Your Ticket Page:
- 2 -

"It's Not Me!"

If it's not you in the photo, you don't have to identify the person driving.

Is your name on the ticket, but it's someone else in the picture?  In California, these tickets can put a point on your driver's license, so they have to have a picture of your face.  A picture of your license plate doesn't establish that you personally did the crime - it only establishes that your car did it, and anyone could have been driving your car.

There are two different "It's not me!" situations.
(1)  If the police sent you a paper that looks like a ticket, but it doesn't give the name and full address of the Court, or it says, "Do not contact the court" (in small print on the back of the page), it may not be a real ticket at all;  it may be a fake ticket, what I call a "Snitch Ticket."  Go to the section titled "Police Going Too Far...," above, to read about those.
(2)  If your ticket gives the name and full address of the Court and says you are to go there or "respond to" the Court by a certain date, that's a genuine ticket - keep reading here.

It's a Real Ticket - but "It's Not Me!"

The easiest way to dispose of an "It's not me!" ticket is to give the police the name of the person who was actually driving.  But if you don't want to turn them in, you don't have to.


Even though there is no law
requiring you to identify the driver,
most police departments, and even some courts,
will tell you that you must.
It is OK for the police to make such a false/misleading statement - they are allowed to lie to you!
But it is not OK for the court to do so.

( If you want to read more about why you don't have to ID the driver, scroll down to the subsection titled "It's Not Me!" - Why You Don't have to ID the Driver. )

"It's Not Me!"  -  First (Optional) Step (of four):  Contact the Police ?

Please be sure to read this First Step, even though contacting the police is totally optional.  And, before you take any action under this First Step, please read all of the Second Step, below.  

If the ticket is in your name but it's not you in the photo, and the photo is sufficiently clear that a comparison between it and your driver's license photo would raise a strong doubt that it was you driving the car, you could call the police phone number that is usually printed somewhere on the ticket, and ask them to dismiss the ticket.  (Please note that doing this - contacting the police - is optional.)  If you get repeated busy signals, no reply to voicemails you have left, or end up talking to a clerk who keeps saying, "Please identify the driver," you could try calling the Traffic Division at the police department directly, via the city hall operator, and asking for the officer who signed your ticket - or his boss.  And, you could, as many defendants do, make an appointment and go to the police department in person in hopes that you can convince them to dismiss your ticket.

First Step, continued...  Notes from Defendants

The first of these notes suggests that contacting the police may be a waste of time, or it could even make things worse!

"I phoned the police department for my mother in order to have them dismiss any action against her (my 82 year old father was driving).  After harassing me to give him the name of the driver (and my refusal to do so), the police officer was able to look up my father's driver's license photo [since his license was at the same address as my mother's].  The citation came in the mail a few days later."

A visit to the PD:

"The picture of the driver in my ticket was blurry so I went to meet with the police to review the video and zoomed-in photos.  Immediately, the person there was convinced that I couldn't have been the person driving.  Like your website stated many times, this person insisted that I identify who was driving the vehicle.  This person explicitly told me that the responsibility to ID the driver was on my shoulders.  I didn't want to argue with the police officer at this time so I remained silent and gave a blank look.  My only intention today was to gather data and observe reaction.  I then asked a simple question about contesting the ticket.  Without answering my question, this person told me not to ask for a court date but instead ID the driver and let the new person go to court instead.  They further threatened that if I did not ID the other driver, they will look up all drivers at my residence and try to do a matching. [[See the purple "Caveats" box, above, about "matching."]]  I told them politely to go ahead and do it, and left the building."

Another phone call to the PD:

"I received a red light ticket in the mail.  The picture was not clear.  The ticket was issued in June but I didn't get the notice until October.  They had an incorrect address.  I called the # on the ticket (it was a real ticket, not a Snitch Ticket) and spoke to the officer.  I told him that it wasn't me.  I asked if HIS picture was clear.  He told me it was crystal clear (a lie).  I said that in that case I would go to court and get a court date and we would have the judge decide if it was me or not.  He said that if I would work with him he could take care of it over the phone.  I said what can you do?  He put me on hold for several minutes and came back and told me that they had a new system and it was hard to figure out (another lie), and to hold on again.  I held for several more minutes until he came back on and said, 'Since it isn't you I will dismiss it right now.'"

Another visit to the PD - with narrative by the defendant and his mom.  The defendant wrote:

"I appeared at the red light police officer's office.  He asked me who was driving and when I said it was not me he drilled me as to who was in the picture.  He kept telling me I must know the person and needed to tell him.  Then another officer came over, told me he thought I was protecting a family member and said I must know who it was and that I needed to tell him.  Thanks to your website, I learned the law does not require me to say anything other than ' it is not me.' "
From the defendant's mom:  "My son explained that he has a sister and maybe one of her friends took the car to go out for pizza or something, and went on to state he rarely if ever comes to [the city where the violation occurred] for any purpose (it is about 40 miles from his residence) and again reminded the officer he was there because he needs to have this ticket removed from his DMV driving record and it was preventing him from renewing his license.  The first officer again said, 'Who was driving? You had to know, you got to know who is driving your car.'  My son replied respectfully, 'Hey guys, I know it is not me.'  He mentioned again that he needed the ticket dismissed so that he could renew his license.  The main officer then said 'Well, I guess we have no choice but to dismiss it.' "
The defendant wrote:  "These guys really work overtime to force you to say who was driving.  They would not give me anything in writing that I could take to a judge to expedite the [renewal of my license]."

First Step, continued...

Based upon emails I've received from defendants, many police departments are threatening, like the ones depicted above - or worse.  But there could be exceptions.  Here is the letter one department (West Hollywood) sent to a defendant who had a question about his "It's not me!" ticket.

"This is not a problem for you. If you are not the driver of the vehicle, then you are not guilty of anything.  The law simply requires that we mail these citations to the registered owner of the photographed vehicle.
"The easiest way to resolve this problem is to come in and see me.  I take appointments every Wednesday between 9:30 and 11:30 am. I take walk-ins as well as scheduled appointments.  I'll examine the photos and if you are not the defendant or if the photograph is not legible, then I'll dismiss it.  It's that simple and the process takes less than 2 minutes.  We are located at the West Hollywood Sheriff's Station 720 N. San Vicente Blvd West Hollywood, CA 90069. Phone (310) 855-8850 ext. 505."

You do not have to tell the police who the driver was, either when you are talking to them, or by filling out the spaces on the back of the ticket.  One police department has even admitted that on TV...

"...sure, we think that you should identify the violator.... But there's no law that says you have to do that."
Bakersfield Police Public Information Officer Det. Mary DeGeare, on KGET, July 20, 2005.

The full text of the story is below.  Or watch it.

Anchor Robin Mangarin:  Red light cameras can catch you red handed, but what if you weren't the one behind the wheel?  Should you be compelled to snitch on your wife or kids if they get caught running a red light?  KGET-17's Kiyoshi Tomono has the story of a Bakersfield man who faced that very dilemma.
Reporter Kiyoshi Tomono:  A flash of light and suddenly you're caught on camera and getting a ticket for running a red light.  It happened to local lawyer Bill Slocumb.  Thing is, neither he nor his wife was behind the wheel.
"My stepdaughter ran the red light southbound on Coffee Road onto Truxtun Avenue," said Slocumb.
But Slocumb's wife got the $350 ticket.
In the same envelope was a form encouraging the couple to divulge who may have been driving if it wasn't them.
They decided to fight in court.
Slocumb said the judge didn't push the issue and dismissed the ticket, but the Bakersfield police still wanted to know who was driving.
"The officer who apparently runs the red light program demanded [[during a phone conversation before the court session]] to know the name of the driver, the address of the driver, whether I knew if she was a California licensed driver or not, and we simply told him that we were not interested in providing that information," said Slocumb.
But does the officer's request or the city's form have any teeth?
Police said it's a matter of civic duty and safety.
"If someone is driving your car and they run the red light and they [[you?]] get the notification, sure, we think that you should identify the violator," said Det. Mary DeGeare from the Bakersfield Police Department. "It's an infraction.  It's a red light violation.  But there's no law that says you have to do that."
DeGeare said not being able to identify the driver is not the norm.
"There's a process in place that helps us identify who the driver is," she said.  "We're able to compare, usually, the violator's photo to their driver's license photo."
Reporter Tomono:  Bottom line, read the fine print.
Slocumb said he thinks he's lucky because he's a lawyer.
"I guess it was a happy ending and we moved on with our lives," he said.
From KGET-TV, with emphasis added, and clarifying notes in [[ ]].

