Got a Photo red light ticket? Well guess what! Good news!!
 

A mighty blow has been made against DA MAN!! I was in Santa Ana court and witnessed the judge rule NOT GUILTY on every photo ticket in there. And there were more than a few.

Here is a link to a background article well worth reading:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2670.asp

State law requires that a 30 day notice has to be given when a given intersection has been outfitted with cameras for red light enforcement. However, the city of Santa Ana in their arrogance took the position that they only had to give a 30 day notice for the first intersection camera outfitted and the one notice then covered any intersection in the city. Apparently the majority of the 66 cities in California followed their lead.

In 2005 a guy in Costa Mesa took his red light case through the system all the way to the State Supream Court who held that a 30 day notice was required for EACH INTERSECTION before tickets could be issues.

In 2008 the same guy got a camera ticket in Santa Ana. He called the city attorney to advise the ticket was illegal.

""She paid little homage to the appellate decision requiring a grace period in my Costa Mesa case," Fischetti told TheNewspaper. "It was like, despite the logical construction of the opinion, the previous decision was meaningless. At that point I felt I needed to finish what I intended to do in Costa Mesa."

In other words, the city attorney responded in so many words 'I don't care. We fucked you and you can't do anything about it because you didn't have the ruling "published". This pissed off the guy so much that he went throught the process all over again JUST to get it published which became record January, 2009.

What does this mean? In short, every single traffic light ticket issued in Santa Ana for the past 6 years since they started this program can now be argued as being illegal. When I talked to one of the two attorneys who got all the Not Guilty rulings yesterday, he said his intended next step it to make Santa Ana reverse every single ticket they've issued over these last 6 years and refund every cent that was litterally stolen from the victims (us).

Here is a cut and paste from another web site talking about this before yesterdays foundation setting court case in Santa Ana:

"Both the Orange County and Los Angeles courts draw millions in revenue from "court costs" imposed on the nearly $400 camera ticket. Despite this, the
Orange County court has been consistently more skeptical of the procedures used in automated ticketing. The split between the courts can only be
resolved by referring a case to the California Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. In 2005, the California Supreme Court sided with the Orange County
court's reasoning and declined to reopen a decision that tossed a photo ticket over a city's failure to follow warning requirements. Requirements
that all 66 cities operating red light cameras in the state were violating.

In fact, last month (Feb2009) the California Court of Appeal rejected a request by the city of Santa Ana to unpublished a lower court decision that
could force the refund of thousands of illegally issued red light camera tickets for violating that same law. Earlier last month an appellate
division judge with the Orange County Superior Court determined that Santa Ana had violated state law when it failed to provide a 30-day warning period
before issuing tickets at each individual intersection equipped with a redlight camera and agreed to publish the court opinion. The Santa Ana City
Attorney's Office filed papers in February with the Superior Court,Appellate Division demanding a rehearing of the issue, but the request is
unlikely to succeed. The appellate division has already issued at least two other unpublished opinions that arrived at the same conclusion that the
30-day warning period applies to every new camera system being installed.

Unless the appellate division grants Santa Ana's request for rehearing, the ruling will remain final and hold full precedential value in Orange County
and persuasive authority throughout the rest of the state. (Unpublished court opinions apply only to the single case on trial (1-ticket), while
published court opinions apply to all cases within the jurisdiction (all tickets in OC) that's why Santa Ana is trying to "unpublish" the opinion.)

So, who do they have to notify? Anyone who might drive thru the intersection? Theoretically, that could be everyone in America...

Standard practice is simple published announcements in local news papers (which rarely even get read) which would allow "anyone in america" to be officially notified. http://ca.mypublicnotices.com/PublicNotice.asp

Also commonly supplemented by paper notices attached to permanent structures within some reasonable distance to the affected location and reading to the minutes of one or more regularly scheduled City Council meetings.

The funny part of all this is all Santa Ana had to do was pay maybe $20 for a notice to be published in the classifieds in the OC Register each time they outfitted an intersection with a camera system. But from what I heard in court the reason they didn't was to save money. Considering Santa Ana has 32 intersections outfitted with camera systems, that would have cost them (at $20 each) only $640. That is less than what they would get from fines from less than two citations.:rolleyes:

Even more, if Laura Rossini, Deputy City Attorney of Santa Ana hadn't been so amazingly arrogant to Fischetti, the decision would probably still not be published allowing the situation to continue.

