract (This
list
of
contracts
and
amendments
may not be up-to-date - there could be a
contract or amendment later than the ones listed above.) it could have saved $2470 per camera per month, or $829,000 for the fourteen cameras over the 24 months of the contract extensions. Or, had the council negotiated a $2500 fee like that in the 2009 contract of the City of Davis, it could have saved $964,320. Or, had the council negotiated a $2225 fee
like
that in the 2009
contract of the City of Solana Beach,
In the
2010 Amendment there is the
prominent use of the term "Fixed Fee"(twice in the first two
paragraphs of the Compensation section), so a reader could be left with
the impression that cost neutrality has been eliminated and the
Contract is now in full conformity with Subsection 21455.5(g). However, such
conformity
is
not
the
case
at
all. Rather, a more
careful reading of the Contract and
amendments reveals
that in spite of the clear meaning and intent of Subsection
21455.5(g)(1), the
City and RedFlex have entered into an arrangement where RedFlex'
income is dependent upon, and can fluctuate with, the amount of City's
revenue
from tickets. The methodology of that arrangement is expressed
in
Paragraph 26(a) of the 2002 Contract, "Miscellaneous
Provisions," which states: "… based
on a
bi-annual review process to ensure received revenue provides for
sufficient cost recovery, the City shall
have the option to renegotiate the Compensation... if the City
determines it is unable to recover its costs..." Docs Set # 5 Dec. 2009: City Blinks, Suspends Ticketing for 1-Month Warning Period On Dec. 1, 2009 the OC Register published an article indicating that the City was suspending ticketing for a month, to bring itself into compliance with the requirement for a 1-month warning period. The article did not reveal whether tickets issued prior to the new warning period would be dismissed. If you have a Santa Ana ticket, please be sure to contact the editor of this site. Docs Set # 6 Countywide Information The info in Set # 6 is applicable throughout Orange County. But only in Orange County. Revenue Down Why is revenue down? It could be that OC motorists think they are in LA County, where in June 2011 it was revealed that paying is optional (because the LA County Superior Court does not report delinquent tickets to the DMV). Source
documents:
Do you have an OLD ticket that you've been meaning to pay? In 2012 there will be a statewide amnesty for pre-2009 tickets, of all kinds. See the big box near the top of Section # 3, Handling Your Ticket, on the Your Ticket page. Docs Set # 7 More Coming There may be some more 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 |