First Step, more...

While you're there, get your Late Time!
And, write down the names of the officers you talked with.
(That info may come in handy later.)

If you have decided to visit the police, and your ticket was issued by one of the Nestor cities that doesn't print the Late Time on the ticket, or by an ACS camera that prints it so small and fuzzy that you can't read it, then while you are at the station be sure to ask the police to show you your Late Time.
(For more info about these tickets with missing or illegible Late Times, see Defect # 5 and the How to Read Your Late Time box in Defect # 7.)


First Step, almost done...

If It Obviously wasn't You, Should the Police Even have Filed the Charges ?

In the landmark 2001 decision that closed-down San Diego's first camera system, the judge wrote:

"2. Gender Mismatches"
"The most disturbing testimony at this hearing came from Officer Smalley who testified that even when he had a 95 percent belief that the individual in the photograph was not the registered owner because of a fairly obvious gender difference, he would issue the citation on the theory that he was not 100 percent certain. This procedure has been halted over the objection of Officer Smalley. The police now do not issue citations where there is an obvious gender discrepancy between the driver and registered owner. Further, the prosecution has moved to dismiss the gender mismatch cases pending in this court. Therefore, there is no need to analyze whether such a prior procedure constituted outrageous governmental conduct."
From Section III(B)(2) of Judge Ronald Styn's Aug. 15, 2001 ruling in People vs. John Allen.


Some recent contracts specify that where there is a gender mismatch, the police are to mail out a fake/Snitch Ticket rather than filing charges at the court (by filing a Notice to Appear).


This defendant got his gender mismatch ticket dismissed by writing to the PD:

"Dear Officer ______,   On Sept. 4, 2007 I spoke to you regarding citation # _______ which you issued to me on Aug. 14, 2007. In that conversation I informed you that I was living in (another state) and had been since April of 2007 and that I had not received the photo evidence used by you to issue the citation. After you stated to me that “It couldn't be you because it is a female driving the car,” it was mutually agreed that the driver of the vehicle shown in the photo was not the same person named in the citation. You then asked me to “nominate” the driver . I replied that I would not “nominate” anyone without seeing the photos first. I requested that you send me a copy of the photographic evidence so that I could review it. I have received the photos and after careful review I am unable to identify the driver shown in the photos. The photo quality is very poor and the driver appears to be wearing large sunglasses that cover most of the face. I am unable to positively identify the person driving in the photo you sent me and therefore cannot “nominate” the driver of the vehicle.
I am enclosing a color photocopy of my valid Calif. Drivers License and my valid (other state's) Identification Card. Both can be verified through DMV records. Both have a clear photo of myself. When compared to the driver in the photographic evidence you sent me there is clearly no evidence that the person named in the citation is the same person driving the vehicle on the date and time indicated. Based on the comparison of the citation photo and the ID / CDL photos included I hereby request that you dismiss the citation.
Respectfully,


If you visited the police but they refused to dismiss your ticket despite an obvious gender or age mismatch, and there is no way they would be able to find out who was driving your car (see the purple "Caveats" box, above), you could file a claim against the city for the wages you will lose while attending court due to their "outrageous governmental conduct."  If you file the claim well before your scheduled arraignment date, maybe the city attorney will figure out that it's best to dismiss your case before your claim mounts up.  Claim forms can be obtained by phoning the city attorney's office.  Or, you could contact the "public integrity" or "justice system integrity" division of the local district attorney's office, and complain to them.


Before you take any action under this First Step, please read all of the Second Step, below.

"It's Not Me!"  -  Second (Optional) Step (of four):  Get an Arraignment Date ?

If you decided not to contact the police, or you did and the police refused to dismiss, "twisted your arm" to try to get you to identify the driver, or are just dragging their feet and wasting your time, you could call the court and get an arraignment date.   (If it is inconvenient for you to come to an in-court arraignment in person, don't make an arraignment date.  Instead, see the "It's Not Me!"  -  Third (Optional) Step: Trial by Declaration section, below.)

If you're not sure what an arraignment is, see the big green Confusing Courthouse Terminology box, further down this page.  Then come back here!

And, if you have never been to traffic court before, you might want to read this article about it, to get the "feel" of what traffic court is like.

Sneaky Lies Encountered While Handling It's Not Me! Tickets 1)  If the Court's address and phone number are not on the ticket, the ticket may not be real! - Have a look at the "Police Going Too Far..." section, above. 2)  On the back of some real tickets, it says that if it was not you driving, you "must" fill out the form and identify the driver. 3)  When you call some courts, you may get a recording that tells you, if you were not the driver, that you must identify the driver.  Or, it may say to call the "Traffic Violations Bureau," which will turn out to be the office of the camera company that is working for the city.  And the TVB attendant will tell you that you must identify the driver.  See this example from San Diego, Docs Set # 5.  Or, if you access the website for some courts, you may see a statement saying that you must identify the driver.   See these examples from Marysville, Docs Set # 1, and Bakersfield Docs Set # 12. camera companies + police + courts = 4)  Even those innocent-looking courthouse phone/window clerks may have been trained to try to get you to identify the driver!  Some have been instructed to refuse your request for an arraignment or trial date, to tell you that if it was not you driving the car, you cannot have an arraignment or trial - you must contact the police instead! 5)  The clerks at some courts say that if it was not you driving, you have to fill out the form and identify the driver. 6)  The clerks at some courts say that if it was not you driving, you cannot use a Trial by Declaration ("TBD") to contest identity. 7)  Even some judges and their courtroom clerks will "twist your arm" to try to get you to identify the driver (during your arraignment appearance, and sometimes even at your trial). If you encounter misdirection, false statements or arm-twisting when you phone or visit the court or its website, please send me all available details.

Runaround by the court:

"I had success for a red light ticket issued by the _____ Police Dept. I happened not to be the driver of the car, so I ignored the advice of many police and court employees, and followed your advice to request a trial and plead the "not me" defense. My initial attempts to get the ticket dismissed by ticket issuing authorities failed. The driver was a female with blonde hair, I am a male with no hair. It was pretty obvious that I wasn't the violator, but the police continued to play hardball and get me to submit the name of the driver in the ticket picture. I kept pressing for a trial. It took multiple calls to multiple agencies before I began to get any information regarding a court trial. I kept getting the story that a trial wasn't an option and that I had to ID the driver to get out of the ticket. I eventually got the appropriate information, mailed in two requests for a court date, and submitted bail. On a follow up call two weeks after my second request for a court trial, I spoke to a supervisor in the courthouse. He forwarded my request to the police for review. I think he was hesitant to assign a trial date because he understood the futility of a trial. A few days after speaking to the courthouse supervisor, I received my bail check and a note indicating that the police had dismissed the ticket. Success thanks to you and your website."

If you encounter arm-twisting and/or false statements coming from a court clerk or a judge, please send me all available details!

I wrote back and asked this defendant what his ticket looked like, and he replied:
"The front of my red light ticket followed the official format - the court's address and phone number were supplied on the front of the ticket; however, the back of my ticket (highlighting added by highwayrobbery.net), which give instructions for handling the ticket, provided vague and misleading information. The instructions that I received from the ticket handling agency in Arizona, the police, and the Superior Court, was to either pay the ticket or provide the required information of the driver of the car in the picture. No additional options were mentioned to me. This was told to me by a minimum of eight different people. The cop at the PD was both loud and insistent on this point. I was told on several occasions by clerks at the Superior Court that they COULD NOT give me a court date unless I agreed to being the person pictured in the car. Here was their rationale:
' The purpose of a trial is to judge the guilt or innocence of the person driving the car. As I was not the person driving the car, I could not request a trial. Only the driver pictured in the ticket could request a trial. Please provide the name and CDL# of the driver and they can request a trial.'
Only after insisting to speak to a supervisor or the supervisor of the supervisor, was I given instructions for requesting a court date."

