RED LIGHT
CAMERAS
w w w . h i g h w a y r o b b e r y . n e t |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - the main pages - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | |||||
HOME / DEFECTS | CAMERA TOWNS | YOUR TICKET | ACTION / LEGIS | LINKS / REF / FAQ | SITE INDEX |
This is the "The use of police resources is the biggest factor. The time commitments for sworn personnel have grown exponentially. The citations issued have diminished, and there has been a large uptick in the amount of challenges due to the large amount of information about fighting the tickets. We now have an officer that is spending more time answering challenges to the tickets and is spending less time in the field." If you've just arrived at highwayrobbery.net and haven't already read the What's Hot box on the Home page, please have a
look there, before continuing on this page. This Your Ticket page contains my recommendations as to what to do about your camera ticket. It's in four main sections - scroll down, or click on these links:
1. Ignore Your Red Light Camera Ticket? 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. highwayrobbery.net is a free-of-charge public service. |
Ignore
Your California Red Light Camera Ticket?
A June 2020 Court of Appeal
decision, which was followed in late 2020 by the DMV's
reinstatement of nearly half a million suspended
driver's licenses, suggests that responding to a
red light camera ticket from any city in California may
be optional / voluntary - unless you've already
contacted the court. A Brief History |
Police Going Too Far . . . Be Prepared!
You've been around. You grew up in The Big City and you're street smart. You've been to college, too! On your
computer you've been phished, Spammed, and hit with ever-mutating viruses, malware and pop-ups. You probably think you've seen
every sneaky trick, con or
scam ever devised and that highwayrobbery.net is going to tell you about something you heard about years ago. The info below applies only to California tickets. If your ticket is from another state, see the "Other States" heading near the end of this section. How to Recognize a Fake/Snitch Ticket If the document you received looks like this... It's a bluff because a fake/Snitch Ticket has no legal weight. It has no legal weight because the city has not filed it
with the court. That's why a fake/Snitch Ticket may say, "Do not contact the court."
In the towns listed above the police are going to great lengths to get registered owners to identify
who was driving their car. In those towns, if the clerks reviewing the
photos see that the pictured driver
is obviously not the registered owner (gender mismatch, great
difference in age, or a rental car) or that the photo is too blurry to be sure of who it
is, one tactic they use is to send the registered owner an official-looking notice
saying that he must identify the driver. (In the law enforcement business, they call these
notices a "Nomination," "Corporate Notice" or "Notice of Nonliability." I call them Snitch Tickets.) When I first heard about this "phishing" by the police, I did a little investigating. The results are
in the letter below, which I wrote to the supervising judge in El
Cajon.
Here is a discussion that occurred in court, under oath. Judge: "What if I loan someone my car?" Officer: "If we know that's not you, we send a Nomination." Judge: "Are they required to tell you who it is? If they don't?" Officer: "There's no law saying they have to." The existence and use of Nominations (another name for fake/Snitch Tickets) is rarely mentioned in the documents and correspondence exchanged between cities and the camera companies, because they know that the public can access those records via the Public Records Act. An early mention of Nominations was found in the proposal RedFlex made in 2008 to a city that was considering installing cameras. More recently, as part of their continuing effort to hide the existence of the fake tickets, the Industry has coined a new name for the fakes: Corporate Notice. Here is a page with stories from people who have dealt with a fake/Snitch Ticket. There are some news stories about fake/Snitch tickets - scroll down to the green heading, "Why Do Snitch Tickets Work So Well?" If you still are not convinced, run it by a friend who is an attorney or knowledgeable in legal matters. If you don't have an attorney friend who will consult for free, you can get a consult, for as little as $35, from one of the traffic ticket attorneys in your phone book (or from a traffic ticket attorney whose name you can get from the bar association referral service). What Will Happen Next? Usually, nothing! It is rare to hear of any further pursuit, by the police, of people who have ignored a fake/Snitch Ticket. I think the police have not designed follow-up tactics because Snitch Tickets are so successful - I estimate that 2/3 of recipients are tricked into responding. Here are the things I've heard of. 1. A couple cities have sent out "second request" letters. 