HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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.)

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

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

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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.

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.

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???

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

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

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

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.

Hypertek

iTrader: (3)

california needs our money! =(

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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.

cmanns

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

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

"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.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

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.

UNDISPUTED_FB

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

danegerous

iTrader: (10)

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.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

very interesting. Thanks for the article I love it.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

So not being notified of a camera in an Intersection makes it OK to run a redlight. That's bull ****. 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!

iLikeEatPoo

iTrader: (6)

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.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

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

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

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 **** 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.

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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."

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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/

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

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 **** who constantly disobey the law, especially on the road!

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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 **** 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?

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

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!

HOZZMANRX7

iTrader: (43)

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.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

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.