Talk about penny pitching arrogance.:lol:

From my standpoint, knowing first hand the predatory manner (with the exception of Officer Bell) the Santa Ana police department manage this program, I not only have no tears for the gazillion $ in refunds they may end up having to cough up, but would stand on a soap box and applaud their having to eat it in this case. I only hope that there is finally a much needed police department and city prosecutor house cleaning as a result of this. Certainly a much needed rap on needed heads to remind that they are there to SERVE the people's best interest in a responsable manner. Given the camera's are actually installed by a private company (Redflex) who get paid by getting a piece of every ticket issued and paid, the whole program has been shown in too many cased to be managed in a beyond abusive manner.

Perhaps this should me made a sticky???

Nice to see that the inherent stupidity & inefficiency in a bureaucracy has, for once, broken in the favor of the public.

all they have to do is turn the lights off, place an ad and run it for 30 days then turn them back on. think they will do that? i think we all know the answer. because the system is abusive.

california needs our money! =(

The sad part is that the "system" had no problem abusively taking our money all these years. But you can bet the League of Cities will be singing the "We can't afford to give it back" blues when faced with that reality.

The funny part is the justification the city makes for the camera system in the first place is that it reduces accidents. Yep, relatively invisible camera's are a visual deterant. Just like motorcycle cops hiding in the the bush's with their Laser guns are a deterant. Maybe to the locals who get to know where the traps are set. But I'll bet that over time the vast majority of violations given in these situations are to non-locals. Can you spell entrapment?

I fully expect the cry of woe from the Cities will be the only voice heard. Remember, this is the same guy who killed the rolling 30 for "meaningful" pollution control reasons. Polictical agenda wins every time.

Um, they bust you when you go through a red light.

I don't even go through a red light if all sections of the street (and crossing street) are empty, dead, with nobody.

so big deal, why you guys being dangerous going through red lights? I've gone through these cameras, never gotten a letter. though the flash is annoying lol

This will just hurt our state more, thanks to that dick wad lawyer that wants more money - sigh

"thanks to that dick wad lawyer that wants more money"

There is no other way to say this. Chris, your observations are just plain STUPID!

The only money the lawyers I watched in the Santa Ana Court got was what they would normally get for defending any individual case. Maybe $500 a pop, what they would get for defending any traffic violation.

Further, if you took the time to read the article, you would have seen the guy who set the precident (Fischetti) and got it published represented himself. There was no lawyer. Just a guy who saw an abuse that needed to be corrected how ever possible.

I went through a similar process he did through the appelant level related to Traffic Survey's (foundation for Radar violations). Trust me, for a non-lawyer to do this requires a lot more work than if a trained attorey were to do it. So I have huge personal respect for Mr. Fischetti. If you get a radar ticket for at or under 55 mph, call me. :)

More over, the large part of these camera tickets are for cars that are only a split second before the limit line. So you're saying those violators present a meaningful danger where a split second past the limit line doesn't?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not anti enforcement. I'm also a big fan of CHP Randy Dopp (Google him. Been written up in Motor Trend magazine twice) who understands the word meaningful. He has been known to write 600 tickets in a year. But if all traffic enforcement officers were like him, the world would be a better place.

i've almost caused more accidents trying to avoid the camera lights than if they weren't there in the first place. trying to beat the light even if i know i would be good otherwise, slamming on the brakes when i just am not sure, worst is when it's wet out and you get to one of those lights that only stays yellow for 2 seconds on dry compound tires... i'm either going through it sideways on the throttle or skidding right up to the line.

then again it is santa ana, thats like fontana, filled with morons

Haha^


Hozzmanz, you my friend are very smart. I really admire people that go above and beyond and stand up for this kind of thing. I'm not that smart so I just bend over and take it pretty much. But anyways just wanted to shoot you some kudos


p.s. I hate the way California is ran.

very interesting. Thanks for the article I love it.

So not being notified of a camera in an Intersection makes it OK to run a redlight. That's bull shit. When I see a red light I stop regardless if there is a freaking camera.