2. I've only heard of this happening a couple times, but ya never know... One police officer phoned a small business that had been issued a Snitch Ticket on one of its company cars, described the man in the picture to the receptionist, and asked her if she knew who that person was! If your business has been issued a Snitch Ticket, you probably need to tell your staff what to do if the police call. 3. One police officer phoned the home of a male registered owner, hoping that the female driver he saw in the camera photo would answer the phone. A woman answered. The officer identified himself, then started talking about a red light running incident, then finally asked her to identify herself ! Your mother taught you what to do with creepy phone calls, didn't she? After all, how do you know it's not a prank call from "Punk'd," the TV show? Fake/Snitch Tickets: Why Do They Do It? ( "Fish: Jail term for new prisoners." From The Hobo Traveler. ) Most of these "Police Going Too Far..." cities have contract terms which give the city a financial incentive to issue more tickets. If you're not satisfied with such a simplistic explanation, read on... A typical contract requires the city to pay the vendor a rent of $6000 per month per camera. The need to recoup the rent gives the police an incentive to issue more tickets. Sometimes the police are looking to make a big profit: "It's a half million dollars in fines that we would not normally have collected." Emeryville Police Chief Kenneth James. Source. When they are first processing the violation photos, if they see that the face photo is obviously not the registered owner, or that it is of such poor quality that it would not be accepted by a judge as proof of who the driver was, some cities choose to send the registered owner a document which looks like a real ticket, but is not. Consider this 2012 discussion between a RedFlex employee and a Riverside employee (found in emails obtained via a public records request): RedFlex employee: "I can reissue this but you can't see the face on the correct vehicle at all. The windshield is very dirty and it caused a glare." Riverside employee: "Thanks. It subsequently went out as a Corporate Notice [Snitch Ticket] to 'educate' the driver." Sending you the Snitch Ticket is the police's attempt to get you to identify the driver. If you fill-out the blanks on the Snitch Ticket form, sign it under penalty of perjury and mail it back to them, the police can be confident that if they issue a real ticket to the person you have identified, it will stick. Why don't they skip the step of mailing a Snitch Ticket, and just issue a real ticket to the registered owner, no matter how questionable the identity or how obvious the gender/age mismatch, ignoring the lack of Probable Cause? Answer: Some cities do just that, despite the landmark 2001 decision which closed-down San Diego's first red light camera system, in which 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 Ronald Styn's Aug. 15, 2001 ruling in People v. John Allen, with emphasis added. Another trial court decision about the lack of Probable Cause is the 2014 decision in People v. Tho--. Also see Set # 16 on the Culver City Docs page. When a police department chooses not to use fake/Snitch Tickets, it can lead to the abuse described in the big flowchart in the It’s Not Me! section of this page, below. Why Do Fake/Snitch Tickets Work So Well? They'll say anything! This is the envelope one Snitch Ticket arrived in. (The "Traffic Enforcement Office" is actually the private company which operates the cameras.) Probably the biggest reason Snitch Tickets work so well is that they take advantage of your trust and confidence in the police. "Confidence" is the first word in "con man." From an Internet newsgroup discussion: Post-er # 1: "BS. It is self-evident that any so-called citation which doesn't tell you when and where to challenge it in court, is not a legal ticket." Post-er # 2: " 'Self-evident' only to those of us who have been pulled over by a cop and given a regular ('good old fashioned') ticket a few times. I admit that that describes me. I suspect it describes you, too. You and I know what a real ticket says and what it orders you to do. But there are at least two groups of people who don't have that knowledge. 1. Your auntie, who never has had a ticket in her life, until now she gets one in the mail. (Cameras with too-short yellows tend to catch mature people who drive at moderate speeds. Young lead-foots are going fast enough to make it through before a short yellow goes to red.) 2. People here from another state or country where tickets look different and/or are handled in another fashion." The Media Cover-Up Another reason fake/Snitch Tickets work so well is because the Mainstream Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) is reluctant to write about them; reporters get many of their story "leads" from the police, so they they don't want to get the police mad at them. An occasional story gets out, though. 2005: The Community Newspaper, San Marcos 2008: Inland Empire Weekly 2009: Handel on the Law 2011: David Goldstein on CBS-TV (Or Google CBS Snitch Ticket) 2011: Tara Moriarty on KTVU-2 San Francisco 2012: San Francisco Chronicle Some reporters are just clueless. Here's a TV reporter who is showing us his "ticket" - an obvious fake/Snitch Ticket - but in his story he never mentioned that angle. Maybe he didn't realize it was fake, until too late! (Watch video) KRON's Jonathan Bloom Holding One of Emeryville's Fake Tickets Next, here's a transportation columnist
whose ignorance of the law - specifically, the 2012 bill which amended CVC 40518 to formalize the wording and format of a Snitch Ticket -
may have cost one of his readers $600.00.