The editor of highwayrobbery.net phoned this same court, and got the same runaround.  With two different clerks!  And, looking at the back of the defendant's ticket, there were four prominent mentions of "complete the affidavit" (a.k.a. "Section D") and only one mention, in the smallest type size, of the availability of a court hearing. (Highwayrobbery.net added the highlighting.)

( A request you could make at arraignment is for your ticket to be moved to a different courthouse.  See Change of Venue on the Challenges page. )

Second Step, continued...

At your arraignment, you have a couple choices of what to do.

(1)  Filing a "Demurrer."  If the person pictured looks very different from you and you've heard that your arraignment judge is unwilling to dismiss even obvious "not me" tickets, and you want to avoid going to trial (and having to post bail), you could file a Demurrer at the beginning of your arraignment session, instead of pleading not guilty.  See Defect # 8 - A, and ask me for more details.

(2)  Take your ticket with you to your arraignment and tell the judge, "Not guilty - identity" or, "Not guilty - wrong defendant."
Even though this verbal approach could end up being a waste of your time, here are details.

Saying only the correct words is important - a judge can't force you to identify who it is in the photo, unless you give up your right to not testify - by testifying.  So, you may want to avoid making statements that the judge might consider to be testimony, such as, "I was not driving the car," or even "It's not me!"  (Maybe I need to change the title of this section!)

If you know that it actually is you in the photo, you definitely can't say "It's not me!" as that would be perjury.  See FAQ # 21 on the Links page for more information about perjury.

As soon as he hears you question identity at arraignment, a good** judge will ask to look at your copy of the ticket (or he may ask the bailiff to look at it) - after all, all judges know that they're not supposed to send an obviously "wrong defendant" to a trial.  Then he may dismiss the ticket.

Here's an example.

"I got whacked with a collection letter for almost $700. I called the collectors and found out I'd been charged with a camera violation. I called the cops and asked for the photo ticket that I never received (must have been mailed to my former address in another state). The officer e-mailed me the ticket. When I saw it, it was quite clear that my wife was the driver -- though the ticket was issued to me (as per my registration of course). The picture was clearly a female driver. My name is Ralph -- clearly a man's name. Anyhow, after reading through your site, I decided to go down to the police station and ask them to drop the charge. The officer there said, 'No problem, just gimme the name of the cupcake driving and I'll be happy to drop the charge against you.' Disgusted, I turned on my feet and walked out. To which the officer said quite threateningly, 'Good luck in court, pal.'
The arraignment date came, I saw the judge -- entered my plea of 'not guilty - identity.' He asked if the basis of my defense was that I wasn't the operator. I nodded. He asked if I had a copy of the ticket. I gave it to the bailiff, the bailiff gave it to the judge. He looked at it for a millisecond, and dismissed the case. Nice judge. BAD cop. It's like you said, a good judge doesn't wanna waste their or my time on a cr--shoot with no evidence."

A good** judge won't ask "Who is it?"  But if your judge does, remind him that you have pled "not guilty" and have not given up your right to not testify, and ask him (politely, "With all due respect...") to either dismiss the case, or set it for trial, or Trial by Declaration.  (If the judge refuses to dismiss the case, and you can't afford putting up the full fine amount as bail, then this would be the time to talk to him about reduced bail, or no bail.)

If you ended up pleading "not guilty," you will next need to see the courtroom clerk, who will give you papers documenting what your trial date will be and how and when you must pay the bail (if any).  This is supposed to be a straightforward and businesslike transaction, but if your judge is one of those who asks "Who is it?," you may encounter more of the same from the clerk!  The clerk may try to intimidate you into filling out the form disclosing who the driver was;  he may even say that you must fill it out.  If telling him that you know that you don't have to fill out the form doesn't stop the pressure, simply tell the clerk that you'd like to see the judge again, to verify what the clerk has told you.

If the arraignment judge said that he thought it might be your face in the photo, and you responded by asking for a trial, then in the days after the arraignment you may want to do a Peremptory Challenge, so that you will have a different judge at the trial of your "It's Not Me!" ticket.

Second Step, continued...  More Info about Arraignment

**With an "It's not me!" ticket, the outcome depends upon the fairness of the judge.  If you would like to move your case away from a particular judge, or even totally away from the local courthouse, see Peremptory Challenge and Change of Venue, on the Challenges page.

Up until approx. 2004, some arraignment judges had a computer terminal on their bench, giving them instant access (via the Internet) to the camera company's digital copies of ticket photos.  Before the arrival of these computers, when a defendant at arraignment told them "Not guilty - wrong defendant!" or "Not guilty - identity," the arraignment judges had to make their decision based upon looking at the face photo printed on the defendant's copy of the ticket.   Many of those photos were poorly printed and indistinct, so they often had to tell the defendant to plead "not guilty" and come back for a trial.
The use of the computers during arraignment took an extra minute of the judges' time, and made it much easier for "not me" defendants to get a dismissal "on the spot," without having to come back for a trial.  So, the computers had to go...

"It's Not Me!"  -  Third (Optional) Step (of four):  Do a Trial by Declaration ?

Trial by Declaration on an "It's not me!" ticket is suitable for either of these two situations:
(1)  The mismatch between you and the driver is very clear, and it is inconvenient for you to come in for a court appearance, or
(2)  You wish to exercise your right to have the question of identity considered multiple times - at arraignment, in a TBD, and possibly in a Trial de Novo.
Trial by Declaration is discussed near the bottom of this web page, at the end of the Handling Your Ticket section, under the heading "TBD Situation # 3."

"It's Not Me!"  -  Fourth Step (of four):  Trial
(including Trial de Novo)

If it is inconvenient for you to come to a court trial in person, don't make a trial date right away.  You could try a Trial by Declaration (above).

If you are going to a trial on an "It's not me!" ticket, you should read all of Defect # 1 on the Home page, and also the Handling Your Ticket section, below.

Once you get to the courtroom, hang on tight!  The officer who is there representing the city knows that a police agency is not supposed to file charges against someone when they have strong evidence that someone else committed the crime.  The officer also knows that if he does so, repeatedly, a judge may "call" him on it, as this judge did.

"2. Gender Mismatches"
"The most disturbing testimony at this hearing came from Officer Smalley who testified that even when he had a 95 percent belief that the individual in the photograph was not the registered owner because of a fairly obvious gender difference, he would issue the citation on the theory that he was not 100 percent certain. This procedure has been halted over the objection of Officer Smalley. The police now do not issue citations where there is an obvious gender discrepancy between the driver and registered owner. Further, the prosecution has moved to dismiss the gender mismatch cases pending in this court. Therefore, there is no need to analyze whether such a prior procedure constituted outrageous governmental conduct."
From Section III(B)(2) of Judge Styn's ruling in People vs. John Allen, the landmark 2001 decision that closed-down San Diego's first red light camera system.

The officer knows that he needs to avoid letting the trial go to the point where the judge sees the obvious mismatch between your face and the face in the photo on the ticket.  The officer's plan will be to wait for your case to be called, and then once you are walking forward, to quickly ask the court to dismiss the case.  But he also knows that the average defendant doesn't know about these problems, so in the minutes before the courtroom doors open and/or the judge comes in, the officer will try to bluff you into giving up, changing your plea to "guilty."  See the trial examples below, written by other defendants.  If that bluff doesn't work, then he (with the assistance of the court) will also try to "bribe" you into giving up:  Before the judge comes in, many bailiffs offer traffic school to everyone there who has not had it in the last 18 months.  They don't have to make that offer - once you plead "not guilty" the granting of traffic school is optional, at the judge's discretion - but it works to the court's advantage as it gets a lot of defendants to leave so that there's not so many cases to be heard.

