Walnut Docs - Main Page - Red Light Cams - Illegal Red Light Cameras

It may be possible to completely ignore a Walnut ticket.
1. If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake ticket, which I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details about Snitch Tickets, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.
2. The LA County Superior Court does not report ignored red light camera tickets to the DMV. More info is in "Countywide Information," which is Docs Set # 2 on the LA County Documents page.

During her career in the California Legislature, Kuehl made three attempts to pass bills to allow the use of automated speed enforcement (photo radar) in California.

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

Official reports, 2006 - 2009
Official reports, 2009 - 2010, recd Jan. 2013
Official report, Jun. 2009 - Jan. 2012 (32 months)
Official reports, 2011
Official reports, Jan12 - Mar12
Official report, Apr12
Official reports, May12 - Dec12
Official report, Jan13
Official reports, Feb13 - Jul13
Official report, Aug13
Official report, Sep13
Official reports, Oct13 - Nov13
Official reports, Dec13 - Mar14
Official report, Apr14

[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] Annual total, or annual projection, is by highwayrobbery.net. The projections for 2009, 2010 and 2011 are the average of the monthly averages highwayrobbery.net derived from the grand total reports the City provided (see footnote 5, below) and the months for which individual reports were obtained from the City.
[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City'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 citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets).
[5] Calendar month data was requested on 1-30-12 but the City provided only a six-month grand total and a 32-month grand total. In the table above, highwayrobbery.net averaged those grand totals over the six months and over the 26 months the two report periods did not overlap. For comparison, highwayrobbery.net also averaged the Notices Printed in the ten months of 2008 for which information has been made available. The 263 average for the 2009 - 2012 period represents a 51% increase over the 174 average for 2008.
[6] The official reports for these months were run for the first of the month to the first of the next month. To keep the figures displayed comparable to the figures for other months, 3% has been deducted.
[7] Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red."
[8] Month-by-month data was requested on 2-28-13, 4-4-13, 5-23-13, 6-30-13 and 8-15-13.

Walnut Docs Set # 2
"Late Time" Graphs

The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for both cameras.
These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.)

The picture above is an example from another city.

Walnut Docs Set # 3
Contracts - Program Closed in May 2014

The city council heard a staff report in late 2005.

Like the cities of Baldwin Park, Capitola, Citrus Heights, Highland, South San Francisco and Victorville, Walnut failed to hold the formal public hearing required by CVC 21455.6 before it approved the 2006 contract; neither of the 2005 - 2006 council items was set as a public hearing. See the expanded version of Defect # 6.

In Jan. 2009 the council approved a new speed survey.

In Feb. 2009 - two years before the expiration of the first contract - the council approved a new five-year contract.
The new contract provided for a slightly lower rent for the cameras - $5750 per camera per month vs. the former $6000.

Both contracts included, in Exhibit D, an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B of Defect # 10.

Section 11.14 of the 2009 contract penalizes the City if:
"...the City or Police waives more than 10 percent of valid violations forwarded to the Police for acceptance...."
(See Subsection A of Defect # 9, about quotas.)

Section 11.14 also penalizes the City if:
"...the City elects not to enforce illegal right turn on red violations...."

The slight rent reduction in the 2009 contract will save the City $30,000 over the 60 month term of the contract.
Despite the lower price the City still will pay $330,000 too much over the five years (when compared with a $3000 target price). See FAQ # 17.

In Aug. 2011 the council reviewed the program, including accident statistics.

The 2009 contract was due to expire in Feb. 2014, so City staff and the sheriff prepared a report, for presentation at the Jan. 8, 2014 council meeting. The report discussed the option to extend the program another two years.

In the staff report there was no indication of bargaining to obtain a lower rent during the potential two-year extension, despite the fact that cities near Walnut pay about half what Walnut has been paying. If the rent is left at $5750, Walnut will pay $132,000 too much over the two years. See FAQ # 17.

On Dec. 29 the San Gabriel Valley Tribune published an article about the upcoming decision.

On Jan. 7 I attended a trial session. (Anyone who wishes to watch the court trials of Walnuts tickets can come to the El Monte courthouse on Valley Blvd. one block north of the 10 freeway, at 1:30 on the first, second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. The trials are public.) At the Jan. 7 trial session there were 49 Walnut camera tickets on the calendar. Of those, 27 defendants had their fine cut in half, with no point, 11 defendants had their tickets dismissed, one pled no contest, one was found guilty, and nine didn't show up at court so forfeited their bail.

On Jan. 7 the Walnut-Diamond Bar Patch published an article about the program.

At the Jan. 8 council meeting, the council voted to extend the contract for three months (to May 2014), to allow time for further study of the program, including more input from the public.

At the May 14, 2014 council meeting the council voted 5 - 0 on a staff recommendation to let the contract expire, ending the program in late May.

In a SGV Tribune article published 5-19-14 Mayor Tony Cartagena was quoted as saying:

"The statistical review of the RedFlex camera program did not reflect a reduction of traffic accidents, nor could the data support the cameras made the intersections safer."

Walnut Docs Set # 4
"No Right Turn on Red" Tickets

The use of cameras to enforce No Right Turn on Red signs is relatively rare, but it appears that in Sep. 2012 Walnut began heavy enforcement on right turns from southbound Grand to westbound Amar.
There is some question about which section of the Vehicle Code should be used - and it has a big effect upon the price of the ticket. See the discussion in the big blue box on the AB 909 page.

Walnut Docs Set # 5
The Revenue

The City's monthly ticket revenue from the court is available in the Revenue Spreadsheet on the LA County Docs page.

Walnut Docs Set # 6
More Coming

There may be some more Walnut 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