For the many writers/reporters/editors/publishers who are hesitant to tell the public about fake/Snitch Tickets, I offer this from Pulitzer
Prize-winning reporter
Gary Webb, whose life and death is the subject of the 2014 movie Kill the Messenger: Who ever thought that this would be |
"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. 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. ( If you want to read more about why you don't have to ID the driver, scroll way 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: In most cities, there's a lot of arm twisting going on! Another phone call to the PD: Another visit to the PD - with narrative by the defendant and his mom. The defendant
wrote: First Step, continued... "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. 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...
First Step, more... "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.)
Runaround by the court staff:
( A request you could make at arraignment would be for your ticket to be moved to a different courthouse. See Change of Venue on
the Challenges page. ) "It's Not Me!" - Third (Optional) Step (of four): Do a Trial by Declaration ? Trial by Declaration ("TBD") on an "It's not me!" ticket is suitable for either of these two situations: "It's Not Me!" - Fourth Step
(of four): Trial "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.
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 3, "It's Not Me!" |
Your Ticket Page: You may be able to ignore your red light camera ticket! Read the "Ignore Your Ticket" section, near the top of this page, before you make any contact with the court. Is the ticket from a city in LA County, or from a camera near an LA County MTA/Metro light rail line or the Orange Line busway? In June of 2011 we found out that the LA County Superior Court has not been reporting ignored tickets to the DMV! For info about the option to ignore LA County red light camera tickets, go to Set # 2 on the LA County Documents page. If you don't want to ignore your ticket but would have great difficulty paying the full fine, read the CalMatters article in the "Ignore Your Ticket" section, near the top of this page, before you make any contact with the court.
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.
If you got your real ticket only after someone else (or you) received a fake ticket (Snitch Ticket) and replied to it, be sure to read Defect # 8 before you do anything further.
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.
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.
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. 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!
Payment Plans Most courts offer some kind of time-payment plan to defendants who plead "guilty," to allow you a couple extra months to pay. In most counties, you will need to appear before a judge in order to set up a payment plan; but in LA County - beginning Dec. 2015 - you can set up a payment plan by visiting the court's website (press release). In all counties there is a finance fee for the payment plan privilege, but it may be included in the traffic school fee. If you want to combine time to pay and traffic school, you will need to finish all payments within 90 days, per CVC 42007(a)(2). From a reader:
Please first read the What's Hot box on the Home page, and on the Camera Towns page, the information about "your" town.
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. Be Very Skeptical of Anything Court Personnel Tells You:
Step 1: Extensions, Discovery, Traffic School, Preparation Extensions & Discovery Traffic School, Commercial Licenses, Alternate Pleas To Avoid a Point
If you want to get away from a particular judge because he doesn't reduce fines, give a reasonable amount of time to pay, doesn't allow Community Service, or for any other reason, 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.
If you want to go to trial, you
will need to plead "not guilty" and pay the bail unless you are taking advantage of the new "no bail" privilege (see box above).
(Warning: If you wish to maintain your "right to a speedy trial" you will need to enter your not guilty plea in front of a judge, not at the clerk's window and not by mail. See FAQ # 28.)
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. 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.
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 in the required places, 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.
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 # 2 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.
Until Jan. 1, 2013, cities had to post warning signs facing all four
directions of traffic at camera-enforced intersections - even if the
cameras were monitoring just one or two directions - or they could post signs at all major entrances to
town. Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, there must be a warning sign at each camera, and it's no longer an option to post
the 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.