At a trial, the judge can't force you to identify who it is in the photo, unless you give up your right to not testify - by testifying.  So, you may want to avoid testifying, or making statements that the judge might consider to be testimony, such as, "I was not driving the car," or even "It's not me!"

At a trial, the burden of proof is on the People, so the officer will talk first.  After the officer has shown his evidence to the judge and it is your turn to talk, you could make a motion by saying, "Your honor, are you sure it's me?"
Or, "Your honor, I request dismissal because the pictures do not show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was me driving the vehicle."
Or, even more formally, "I move to dismiss, on the grounds that the prosecution has not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the element of identification of the driver."
Or, "Your honor, would you convict a bank robbery suspect on such blurry photos?  This also is a criminal matter... the burden of proof is the same."

Whichever of the above wordings you decide to use, write it down ahead of time, and then when you get to court, read it to the judge  Don't ad lib !

If you want to be very sure that the judge understands that you are not testifying, you could tell the judge, before you make the motion above, that you don't intend to testify, that you plan to remain silent (except for making the motion).  Or, you could substitute the words "the defendant" or "this defendant" wherever "me" or "I" occurs in the motion.

If, despite all your precautions, the judge asks you if you were the driver, one or both of the following replies would be appropriate.
"Your honor, that's a factual determination for the court to make."
"Your honor, I'm exercising my right to remain silent."

If the judge claims that the wording you used ("Are you sure it's me," etc.) was testimony and that by saying those words you gave up your right to remain silent - and so won't stop asking you who the driver was - you could point out to him that the wording you used was identical to what a lawyer representing (a silent) you would have said if the pronouns "me" and "I" were changed into "my client," that you spoke those words while acting as your own lawyer, not as testimony - and that you retain your right to remain silent.  The judge should understand that what a lawyer says is not testimony.

I strongly recommend that you make a request that your trial be recorded.  Otherwise, some judges will trample all over you.  It is best to make the request ahead of time, before the trial date.


Examples of "It's Not Me!" Trials

1.  This defendant had to take her (obvious) gender mismatch ticket all the way to a court trial.

"My boyfriend had been driving my car. It was NOT a Snitch Ticket. They had actually submitted it to the court under my name even though the driver was obviously a male. The officer either didn't care to check, or, more likely, thought I would cough up the name of the driver. Everyone associated with these red light cameras had always assured us that an officer of the law would review the picture and if the driver didn't match the owner of the car, they wouldn't ticket the owner. Liars.
So, having read highwayrobbery.net, I knew what to do. I went to the arraignment and pleaded, "NOT GUILTY, WRONG DEFENDANT." The judge didn't bother to review the evidence and arraigned me - THE WRONG DEFENDANT ! I always thought they had to arraign the accused. I was proven wrong.
Note: at the courthouse, everyone I talked to asked me if I wanted to "nominate" someone else as the driver. I always answered, "I am not going to testify." They never pressed for a name after I said that.
I showed up for trial. About 20 minutes before our scheduled court time a cop showed up and asked everyone there for a red light camera ticket to step over to him. He then called us one by one and offered to show us the infraction on video. I declined. That seemed to throw him off. Make a note: do NOT let the cops schmooze you.
Anyway, there were a lot of "gender mismatches." In the hallway, before the cop got to me, I witnessed another cop schmoozing another woman. She had obviously never visited highwayrobbery.net. They were trying to coerce her to give up the name of the driver. I don't know the resolution of her case...
[When it was my turn] the cop pointed to the blanked-off picture of the front seat passenger and asked, "Is that you?" I answered, "Yes." I don't recommend that, however. You could do the "I'm not going to testify" even here; even though this is outside of court and thus not testimony, it could be entered as "admission." I'm not sure that would hurt since you could still choose, once the trial started, to not testify. So they still couldn't force you to cough up the driver's name.
Next the cop pointed to the driver and asked, "Who is that?" I answered, "I am not going to testify." The cop said OK and directed me to enter the courtroom and wait till my name was called. Next, to the trial. The judge called my name. As I was walking up to the podium, the cop moved for dismissal based on "gender mismatch." The judge granted it, and I was out!"


2.  Here's a defendant who showed up for trial and was given the "Third Degree" by the police. The defendant's story points out how careful you have to be when being interviewed by (or negotiating with) the police.  (Remember, you can "dummy up" and refuse to tell the police who was driving your car - you could even tell them that you don't want to talk to them at all outside of trial - but it is illegal to give them false information or send them on a Wild Goose Chase.)

"I just got back from my trial appointment and my case was DISMISSED! I followed your advice to the letter, I held firm, it got a little heated and the officer had the audacity to claim I was making false statements. Here’s how it went down.
The line was ridiculous by the way. Before you see the trial judge they send you to see the video or photo in a different department. After waiting about half an hour, I had the privilege of being interviewed by Officer R. Wiggums, from the city's police department.
We sat.
OFFICER: Who’s that? (Pointing to person in photo, obviously not me.)
ME: I want to see a judge.
OFFICER: What’s going on?
ME: I want to see a judge.
OFFICER: Well, we need to get some information first. Tell me who’s in the photo.
ME: I already told you I want to see a judge.
OFFICER (serious now): Okay, let me tell you what’s gonna happen if you don’t tell me who it is. I’m gonna do a Lexis-Nexis search on your address and if I find out who it is, I’m gonna file charges against you for making false statements, filing a false report.
ME (angry): I didn’t make any false statements. I told you, “I want to see a judge.”
OFFICER: Are you telling me you don’t know who this is?
ME: I’m telling you “I want to see a judge.”
OFFICER: And what are you gonna tell the judge when he asks you who it is?
ME (angry): When the judge asks me, I’ll respond to the judge.
OFFICER: Okay relax, I’m just trying to straighten this out and help you out.
ME (angry): No, you’re not. You just threatened me.
OFFICER: I didn’t threaten you. I just told you what’s going to happen.
ME (angry): Well I consider saying I made false statements a threat. I’m here for trial, that’s what I’m here for!
OFFICER: Okay, I’m gonna dismiss your case, but you’ll be hearing from the D.A."


3.  Here's a case where the officer may have manipulated the evidence.

"My ticket was made out to me, a 55 year old male. The driver appeared to be a young female. I had read your site, but was not prepared for what happened at the trial.
Before the trial began, the officer showed me the photos and the video. At no time did I see the photo of the driver. I quietly asked the officer where the driver was, and he pointed to the blackened windshield which showed no driver. I said nothing else and waited for the officer to present the information to the judge.
I fully expected that the judge would ask for the photo identifying the accused. Incredibly, he did not. He turned to me and asked if I had any testimony. I replied that I did not, except for the fact that the officer did not present evidence that identified the driver. Instead of asking the officer to present the information, the judge asked me, "So are you saying that you are not the driver?" I sort of panicked and said "yes" while hoping that my answer would not be considered as testimony. At this point, he asked me for my license. This seemed like he was now helping the prosecution, but I gave it to the bailiff anyway. The judge then said he would look at his computer to see if the images were any clearer. I again said nothing while thinking that he should ONLY rely upon the evidence presented by the officer.
In the end, he found me not guilty due to me not being the driver. He then advised me that the officer may question me about who the other driver was and threw in more legal talk that seemed to include my Miranda rights. I sat for a minute, and received my paperwork as the officer approached to quietly question me before I left. I had seen this tactic before with other defendants, so I said nothing to him and walked toward the door. I heard him say that we could just talk out in the hall. Out in the hall he said, "So, who is the driver?" I turned to him and said, "That is information I am not going to provide." He just threw up his hands and left.
It occurred to me later that the officer chose not to print the photo of the driver, and edited the video so that it would also not identify the driver, which would have of course exonerated me."

"It's Not Me!" - Why You Don't have to ID the Driver

A judge can't force you to identify who it is in the photo, unless you give up your right to not testify.