This is more technicality mumbo jumbo, people trying to get away with breaking the law. Sure maybe some of them weren't actually running red lights. I bet most of them were.

Why should someone have to be notified that they might get caught for breaking the law? Shouldn't they be trying to OBEY it in the first place?

Good for them for "fighting the man", now someone teach em' how to drive properly!

I only ran a red light once... and finishline and startingline can back me up saying the light was red for over 3 minutes (1 whole song on my cd) we even had startingline get out of the car and run to push the cross walk button and it did nothing. Also it was like 1 in the morning so I doubt it was dangerous at all. but my butt still puckered when I ran it... no homo.

I would have turned right, made a legal u turn, and then made another right at the original intersection.

live2drive15,

How you interpret all this to mean it's now ok to run a red light is beyond me. More to the point, good traffic law enforcement is being cited when there is a MEANINGFUL need. Not at every opportunity. As I mentioned in another thread, it's actually illegal to coast on a down grade (VC21710). If that law were enforced like camera tickets, every time you pushed in your clutch to change gears while driving back from Victorville, you'd get a ticket in the mail.

The problem with camera enforcement is that the contractor that installs and manages the camera system gets paid by getting a piece of every ticket. Thus every ticket is financially meaningful and thus takes the common sense perspective out of the equation. Unfortunately, that habit is now set. So I'm not sure changing to a flat monthly fee would change this attitude.

Camera enforcement in theory can be a good thing. If you have an intersection that experiences more than it's share of accidents, it sends a message to the locals (word of mouth is a potent deterrent) who travel through it the most to cool it. This has been statistically proven to be the case. But when it's effect crosses the line to abusive, such as the too common practice to set the yellow to less than minimum interval recommended by the DOT, it's just plain wrong.

For instance, the other day I was driving down 1st Ave in Santa Ana and out of curiosity I timed the yellow at Grand (camera enforced) at just over 4 seconds. The major intersections just before and after were between 5-6 seconds. So if you judged your ability to get into the intersection at Grand before the red based on the prior intersection's Yellow, smile for the camera. You've just been set up. It's situations like this that explains at least in part why the largest share of camera ticket recipients are violators by a split second.

All that's going on is people defending themselves and trying to send a message to arrogant minds. If you can't see that, then sad for you.

Because by excusing these tickets because these people weren't warned that someone was going to be WATCHING them break the law, is wrong.

The problem with drivers now days is that NO ONE does the right thing unless someone is watching i.e.- cop, traffic camera. I'm sick of Shitty drivers and people looking for an excuse to get away with UNSAFE practices behind the wheel.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, but damn, at least I try! Even when there are no cops around.

I don't give a shit what the contractors are making off these things. Don't run a red light. I also find that EVERY yellow light varies in length depending on the speed limit and size of the intersection, camera or not.

Confusing attitude
 

The issue is fair enforcement (ie public safety) vs unfair enforcement (ie generate revenue by setting up and fuc king people). You would really help yourself if you would actually read the linked articles.

Try reading this one you silly goose. This is the one I was sitting in the audience watching unfold.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2865.asp

Pertinant parts to help you:

"While the court generally agrees with these contentions (translation - camera enforcement can be a good thing), it is compelled to declare -- on its own motion -- that the contract between Santa Ana and Redflex is contrary to terms of a law designed for the protection of the public, which prescribes a penalty for violation, is illegal and void, and that no action may be brought to enforce it," Schwartz ruled.

and

Schwartz saw the error in the announcement timing as more than a technicality, citing the false assertion of Police Chief Paul Walters that motorists would be given 4.4 seconds of yellow time at enforced intersections. Records show that seventeen of the city's eighteen camera intersections had yellow times of 4.0 seconds or less. The vast majority of red light tickets in the city were mailed to vehicle accused of entering an intersection less than half-a-second after the light had turned red.

"A member of the public who did have notice of potential enforcement from the original public announcement would find himself with almost half-a-second less time to make it through the yellow light," Schwartz wrote. "At 40 MPH, the speed limit at the intersection of all but one of today's cases set for trial, this would be over 23 feet or about one-and-a-half car lengths of yellow light time which turns red, instead... None of these ten cases would have been before the court if the yellow light duration was of the time stated at the only public announcement on the subject."