'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" )
We almost lost Trial de Novo! Until June 24, 2014, there was a bill moving through the California Legislature, to take away Trial de Novo after a Trial by Declaration. Details are on the Action/Legis Page. TBD is trying a ticket by mail. TBD allows you to have a trial, without having to go to the courthouse even once! And, if you
lose your TBD, you can ask for a second trial, called a Trial de Novo, which will be just like a regular in-courtroom
trial. While some other ticket advisors have been strongly recommending doing a TBD, I have not been, because I think it can be a waste of time. But there are some situations, discussed below,
where TBD could be a way to dispose of the
ticket. I have provided pre-written declarations for one of those situations. See "Filing a TBD," below. We almost lost Trial de Novo! Until June 24, 2014 there was a bill moving the California Legislature to take away Trial de Novo after a Trial by Declaration. Details at Top of Action/Legis Page. TBD Situation # 1 - No Warning Tickets In Mar. 2014 the California Supreme Court issued its decision about warning tickets. In People v. Gray it agreed that a city must issue warning tickets when it adds a new camera, but the Court limited that protection to benefit only those motorists whose violations occurred when the new camera first became operational. So, if "your" city installed "your" camera and did not issue warning tickets for 30 days after that installation, and your violation occurred during that period, this issue can be raised in court. After the Gray decision the few cities still adding cameras to their systems will be careful to issue warning tickets, so highwayrobbery.net will not update the pre-Gray written declaration below (in the blue "wallpaper" area) until a city errs. See 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 ( alternate link to rules )
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 ( alternate link to rules )
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.
Following-Up on a TBD A very useful website (JP's Fight Your Ticket, see my Links page) gives this warning: 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 while Rule 4.210(b)(7) ( alternate link to rules ) provides that they must give you a TDN date that is within 45 days of the date you filed your request for the TDN, there is little a defendant can do if the court violates the Rule. See FAQ # 28. In 2014 we almost lost Trial de Novo! Until June 24 there was a bill moving the California Legislature to abolish Trial de Novo after a Trial by Declaration. Details at Top of Action/Legis Page. Trial Examples, More Actions to Take To read some sample trial transcripts, see my Library of 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. Appeals Internal Links Email: For the email address of the editor
of this website, go to the Action page. Back, to Home Page
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) ---------------------------------
|
Written Declarations for "Trial by Declaration"
(see Trial by Declaration/Trial de Novo section, above)
You can use the Judicial Council's
standard form ( alterate link to forms ),
or you can use one of the samples below.
To use a sample, highlight it, then copy (Control-C then
Control -V) it into
a blank word
processor document. Some of the bold
type information, or which is in multiple brackets [[[ ]]] must be changed to fit your case.
Declaration for a Ticket at an Intersection Where No Warning Tickets (warning notices) Were Issued
January 28, 2009
Mervyn P. Motorist
123 Home Lane
Anytown, USA
Traffic Docket
Los Angeles Superior Court
One East Regent Street
Inglewood, CA 90301
Re: People v. Mervin P. Motorist,
Traffic Citation - Inglewood Police Department Citation No. 123456789IX
Declaration of Mervin P. Motorist
Pursuant to Vehicle Code Sec. 40902 (Trial by Written Declaration)
To the Judge or Commissioner of the Traffic Docket:
Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40902, I wish to exercise my right
to trial by declaration with regard to a Vehicle Code infraction
citation.
As required, I enclose a check for $341 bail. Please refund the
same to me in the event the court finds me "not guilty."
In the event that the court finds
me "guilty," I request permission to attend traffic school.
I know that I have the right not to be compelled to be a witness
against myself. I understand and agree that by making any statement, I am giving
up and waiving that right and privilege.
The facts contained in the following Declaration of Facts are personally known to me and are true and correct.
The following evidence supports my case and includes everything I want the court to consider in deciding my case:
Photographs: None
Diagram: None
Car repair receipt: None
Other (specify): None
DECLARATION OF FACTS:
Based upon evidence obtained via an automated camera within the City of [[[ ]]] (hereinafter, "the City"), defendant is accused of failing to stop for a red signal, in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21453(a), 21453(b) or 21453(c) (hereinafter, all Code references are to the California Vehicle Code, except where noted otherwise). In this matter the People's sole evidence is a series of photos and/or video generated by said automated camera. There were no witnesses to the incident.
Section 21455.5 sets out requirements which must be met by a governmental city, county, or other agency which
operates such an automated camera. Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 21455.5 state:
(a) The limit line, the intersection, or a place designated in Section 21455, where a driver is required to stop, may be equipped with an automated enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Identifies the system by signs that clearly indicate the system's presence and are visible to traffic approaching from all directions, or posts signs at all major entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes.
(2) If it locates the system at an intersection, and ensures that the system meets the criteria specified in Section 21455.7.
(b) Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system [[[ underline the word "system"]]] shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program. (Emphasis added.)
ARGUMENT:
It is Defendant's understanding, from available evidence, that the City chose to
issue the warning notices required by Subsection 21455.5(b) only upon the installation of
the first automated camera in its jurisdiction, that said first installation was at an intersection that was not the
site of the violation alleged herein, and that as a result of the foregoing, the City will not be able to provide evidence that warning notices were issued pursuant to Subsection 21455.5(b) with regard to the intersection at which the violation occurred in this case.