On trial days, one judge (now retired) told the assembled defendants:

"There is one defense that I call the always-win-never-lose defense, pretty much an absolute defense in these tickets, and that defense is if you're not the driver of the vehicle.  Deputy Porche has two things that he has to prove to this court, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt this morning in each of your cases.  First, he must prove that a vehicle went through a red light.  Second, he must prove that you, the person cited, were the driver of the car.  The primary way that he proves that you were the driver is with the photograph or the photographs.  If the photographs are not photographs of you driving the car he has not met his burden of proof, you're 'not guilty,' end of case, we don't waste any time on those cases."
From: WeHo Trial Transcript

Here is an excerpt from a law review article, which says the same thing but in more formal terms:

And here is the same message, in a "real life example."

In some other countries this right - to refuse to identify who was driving - does not exist.  In England, if you refuse to identify the driver, they will double your demerit points!

If you are going to a trial on an "It's not me!" ticket, you should also read all of Defect # 1 on the Home page.

End of Section 2, "It's Not Me!"

Your Ticket Page:
- 3 -
Handling Your Ticket
( Including Collections, Traffic School, Reduced Fines, Trial, Trial by Declaration, Trial de Novo, Appeal )

Is It a Snitch Ticket?

If someone sent you a "ticket" that does not give the address of the Court, or which says, "Do not contact the court," that's not really a ticket at all - so go to the section titled "Police Going Too Far...," above.

Was Someone Else Driving Your Car?

If it's not you in the picture but your name is on the ticket, and it's not a Snitch Ticket, go to the section titled "It's Not Me," above.

Have You Been to Traffic Court on a Previous Ticket?

If you have never been to traffic court before, you might want to read this article about it, to get the "feel" of what traffic court is like.

Is Your Ticket "In Collection?"

If so, please read the information in this box.

Ignore It?

Here is another defendant's opinion of what to do with a (real, not fake) red light camera ticket:

"I have had many red light camera tickets in Beverly Hills and West Hollywood but never paid for any of them. I just ignored the notice and threw it away.  I also ignored the second notice that came in the mail stating that amount of fine is now doubled and collection action will be taken.  It is all a bunch of cr@p.
If you are an attorney, you should know that they have no proof of service and bench warrant cannot be issued.  They will never spend the money to serve every violator.
I advised all the people that I know to throw those tickets away and many did.  Years went by and nothing ever happened to anyone nor me.
I wish that everyone just threw these tickets away and possibly this nonsense would stop.  Thank you."

This defendant could have a surprise coming - at least one city is pursuing its collections via the Franchise Tax Board, many years later - see Set # 3 on the San Diego Documents page.  However, if you would like to see what he may be referring to when he says they have no proof of service, have a look at Defect # 8 on the Home page.

Dealing With It

If you don't want the worry of deliberately ignoring the ticket (who does? - unless it's a Snitch Ticket), please continue reading.

What's Your Late Time ?

Late Time is how long the signal already had been red (actually, how long power had been applied to the red light bulb) when your picture was taken.  If you cannot find the Late Time figure on your ticket, or it is illegible, see Defect # 5 and the How to Read Your Late Time box in Defect # 7.



Beating It on a Technicality

Technicalities having to do with late mailing of the ticket, improper proof of service, or an incomplete ticket, are described in Defect # 8 on the Home page.  Examine your ticket carefully!

Another technicality:  The contract - between the city and the company supplying the cameras - may be illegal.  State law says the city shall not pay the camera supplier on the basis of the number of tickets issued, or as a percentage of the revenue coming to the city from the court.  Despite that law, many cities have agreed to do so.  See Defect # 10 - B for more information.

And one more technicality:  One experienced defendant recommends that you immediately file an extensive Discovery (to which the City must reply within 15 days), refuse to waive your right to a trial within 45 days ("speedy trial") and, when the City has not complied with the Discovery request, go to court and ask for dismissal of the case.  He admits that it does not work all the time in the lower (traffic) court, but will guarantee your conviction being overturned on appeal.


Change of Venue

You may want to consider trying to move your ticket to a different courthouse.  See the Challenges page.


Confusing Terminology

If you're not sure what an extension to a "respond to" date is, and what the difference is between an arraignment and a trial, please read the info in this box.

Please first read the What's Hot box on the Home page, and on the Camera Towns page, the information about "your" town.

Is It a Snitch Ticket?

If someone sent you a "ticket" that does not give the address of the Court, or which says, "Do not contact the court," that's not really a ticket at all - so go to the section titled "Police Going Too Far...," above.

Index to Lies/Disinformation Coming from the Authorities 1)  If the Court's address and phone number are not on the ticket, the ticket may not be real! - Have a look at the "Police Going Too Far..." section, at the top of this page. 2)  If you've been told you can't do discovery on a traffic ticket, see the Getting Records/Discovery page. 3)  If you've been told you cannot tape your trial, see the Get Your Trial Recorded page. 4)  If you are not the driver pictured on the ticket, see the purple Sneaky Lies box in the It's Not Me! section, above. 5)  If you are planning to do a Trial by Declaration ("TBD"), see the purple Watch Out for This! box in the TBD section, below.

Step 1:  Extensions, Discovery, Traffic School, Preparation

Extensions & Discovery

If you just got a red light camera ticket, don't plead "guilty" right away, even if they'll let you go to traffic school.  In most counties you are eligible for an extension, no questions asked, and you won't be asked to post the bail or enter a plea.   The extension can be up to 60 days, and it will be added to the "respond to the court" date printed on the ticket.  (If your ticket doesn't say "respond to the court," it could be a fake ticket; see the Police Going Too Far... section, above.)

There's several ways to request an extension.
a)  You may be able to request the extension over the Internet - see your printed ticket for details.
b)  Call the court's phone number, which is listed on the ticket.  (If you make your extension request over the phone, make a note of the name of the clerk who you talked to, and the date and time you talked.  And, when you are talking to that "live" court clerk, find out what day of the week and time - morning or afternoon - the "not guilty" trials are held.  The information may come in handy later.)
c)  If it is at least five business days before your "respond to" date, you could request your extension by mail - but be sure to use Certified Mail, with a Return Receipt.
d)  Go to the courthouse and see the window clerks.  If you are going to the courthouse, you may want to schedule your visit at a time that court is in session, so you can go watch the judge in action.  See the "About Your Judge" box, below.

Once you have your extension, use the extra time to do the research indicated in Step 2 below.  If you are going to fight the ticket and want a preview of the documents and photos/video the City will present at the trial, do a Discovery without delay.  I strongly recommend doing so.  Details about Discovery are at: Getting Records/Discovery.

Second Offender Traffic School, Reduced Fines, Payment Plans

If you attended traffic school for a previous violation that occurred less than 18 months before the date of your red light camera violation (the interval is measured between the dates the violations occurred, not between dates of conviction), you're probably not eligible for "regular" (8-hour) traffic school - So read the info in the box, below.

Most judges offer some kind of time-payment plan to defendants who plead "guilty," to allow you a couple extra months to pay.  There is a $30 finance fee for that privilege, but it is included in the $39 traffic school fee.

From a reader:

"Perhaps you could make a suggestion to people that when they pay their fine or their bail, that they write in the 'memo' area of the check a much-needed purchase like "new tires," "car insurance," "health insurance," "college tuition," "mortgage payment," or "children's school clothing." You get the idea.  Force the employees administering this beast to live with the personal individual carnage every day at work."

If you want to get away from a particular judge because he doesn't grant Second Offender traffic school, reduced fines, or a reasonable amount of time to pay, you can file a Challenge, under Code of Civil Procedures 170.3 or 170.6, to get another judge.  If your Challenge is successful and your judge was the only traffic judge in the courthouse, your case likely will be moved to another courthouse.  If you have pled "not guilty," that extra distance will improve the odds that the officer will not show up for your trial.  See:  Challenges.
But there is a deadline for filing a Challenge, and if it is now too late for you to file one, pleading "not guilty" is still a good idea - maybe the judge you don't want will be on vacation on your trial date, and the substitute judge will grant you the 2TS, reduced fine, or payment plan that you need.