If you have a Camera ticket in Santa Ana, fight it and you'll win
 

So it doesn't get lost in the sea of words above, the bottom line is this. From that article:

"It is assumed that the court will continue throwing out every photo ticket filed until the city complies with the law." At almost $500 a pop, it's worth taking your day in court for this sure thing.

And, for those interested in stuff like this, here is a web site to add to your favorites:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/

I see what you are saying. They should not have shortened the Yellow light time.

It cannot be assumed that every person that got a ticket was innocent, but since there is no way to differntiate, I suppose they have no other way but then to dismiss them all.

The last thing the lawyer said irks me a bit:

"As a matter of public policy, I think the public is not in favor of this use of technology," Baylis said. "I think at some point people are going to become tired of the government intrusion in their lives."

While I can agree to an extent that government does get too involved. I am also sick of pieces of shit who constantly disobey the law, especially on the road!

Jay Leno doesn't share your irk:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2859.asp


Cut and paste, article:

"None of these ten cases would have been before the court if the yellow light duration was of the time stated at the only public announcement on the subject."

Cut and paste, personal observation:

For instance, the other day I was driving down 1st Ave in Santa Ana and out of curiosity I timed the yellow at Grand (camera enforced) at just over 4 seconds. The major intersections just before and after were between 5-6 seconds. So if you judged your ability to get into the intersection at Grand before the red based on the prior intersection's Yellow, smile for the camera. You've just been set up. It's situations like this that explains at least in part why the largest share of camera ticket recipients are violators by a split second.

Your comment: "I am also sick of pieces of shit who constantly disobey the law, especially on the road!"

If you ever pushed in your clutch pedal for any reason while driving back from Victorville through Cajon Pass, every time you do you are technically in violation of CA VC 21710. Aren't you glad that law isn't enforced like Camera tickets? :)

Ten out of how many? Exactly.

Yes I understand they are wrongly changing the yellow light time, that is wrong.

Never been on Cajon Pass, I am aware of the coasting violation however. If you push in your clutch pedal to shift, that's isn't coasting. I am sure to be considered coasting you would have to be in Neutral.

Yes laws should be in affect with a certain amount of judgement and rationality, but the blatant disregard that the majority of motorists have today frustrates me to hell!

Ten, as in every case (read 100% of) in front of that judge that day.

Additional observation of Santa Ana's abusive bait and switch* practice (which I'll bet is shared by the 66 other California cities using camera enforcement for the same revenue reasons):

"The vast majority of red light tickets in the city were mailed to vehicles accused of entering an intersection less than half-a-second after the light had turned red."

*Announce the yellow would be 4.5 seconds, then set most all the others at less than 4 seconds.

"shall not coast with the gears of such vehicle in neutral."
Neutral on a manual tranny is anywhere between gears. Don't you have to pass through neutral to downshift from, say, 5th to 4th? And as you transition from 5th to 4th through neutral, aren't you coasting? Technical, yes. Meaningful issue, of course not.

I suggest missing the light by less than 5/10th's of s second is just as technical and non-meaningful. Especially when you consider that that is further transition time between when a actually light turns red and the other light then turns green.

Yes THAT day there were 10, you can't say that all of the camera tickets for the last 7 years were of the same circumstances.

Shifting and coasting are not the same thing. You are just being technical to prove a point.

If they entered the intersection half a second before the light turned red they should have stopped IMO. I rarely drive through a yellow light if I have stopping distance before the intersection. My guess is those people were just trying to get through the light, kiss their fingers, say a hail mary, and double tap the roof.

4 Seconds is AMPLE time to decide whether you need to stop or not, ESPECIALLY at 40 mph.

you know, the city of fremont which is 35 miles south of where i live but happens to be the city of my school (wyotech) has those cameras all over the damned place. Theres TONS of asians in that area, being that a vast majority of people who live in the silicon valley are asian or middle eastern, and they are already terrible drivers (not all, just those in that area) these cameras are just fucking stupid to have.
kinda makes me wonder what exactly the angles they get on the photos gets me thinking about, what if i were to drift through an intersection with those cameras? thatd be a badass picture to show in court. ide take the fine just for the picture!

Lloyd

Lloyd,

Drifting through an intersection is a bad idea. Take it off road, somewhere safe.