[[[OR]]]
Pursuant to a Public Records Act request, Defendant obtained from the City Clerk of the City a true and certified copy of a City document, and said certified copy is attached as Exhibit #1. Said City document says that it is an exclusive agreement or contract between the City and Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. (hereinafter the “Supplier” or "Redflex"), providing for the Supplier to supply the City with automated enforcement equipment and services. Said City document says it was signed on [[[date]]].
Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, defines a “contract” as an agreement. Further, it defines an “agreement” as a contract. Thus Exhibit #1, the agreement or contract between the City and Supplier is a contract, and hereinafter will be referred to as the “Contract.”
Paragraph [[[usually 1.30 or 1.33]]] of the Contract says:
"1.33 'Warning Period' means a period after the Installation Date of the first [[[underline "first"]]] intersection approach, wherein only warning notices shall be issued…" (Emphasis added.)
It is clear from the wording of the Contract that the City chose to issue the warning notices required by Subsection 21455.5(b) only upon the installation of the first automated camera in its jurisdiction. [[[Here, provide a city press release or other document giving the name of the intersection where the first camera was installed.]]] Because the violation alleged herein was not at the location of the first camera installed in the City, it is evident that the City will not be able to provide evidence that warning notices were issued pursuant to Subsection 21455.5(b) with regard to the intersection at which the violation occurred.
[[[OR]]]
On [[[date]]] the defendant made a public records request to the City. A copy of said request is attached as Exhibit [[[ ]]]. In that request, defendant requested a sampling of the warning notices generated by the automated camera at the site of the violation alleged herein. On (date) the City replied that there were no warning notices issued [[[or that there were no documents responsive to defendant's request]]]. (Exhibit [[[ ]]].)
The City's decision to forego issuing warning notices upon the installation of the automated camera at the site of the
violation alleged herein, is inconsistent with the intent of Subsection 21455.5(b). Furthermore, the City's
decision is a violation of "equal protection."
THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Because Section 21455.5(a) provides that "the intersection" may be equipped with an automated enforcement system, "automated enforcement system" in Section 21455.5(b) cannot refer to the City's overall automated enforcement plan, but must instead refer to each individual automated camera system operated at an intersection within the City.
This intersection-specific construction is also consistent with the common definition of "system" as a group of regularly interacting or interdependent items forming a unified whole (Merriam-Webster' s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.. 1993) , p. 1194), a definition which is not in harmony with the City's evident interpretation and application of the word. Although the automated enforcement equipment operating at a particular intersection must interact in a manner necessary to produce photographic images of a violation, sets of equipment operating at different intersections within a jurisdiction need not interact with each other in order to function, and an agency might even elect to operate incompatible types of equipment at different intersections.
Further, if we look at all of
Section 21455.5, the author included, in addition to the requirement
for 30 days of warning notices, two other requirements to warn motorists: (1) A requirement to post large warning signs, and (2) a requirement
to make a public announcement 30 days before beginning operation. Further, in Section 21455.6, which was enacted by the same bill (AB 1022 of 2003) as Section 21455.5, the legislature
required that a public hearing be held. In requiring so many kinds of warnings, the legislature clearly wanted
motorists to be warned to the greatest
extent possible. The issuance of warning notices each time a new camera is installed is the interpretation most
consistent with their intent. Any interpretation that would diminish the amount of warning is inconsistent.
Even if use of the word "system" in Section 21455.5 were ambiguous, the legislative history of Section 21455.5 demonstrates that the word refers to the set of equipment installed and operated at an individual intersection and not to a municipality's entire aggregation of such equipment.
The Legislature in 2003 rejected an amendment to SB 780 which would have expressly provided for the warning notice period of Subsection 21455.5(b) to occur "during the first 30 days after the first recording unit is installed," and the omission of this language from the amendment enacted in that same year is indicative of a legislative intent to avoid linkage of the 30-day warning notice period with an agency's initial installation of an automated camera. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 88-89; People v. Adams (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 559, 565-566.)
EQUAL PROTECTION
The City's decision to give warning notices only upon the installation of the first camera anywhere in the City left the following motorists without notice:
(a) Motorists in a section of the City that didn't previously have a camera and which is miles away from the nearest previously-existing camera, and
(b) motorists new to the area (some of the City's cameras were installed more than [[[ ]]] years ago).