Preparing for Trial - and More about Traffic School

If you want to go to trial, you will need to plead "not guilty" and arrange for bail.  If you do not have the money, you will need to appear before a judge and ask for release on your "own recognizance" - abbreviated "OR" .  (Most judges are reluctant to grant "OR" - instead, they offer extra time to come up with the bail.) If you have the cash (or can put it on plastic) you can put up bail by mail or even on the phone.  (Warning: By bypassing an arraignment in front of a judge you may be giving up your "right to a speedy trial."  See FAQ # 28.)

If you want a preview of the documents and photos/video the City will present at the trial, file for Discovery (and issue any subpoenas for other documents) without delay.  (If possible, file for Discovery well before your arraignment date.)  Details about Discovery and subpoenas are at:  Getting Records/Discovery.   Later, if the City has not supplied the Discovery materials you asked for, take the action recommended in Fight Your Ticket.   Request an extension if necessary.  Use the extra time to do the research indicated in Step 2 below.  (If you obtain your extension via a phone call to the court, make a note of the name of the clerk who you talked to, and the date and time you called.)

(Don't panic - it isn't true! - Editor)

you should file a Peremptory Challenge.  Be prepared to do the same if sometime during the trial session the judge announces a general policy of "no traffic school after trial."  And if it is too late to file a PC, you could try a Challenge for Cause - the prejudice being that by pre-determining your penalty, the court has pre-judged your case.  See:  Challenges.
If it was the bailiff, or (earlier) a phone attendant at the clerk's office who said, "no school after trial," ask your trial judge if it is true.
Further reading about traffic school is in the Editorial on the Links page, the materials linked at the end of it, and the traffic school info in Step 3, below.

I strongly recommend that you make a request that your trial be recorded.  Otherwise, some judges will trample all over you.  It is best to make the request ahead of time, before the trial date.

If you have filed a Discovery request, doing so obliges you to discover your materials to the prosecution prior to trial.

Trial by Declaration

See the TBD section, at the big green heading below.

Step 2:  Investigation

Step 2:  Defects # 2, 4 through 8, and 10, are the focus here as they are the least subjective defects.  Either the signal had enough yellow time in compliance with Section 21455.7, or it didn't;  either the warning signs were big enough and posted on all four corners, or they weren't;   either the red light is visible in the ticket photo, or it isn't;  either the City issued warning tickets for 30 days when they started your camera, or they didn't;  either the ticket was mailed on time and with proper proof of service, or it wasn't;  either the City (not the camera company) wrote up guidelines (and by the appropriate date), or they didn't; either (a non-grandfathered) city pays its vendor a totally flat rate, or it doesn't.

To find out if the intersection you were ticketed at has enough yellow, look up the legal minimum in the Yellow Change Interval table (see Defect # 2 on the Home Page).  Compare that with the amount the signal actually has.  The box below tells you how to determine that actual amount, and document it.

Step 2 (cont'd):  Length of Yellow

If you have checked the length of the yellow and it appears to be shorter than the length required for the posted speed, get a certified copy of the signal timing chart for "your" intersection - or call the local TV news people.  

Or, if the yellow appears to be long enough for the posted speed but you intend to argue Defect # 3 because there is a big difference between the 85th Percentile speed and the posted speed limit, get two things:  (1) A certified copy of the speed survey for "your" street and (2), ask me to send you a copy of my appeal briefs.  

Details about making requests for city documents are at:  Getting Records/Discovery.

Step 2 (cont'd):  Are Warning Signs OK?

Warning signs must be posted facing all four directions of traffic at the camera-enforced intersection (even if the cameras are monitoring just two directions).  (Alternately, the city may post signs at all major entrances to town.)  The warning signs must measure at least 42" top-to-bottom.  If they are less than that, or obscured by trees or parked vehicles, or of a non-standard design (see Defect # 4 on Home page), take pictures or video to document the situation.  Be sure to document the date.


Step 3:  The Not-Guilty Trial:  Defenses, and More about Traffic School

The following advice is about a live "not guilty" trial.

I strongly recommend that in advance of your trial date you make a request that your trial be recorded.  Otherwise, some judges will trample all over you.

Show up at court!  Many cases are dismissed at the trial session, because of bad photos or other technical problems.  Or sometimes because the officer didn't show up.  But those dismissals don't apply to defendants who don't show up.

Once you get to the courtroom, hang on tight!  Sometimes the police have lost or garbled the electronic evidence.  Or, the camera company didn't send the data disk on time.  Or, their laptop is broken.  Or, often, they realize that the face photo is not of the quality required by the judge who will be trying the cases.  A lot of things can go wrong!  The officer knows that once the case is called, he's going to have to ask the court to dismiss it.  He also knows that you don't know about the problem, so in the minutes leading up to the trial he may try to bluff you into giving up, changing your plea to "guilty."  He (with the court's assistance) may also try to "bribe" you into giving up:  Before the judge comes in, many bailiffs offer traffic school to everyone there who has not had it in the last 18 months.  They don't have to make that offer - once you plead "not guilty," the granting of traffic school is optional, at the judge's discretion - but this plea bargaining works to the court's advantage (it promotes "judicial economy") by getting a lot of defendants to leave so that there's not so many cases to be heard.  If you don't take the bailiff up on his offer, and go ahead and argue your case, are found "guilty," and then ask for traffic school, your chances of getting it are much lower.  Post-conviction, some judges don't give it at all, because they can see that granting it would just encourage more defendants to argue their cases.

Sometimes you just have to hang on for the ride!  This defendant did...

I wanted to let you know what happened in court.
I got there along with about 75 other people. I suppose these camera courts are more crowded because they're only held once a week, whereas the non-camera traffic infractions are held throughout the week.
The bailiff asked, "All those here for tickets in the City of ______ raise your hands." About half the people raised their hands. Then he did the same for [another town that's also served by the same court], and a number of people raised their hands.
Then a police officer comes up to me and says my name. I get up and approach him and ask, "How did you know who I was?" He said, "Your photo is on the ticket." I said, "Oh!" He asked if I wanted to view the video. I said, "Nah, I saw it." He showed me the ticket and asked if that was my photograph. I thought for a moment and said, "I don't have to tell you that." He said, "No you don't."
Then he went away briefly and came back with a piece of paper. He said, "I can read this at trial, or if you wish you can read it over now and sign it." I go sit down and read it. It's a brief list of the codes [that the town that ticketed me] followed in setting up their camera system. I realized it's not a legal document, he didn't sign it at all, let alone with a declaration of perjury, and direct knowledge that the items listed were true and correct, so I knew I could actually use that paper against him at trial. He never came back for it, and after about 45 minutes total sitting in the courtroom, the bailiff called my name, handed me a piece of paper and told me my case was dismissed.



Step 3:  The Not-Guilty Trial (cont'd)

(To be prepared in case the bailiff or the judge makes a general announcement that there is "no traffic school after trial," please read the traffic school Editorial on the Links page, the materials linked at the end of it, and the traffic school info in the Preparing for Trial section, above.)

Once you have been called forward for your trial and are approaching the defense table, the officer (or the prosecutor, if there is one) will begin to present his case (he goes first because the burden is on him to prove your guilt).  He will be talking fast but this moment at the beginning of the trial is your last opportunity to make pre-trial motions such as a Peremptory Challenge (if you haven't filed it earlier - check the deadlines given on the Challenges page), and/or a request for the trial to be recorded.  (If the trial is not being recorded, some judges will trample all over you.)  This would be the time to ask for a continuance because there's been no reply to your subpoena(s) and/or your request for Discovery.  Also, if you requested Discovery from the prosecutor, this would be your last opportunity to give the officer/prosecutor any documents you need to Discover to him.
Since these things need to be done right away, you will need to interrupt the officer's spiel, before he gets more than a few words out.  "Your Honor... I have a pre-trial motion."


