This post relates to my recent experience in court on a Red Light Camera Citation. I won this case primarily on the question of Evidence Reliability. Apparently, the Police Department and/or the Vendor in the program believe that the following statements are sufficient to authenticate evidence: "TRUE AND CORRECT EVIDENCE FROM XYZ POLICE DEPARTMENT" or "TRUE AND CORRECT EVIDENCE FROM REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS."

The problem with this is that first, I'm betting whoever is rubber stamping these documents has never seen the originals, especially if the stamping is being done locally on documents transmitted electronically. In any event, lacking a name, badge number, initials, etc., it's unlikely that any person can say for sure who certified the evidence. Furthermore, if the evidence turns out to be false, no person can be held accountable.

I presented this angle in court along with objections to the Cost Neutral Contract which pays the Vendor based on the amount of revenue collected each month. (Watch out for tricky wording in the Contract like "fixed fee" that is contradicted elsewhere by Cost Neutral Provisions. In the Cost Neutral Contracts, the actual term should be "maximum fee.") Cost Neutrality does not violate the explicit wording of CVC 21455.5 but it violates legislative intent contained in the enabling provisions. Legislative History regarding this statute makes clear that the general public and the Legislature have significant concerns about contracts with financial incentives for companies involved in the administration of justice. If the statute is ambiguous (i.e. does not specifically address the linguistic gymnastics employed in the Contract) then Legislative Intent governs its application. See California v. Evelyn McGee on the government's obligation to follow enabling provisions of statutes. The case is clear that violation of such provisions is a bar to prosecution.

The following are some questions I have thought up:

Evidence Foundation

1. Do you have the original documents here in Court?
2. Why is it that there no badge number, name, or other identifying information is included in the certification?
3. Regarding all Redflex documents and photographic evidence, where are the original documents and evidence kept?
4. Have you ever seen the originals?
5. How did these documents and photographic evidence come into your possession?
6. When you first saw the document, was it already stamped?
7. If you stamped it, and have never seen the originals, how do you know whether it’s a true and correct copy?
8. Move to exclude all Secondary Evidence without signature, name, badge number or other identifying information in the certification statement.

Cost Neutral (illegal) Contract

1. If the contract is legal, and it purports to be certified evidence, move to exclude it if the certification statement is not authenticated.
2. Does the contract between the City of _____________ and Redflex contain a cost neutrality provision?
3. According to the terms used in the contract, does the amount of money paid to the Vendor relate to the amount of money collected each month?