From the perspective of motorists for whom the statutory warning notice requirements were intended to provide protection, it does not make sense, and is unfair, for the geographic scope of the 30-day warning notice period to be defined arbitrarily by where one lives or the geographic size of the city, county or government agency in question, or for warning notices to be limited to a period many years ago simply because the agency's overall automated enforcement program is an old one, inasmuch as the legislatively-stated purpose of the warning notice requirement is to deter red light violations and that purpose is best achieved by the issuance of new warning notices to current local users each time automated enforcement equipment commences operation at an intersection.
Under Section 21455.5(b) compliance is required "[p]rior to issuing
citations under this section...." Hence, the burden is upon the City to provide proof that for the intersection where defendant's violation is alleged to have occurred, it issued warning notices
for 30 days prior to commencing the issuance of citations
at that location. Absent said proof,
the City exceeded its jurisdiction by commencing the prosecution of defendant without
having complied with the Section 21455.5(b) warning notice requirements.
"Because the record in this case shows a lack of compliance with the requirement of Vehicle Code section 21455.5, subdivision (b), that a municipality utilizing an automated enforcement system at an intersection comply with the prescribed warning requirements '[p]rior to issuing citations,' the conviction must be reversed. [Citations.]" (People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9.)
MOTION
Section 21455.5 is "foundational."
The defense submits that photos produced by the illegal use of an automated
enforcement camera may not be admitted as evidence against defendant. In
as much as the photos are the only evidence offered by the City, the defense
respectfully requests, and moves, that this matter be dismissed.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this written
statement was signed by me on September
20, 2009.
(signature)
Mervin P. Motorist
Declaration for an Inglewood Prairie / 111th Ticket - Missing Warning Signs
September 20, 2004
123 Home Lane
Anytown, USA
Traffic Docket
Los Angeles Superior Court
One East Regent Street
Inglewood, CA 90301
Re: People v. Mervin P. Motorist,
Traffic Citation - Inglewood Police Department Citation No. 123456789IX
Declaration of Mervin P. Motorist
Pursuant to Vehicle Code Sec. 40902 (Trial by Written Declaration)
To the Judge or Commissioner of the Traffic Docket:
Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40902, I wish to exercise my right
to trial by declaration with regard to a Vehicle Code infraction
citation.
As required, I enclose a check for $341 bail. Please refund the
same to me in the event the court finds me "not guilty."
In the event that the court finds
me "guilty," I request permission to attend traffic school.
I know that I have the right not to be compelled to be a witness
against myself. I understand and agree that by making any statement, I am giving
up and waiving that right and privilege.
The facts contained in the following Declaration of Facts are personally known to me and are true and correct.
The following evidence supports my case and includes everything I want the court to consider in deciding my case:
Photographs: On Internet, see below for URL.
Diagram
Car repair receipt
Other (specify):
DECLARATION OF FACTS:
The citation that is the subject of this case was generated by an
automated enforcement camera. Vehicle Code Section 21455.5
requires that a city operating such a camera post warning signs
"visible to traffic
approaching from all directions." [The requirement to post signs in all directions ends Jan. 1, 2013.] While the City of Inglewood did
post signs facing traffic on Prairie Avenue, I have read that they
admitted, during a Division 1 trial on Aug. 20, 2004 that they did not post
warning signs on 111th Street until August 19, 2004. My alleged violation
occurred before August 19. Photos (not taken by me) providing
further evidence of the missing signs, are posted on the Internet
at:
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsInglewoodMain.html.
Section 21455.5 is "foundational." It says, in part:
"(a) The
limit line, the
intersection, or a place designated in Section 21455, where a driver is
required to stop, may be equipped with an automated enforcement system
if the
governmental agency utilizing the system meets
all of the following requirements:
(1)
Identifies the system by signs... visible to traffic approaching from all directions." nbsp;[The requirement to post signs in all directions ends Jan. 1, 2013.]
If the City violated Section 21455.5 by failing to post all of the required signs,
I submit that photos produced by that illegal use of an automated
enforcement camera may not be admitted as evidence against me. In
as much as the photos are the only evidence offered by the City, I
respectfully request, and move, that this case be dismissed.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this written
statement was signed by me on September
20, 2004.
(signature)
Mervin P. Motorist