Defense:  Identity

Once all those preliminary matters have been taken care of (by now you may be in another courtroom and/or on another day), the Court will allow the officer to continue presenting his case.   He is supposed to begin by "laying the foundation."  Without having to be reminded to do it, most officers will give a brief foundational speech (sometimes very brief) saying that they posted warning signs (Defect # 4), gave public notice / announcements 30 days before starting up the system, gave warning tickets for 30 days (he may call it a "grace period" - Defect # 6), have long enough yellows (Defect # 2), etc.

The officer should show the judge the photo of the driver's face, after which the judge might speak up and say that he thinks it's not clear enough, or that it is not you.  (If the face photo is of poor quality, don't cave-in and ask for traffic school before the officer has shown it to the judge.)
If the face photo is blurry (or not you) and the judge hasn't reacted, bring the subject up once the officer has completely finished his presentation and it is your turn to talk.  Ask the judge to "dismiss for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were the driver, or simply ask him, "Your Honor, are you sure it's me?"  Do not say "It's not me!" if you know that it was you driving, as that would be a lie, which is perjury.

(As part of your preparation to do an identity defense at trial, you should read Defect # 1 on the Home page, and the Fourth Step in the It's Not Me section above on this page.
Also read about California's Truth in Evidence law and the Best Evidence Rule.)

If the judge rules that it was you in the photo, you could ask for traffic school and still have a fair chance of getting it;  or, you could move on to your next line of questioning.


Defense:  Foundational Requirements

Once the officer has presented his evidence (and you have questioned identity, as above), you (still) have the floor.

Ask the officer what date the contract with the camera vendor was signed.  If he replies that it was after Jan. 1, 2004, ask him if the city is paying the vendor at a flat-rate rent per month.  Any kind of sliding scale that depends upon the quantity of tickets issued or the amount of ticket revenue the city receives from the court would be a violation of CVC 21455.5(g).  Bring a certified copy of the contract with you, so you won't have to depend upon the officer's memory.  (Subsection B of Defect # 10 - Cost Neutrality.)

Ask the officer what date "your" camera was activated.  (If the judge questions the relevance of your question, tell him about CVC 21455.5.)  Ask the officer for the dates he gave warning tickets to drivers at your camera, and any document proving same.  (Defect # 6, Defect # 10.)

Ask him if there was a public announcement - mentioning your camera.  Ask for proof of that announcement - such as a newspaper "tear sheet."  (CVC 21455.5, Defect # 10.)

Ask the officer to show you and the court the written guidelines - both kinds - and the "...procedures to ensure compliance."  And check the dates they were written, and who wrote them.  (CVC 21455.5, Defect # 10 - A.)

Ask for proof the warning signs were posted - make the officer provide evidence that they were up (facing all directions) at the subject intersection at the time the ticket was issued.  (CVC 21455.5, Defect # 4.)

If the city has failed to meet any one of the foundational requirements above, make a motion to exclude the photos and dismiss the case, for "lack of foundation."  Include a statement addressing Truth in Evidence.

About Cross-Examining the Officer "More often than not, when you ask the officer a good question - one to which a truthful answer might be damaging to the prosecution - the officer will avoid answering directly.  Another frequent annoyance is where the officer properly answers your question but then starts to give a speech.  This can be unnerving - and it is improper.  You may want to 'rein in' the officer..." From Fight Your Ticket, which tells you how to do that, in the section "Cross-Examining the Officer - Basic Strategy," in Chapter 11. About Lies "You don't tell deliberate lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive."     Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, 1925 - "That's not a lie, it's a terminological inexactitude. Also, a tactical misrepresentation."     (Ret. Gen.) Alexander Haig, Nixon's Chief of Staff, Secretary of State to Reagan, 1924 - "If you cannot convince them, confuse them."     Harry S. Truman, American President, 1884 - 1972 "We payt a person the compliment of acknowledging his superiority whenever we lie to him."     Samuel Butler, British satirist, 1835 - 1902 "Falsehood is invariably the child of fear in one form or another."     Aleister Crowley, English poet, 1875 - 1947 "There are people who exaggerate so much they can't tell the truth without lying."     Mark Twain, American writer, 1835 - 1910 "Half the truth is often a great lie."     Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790 "A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies."     Alfred Lord Tennyson, English playwright, Poet Laureate, 1809 - 1892 (wrote "Charge of the Light Brigade") "There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it."     William James, American M.D., teacher, philosopher, 1842 - 1910 (brother of Henry James) "If it doesn't make sense, you should find for the defense."     Atty. Johnnie Cochran, 1937 - 2005 Lies by Court Personnel See the Index to Lies/Disinformation Coming from the Authorities, above. Compiled by highwayrobbery.net

Step 3 (cont'd):  More about Your Not Guilty Trial

If the judge denies your "foundation" motion (or if you didn't make one), argue your other defenses, if you have some.  If your other defenses involve photos that you have taken, or documents you have found, bring three (3) copies of each with you - one for the judge, one for the officer, one for you.

As part of your preparation, you should read about California's Truth in Evidence law and the Best Evidence Rule.

If nothing works and you are found "guilty," remember to ask for traffic school, if you want it.  If you forgot to ask for it while you were in front of the judge and court is still in session, ask the courtroom clerk if you can re-appear before the judge.


Trial Checklist

Here is a checklist, a condensed version of Step 3, above.  
Note:  In a murder trial with a jury, the expert lawyer might switch items C. and D. below, asking the foundational questions first - to keep the jury from ever seeing the face photo, no matter how blurry.  But for traffic trials - which never have juries - I suggest using the sequence as given.

'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE

If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory.  I use it too!

Trial by Declaration ( "TBD" ) / Trial de Novo ( "TDN" )

While some other ticket advisors have been strongly recommending doing a Trial by Declaration (trying a ticket by mail), I have not been, because I think it can be a waste of time.  But I can see at least three situations, discussed below, where TBD could be the best way to dispose of the ticket.  I have also provided pre-written declarations for two of those situations.  See "Filing a TBD," below.

Even though you will have been required to post the full bail amount in advance in order to have a TBD, if you want to retrieve some of that money through Community Service or a reduced fine, you could include a request in your TBD!


Advantages of Doing a TBD

You won't have to travel to the court - not even once!
You won't lose a day, or days, of work.
You won't have to stand nervously in front of the judge - possibly forgetting to state some of your best arguments.
It gives you an additional bite at the apple (two chances to win), potentially in front of two different judges.
It gives the police two opportunities to fail to present their case, in which case you win. One of those opportunities would be if they don't file their TBD papers, and the other would be if their officer does not show up for a later live trial (Trial de Novo, or "TDN").
It helps you prepare for a later Trial de Novo (should one be necessary), in a couple ways. It rehearses you, gets your thoughts in order. Plus, the City's TBD papers - you can get a copy - will reveal the arguments and evidence they will use during the TDN.


Disadvantages of Doing a TBD

You probably will not be able to appear at an in-court arraignment, thus you may miss a chance to get a reduced fine in return for a guilty plea.
You give up your guaranteed traffic school.  With a TBD, as with a live trial, traffic school is at the judge's discretion.
In order to do a TBD, you must put up the full bail - there is no "OR" or payment plans.

TBD Situation # 1 - No Warning Tickets

In Jan. 2009 an appellate court found, in People vs. Fischetti (#2) that cities should have issued warning tickets for 30 days upon the installation of each new camera, not just upon the installation of the first one in town.  That appeals decision has been published so can be cited in court, and is applicable to thousands of tickets.
While the Fischetti decision is quite clear that warning tickets should be issued upon each new installation, it doesn't say if the "public announcements" also required by CVC 21455.5 have to be repeated before each new installation.  I believe that the decision supports an approach that would maximize the warning provided to motorists - including a repeat of the public announcements.
See the pre-written declaration below (in the blue "wallpaper" area), and the expanded version of Defects # 6 and # 10 on the Home page.