You said these cameras are just stupid to have but just prior to that said the vast majority of people in the area are terrible drivers. To me, having terrible drivers, is a PERFECT reason to have those cameras there. You can bet the gov't is counting on that very same fact too.

Live2drive15: "Yes THAT day there were 10, you can't say that all of the camera tickets for the last 7 years were of the same circumstances."

I put it out there for you but I guess you missed it. So I'll repeat for your benefit. The statistical observation since the program was initiated in 2002 (or "The last 7 years") was made (suggest you read it) that:

"The vast majority of red light tickets in the city were mailed to vehicles accused of entering an intersection less than half-a-second after the light had turned red." Again I'll repeat, for your benefit, that it was announced the interval would be 4.5 seconds but actual practice at the 17 other locations were 4 seconds or less.

Live2drive15: "Shifting and coasting are not the same thing. You are just being technical to prove a point."

Absolutley. To prove the point that the “vast majority” of the time of these camera tickets aren’t so much for improved public safety as much as taking advantage of a “technical” and abusive foothold to generate revenue at about $460 a pop.

The real issue is recognizing that traffic citations are a $3 Billion dollar industry. Given the states financial situation, the sad situation is that we can very well expect abusive practices like this will continue to be tolerated until called out one by one in the legal system by people with balls enough to do so.

In response to a few PM's I've received on this subject, all this doesn't mean the City of Santa Ana or any of the other similar practiced 67 cities have turned off their camera's. You get you picture taken in the wrong place, you'll still get the ticket in the mail.

BUT, good chance you'll beat the ticket in court if you just go to court and ask the prosecutor (probably a police officer) for evidence that the required 30 day notice was given for that intersection. If he/she can't (which will probably be the case) ask for dismissal for that reason giving reference to the published court decision as recited in the articles (given in more detail in the pleading paper the article will link you to). A suggestion, unless you can prove with a picture it wasn't you*, other than yes sir and no sir don't say anything more than recite that point to the judge. You don't want to supply amunition that can be shot back at yah.

Good luck. :)

*The ticket you get in the mail is from the contractor Redflex and will say if it isn't you, then identify who it is. But they are asking for that information as their primary goal is to turn the ticket into $. I've read that there is NO law that requires you to identify who the actual driver was. Don't say you don't know, especially if you do. Just simply write in the section that you decline to respond to that question, include a picture of yourself to show it isn't you in the return envelope, and it should end there. If it doesn't end there, again feel confident about your chances in court.

Theres no way around it.

i Filed "Letter of Decoloration"

within 3 months i was found guilty

THE STATE NEEDS MONEY!!!! PERIOD....

TAKE SIDE STREETS.

WAIT FOR RED LIGHTS..

FUCK BLOCKED INTERSECTIONS

Trial by Declaration
 

MolososLotus FC3S,

Not surprised. I had a similar experience. Honestly, the only time I would expect you would get your case dismissed in a Trial by Declaration is if the cop doesn't respond. A reasonable chance that might happen on regular tickets as this process is a relative pain in the ass for cops to deal with. But the key thing to know is that by exercising your right for a Trial by Declaration, you don't give up your right to still have your day in court.

At the least a trial by declaration buys you time to figure things out, expecially valuable if this is the first time you've dealt with something like this.

For Camera tickets, the police response if so efficient it's almost automated. The camera ticket process is so efficient that they are now essentially ATM's for the government to take money out of your wallet. Like in most traffic court trials, the cops version is almost always taken by the Judge as the actual version. So, practically speaking, a Trial by Declaration where the cop responds in most cases is no more than an exercise. However, for Camera tickets, if in your Trial by Declaration you simply recite your request that the ticket be dismissed because of the 30 day notice rule already discussed, at least for the short term you have a good chance you'll get a happy verdict in the mail.

Anyway, now that you've received your Guilty verdict in the mail, go to the clerk window at the court and exercise your right to have your day in court. READ YOUR PAPERWORK as I beleive you have to make this request within 30 days of when the verdict was entered. So you still have the chance to follow the strategy previously discussed. Your new court date will be set about 40 days from when you go to the court clerk and ask for it. If you wait longer than what your verdict paperwork indicates to go to the clerk, your done.