TBD Situation # 2 - Missing Warning Signs

At Prairie and 111th in Inglewood, the City forgot to put up all the required warning signs (see Defect # 4 on the Home page, and the Inglewood section on the Camera Towns page).  They finally had all the signs up on Aug. 19, 2004, but by that time they had issued hundreds, perhaps thousands, of tickets there.  When this same thing happened in Bakersfield, the City (eventually) decided to dismiss all the tickets.  But in Inglewood there has been no general dismissal, even though it has been months since the problem was revealed.  As a result, each defendant with a Prairie / 111th ticket that occurred prior to Aug. 19 will have to have to take it to court, if they want to beat it.  See the pre-written declaration, below (in the blue "wallpaper" area).

TBD Situation # 3 - "It's Not Me!" / Wrong Defendant

If the ticket is in your name but it's not you in the photo AND the photo is sufficiently clear that a comparison between it and your driver's license photo would raise a strong doubt that it was you driving the car, or if it is inconvenient for you to come to court in person, you may want to do a TBD on the question of the identity of the driver.   You could submit a color copy of your driver's license photo plus other photo ID (passport?) if suitable, and a color copy of your ticket (or the original).  I suggest being careful about the wording of your TBD - so that if you later have a Trial de Novo, the judge there will not be able to use the words you wrote in your TBD to force you to testify and identify the driver.  A discussion of wording is in Steps # 2 and # 4 of the "It's Not Me!" section above on this page.  There is no pre-written declaration, below.

Filing a TBD

Often, you can use all or parts of the text from the sample TBDs that are in the blue "wallpaper" area at the end of this web page.  Excellent directions on how to file a TBD are in Fight Your Ticket.  Information is also available on the web site Help! I got a ticket!  If you just need blank forms, you can get the latest versions of the TR-205 and TR-200 forms from the forms page of the Judicial Council of California.

If you do decide to submit a TBD, make sure that you include a TR-205 (even though it might be redundant), and be sure to get an extra copy of your TBD date-stamped by the court clerk, so that you will have solid proof that the court received it.   If you want to submit your TBD through the mail, simply enclose an extra copy of the TBD (marked "copy"), a stamped self-addressed envelope, and a note asking the clerk to date-stamp the copy and return it to you.  I am a "belt and suspenders" person, so if I was going to mail a TBD to the court, I would send it by Certified Mail, return receipt requested.  And I would still ask the clerk to return a stamped copy to me.  I also recommend that you type your TBD paperwork - handwritten TBDs seem to be less successful.

Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 40902 and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 4.210 govern TBD and provide that a defendant who has lost his TBD is entitled to a new trial in court, called a Trial de Novo.  Again, see Fight Your Ticket.

The Deadline to Request a TBD

Rule 4.210 says that a request for a TBD should be made by the date indicated on the Notice to Appear (where it says, "You must respond to the court on or before ______").  While Rule 4.210 does not say it in so many words, it is clear to me that the deadline to request TBD would be extended by any extension you have obtained of the "respond to" date.  It is less clear whether the deadline to request TBD would be extended to the date of a later in-court arraignment.  Help I got a ticket! says that you can request TBD at arraignment.  I think it will depend upon the individual arraignment judge's interpretation of Rule 4.210.

A reader pointed out:
"I'm just now filing for a TBD. The ticket contained one set of instructions ON the ticket in small print, saying you must file for a TBD FIVE DAYS before your appearance date. But the instructions sent on a separate sheet WITH the ticket said you simply must file by the appearance date. The court took the liberty of using the 5-day rule and marked my case as "bail forfeiture." After going down there, showing them the instructions sent WITH the ticket and proof that I followed those instructions, they removed the bail forfeiture and are allowing me to file the trial by declaration paperwork. Just a problem your website readers might want to watch out for."

Following-Up on a TBD

A very useful website (JP's Fight Your Ticket, see my Links page) gives this warning:
ADVISORY:  It is imperative that you follow up on your TBD.  Some courts sit on these cases.  They are also aware that if you know how to fight by TBD (remember, less than 1% of those ticketed actually fight [[On red light cameras it's more like 10% - editor, highwayrobbery.net]], and even a smaller percentage request TBDs), you also know how to request a Trial de Novo.  You have 20 days from the TBD verdict to request a Trial de Novo.  By withholding case disposition information from you, they hope that the odds of you continuing the fight will be nil.  It happened to me in one of my cases; I had to personally drive to the traffic court to get the "guilty" letter in my hand 14 days after the verdict because they never updated my case disposition.  Call the court once a week if you have to.  Get their direct number as they deliberately mask it to keep you from calling them.  Also read Chapter 10 in [Brown's] Fight Your Ticket.
(From Section VI. of JP's Fight Your Ticket.)

Filing for Trial de Novo

When you file for your TDN, be sure to request a copy of whatever papers or statements the officer filed as his response to your TBD.  Also note that Rule 4.210(b)(7) provides that they must give you a TDN date that is within 45 days of the date you filed your request for the TDN.

Trial Examples, More Actions to Take

To read some sample trial transcripts, see the Index to Transcripts, Briefs, and Court Decisions.

Even if your ticket is not from Culver City, Hawthorne or Inglewood, you may find the information in those cities' chronologies (on the Camera Towns page) to be useful.

Other resources:  David Brown's book Fight Your Ticket, and the website Help! I got a ticket!  See the Links page for more details.

Finally, please send information about your illegal intersection, so it can be posted on the Camera Towns page.  You can use the questionnaire on the Action page, if you wish.

Continue to fight your ticket.  Alert your local press.  And contact your legislators/auto club about the Hot Legislation (on the Action page).

Appeals

If you are about to go to trial and are planning to appeal if you lose, be sure to make a request for your trial be recorded or steno'd.  It is best to make the request ahead of time, before the trial date.

If you've been found "guilty" and the trial was steno'd, the first thing you will need to do - right away - is contact the stenographer and order the transcript.  If the trial was tape recorded by the court, you will need to contact the court and purchase a copy of the tape.

The deadline to file your Notice of Appeal within 30 days from the date the guilty verdict was handed down.  But don't file your Notice of Appeal right away.  Wait until about the 25th day of the 30-day appeal period.  Use the extra time to put together the PSOA (see more about that, in next paragraph) that you will need to file within 15 days of filing the Notice of Appeal.

Once you have filed your Notice of Appeal, you have just 15 days to file your PSOA (Proposed Statement on Appeal).  The PSOA must include a brief statement of your grounds for appeal, and a recounting of what happened at trial.  That recounting can be a summary, written by you, of the portion(s) of the trial where you think the legal error(s) occurred, or it can be a word-for-word transcript of the trial, transcribed by you or by a court reporter.  It can take several weeks for a court reporter to provide a transcript - thus the suggestion, above, to wait until the 25th day to file the Notice of Appeal.

After your PSOA and the PSOA of the prosecution (if any) have been filed with the court, an in-court hearing (with your original trial judge!) is set to reconcile the two (or more) versions.

After the in-court hearing, the judge will send the Settled Statement, and the exhibits, to the Appellate Department.  I recommend that you wait a couple weeks after the hearing, and check with the Appellate Department to see if all your exhibits were sent up and if the Settled Statement correctly describes what happened during the trial.

During the appeal process, whenever you are supposed to serve documents on the opposition, serve both the city attorney and the district attorney - even if someone has told you that you only need to serve one or the other.

Resource Materials for Appeals

The book Fight Your Ticket has a whole chapter devoted to the subject of Appeals.
The forms for appeals (CR-141 thru CR-144) are available on the court's official forms site.
Appeals are controlled by rules of court 8.900 - 8.929 which are at official rules site.
For examples of appeals, see the Index to Transcripts, Briefs, and Court Decisions.

Internal Links

Email: For the email address of the editor of this website, go to the Action page.

Back, to Top of this page

Back, to Home Page

Can't find something?  There's now a Site Index

I update portions of this website almost daily.  If you are making a return visit after an absence of more than a day, I recommend that you hit the "reload" or "refresh" buttons, to make sure you have the latest version of the page you're interested in.

(Scroll down a little for the sample Trial by Declaration)

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