Look, I'm no lawyer. But if you want a REALLLLLLLY good one for situations like this, call Mark. http://www.trafficattorneys.com/ He is one of the two attorneys that won that recent landmark case for camera lights, his fees are reasonable (about what the camera fine is) and he's truely one of the really good guys.

Good luck.

Last i heard about these Camera's is that its unconstitutional to be givin one, bein as you "cannot question your accuser." only time they are even relevent Tickets is when a police officer delivers them to you

Good catch. We do have a constitutional right to confront our accuser. Camera tickets stand on a foundation of legal faith in a certificate that claims to confirm the total reliability of a machine's reading. So far, that foundation has proven in the courts to be durable.

However, there was a US Supreme Court ruling that wounded SPEED camera. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp But it apparently doesn't quite do the job on traffic light camera's.

More

This foundation is that 'certificates' are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing precisely what a witness does on direct examination as in the case of camera situations they provide "neutral testimony". That is, testimony that would not change if your accuser was actually in the court.

And, when I said this decision doesn't quite do the job I meant not yet! It's a bullet in a gun aimed that the red light camera industries head. A process still needs to take place before the trigger can be pulled.

It doesn't matter if a police officer gives you the ticket in person or in the mail. All the cop is giving you is a notice to appear.

I am impartial. I could care less about the lights. We have a few here in Modesto and I drive like I normally do. I can't say much about anywhere else but here I think they work perfectly fine.

In truth, I agree with you to the point when they're set up in a visable and fair manner. Then the system is best achieving the purpose they sell to the public. Reduce accidents by being a visable deterant akin to a cop car sitting there.

What I don't agree with is when they set the camera systems up in a bait and switch entrapment manner. That's abuse. Since that seems to be the case more often than not, all is fair in how you defend yourself.

One final note to live2drive15, a good book you should read is George Orwells "1984".

all im saying is sliding through an intersection full well knowing that those cameras are there and having them take the picture i think would be priceless.
i would never do that, ive got too much going for me to A) be drifting on the street and B) be driving a non street legal car while having a smog licence, im just saying i think it would be a funny court session.

Lloyd

Only $10.37 at Amazon.com. The world as it is evolving to be. Be concerned. ;)

http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eight...0652232&sr=1-1

dude, we are already fucking there, and with obama in office, that whole 2012 thing just might come to fruition.
i swear to god, i wish people could just use their fucking brains for a minute and actually contemplate shit instead of just going "well, im a democrat, lets only vote for them"
im a "republican" only by household, i put regan on my ballot, i dont think anyone at this point can actually do shit for us as a nation without completely restructuring the ENTIRE senate and all affiliates related. WAY too much curruption.
oh well, all we can do is just use the constitution as it was written to help fight the curruption.

ill tell you what, i had a ticket on my car a couple of weeks ago, cant read fuckin anything on it i think it was for expired tags, got the tags renewed then called the cops to have them sign it off, this is what i got
"im sorry, we just dont have the resources to come to your house to look at your car to see if you updated the registration" "hold on, what youre telling me is that you had the resources to come to MY HOUSE and issue me a ticket that you wont come sign off" "well, thats not my problem" "its a 40 year old car, you have got to be joking me, it doesnt run at the moment and the part that failed doesnt exist anymore" "again, not my problem"
i swear to god, im not paying the fucking 10$ ticket because my car was parked ON MY DRIVEWAY with the tags expired, im going to court for this shit

sorry to thread jack, just reminded me of my dillema

Lloyd

LOLz. How would they catch your plates to give you the ticket when you're sideways?

magus,

If your car was parked on private property at the time, you unfortunately had the misfortune to have a cop with WAY too much time on his hands drive by your place. You pay registration fees for the privilege for your car to be on public streets. But that didn't change the fact that the computer confirms you owed back fees. Thus the cops excuse.

Solution otherwise, take your plates and current registration and tags to your local plice station and get it signed off. They don't have to be on the car for sign off purposes.

Suggest you also register you car as a non-op until you can get it running again. I had The Beast on Non-op for about 7 years while it sat on private property waiting for me to get around to it. The registration fee clock stayed turned off those 7 years until I finally needed to get current tags when I was ready to put it on the streets.