Friday, July 25, 2014

General thoughts on Red Light Cameras

First, they're all about the money, not safety. For example, regarding the program in Ventura, CA, the contractor's procedure manual indicates that all potential violations relating to emergency vehicles in a non-emergency status and those relating to vehicles with protected license plates are not processed. If safety was the motivator, these would be processed just like the others because either of these vehicle types can cause an accident just as easily as the rest of the vehicles.

Second, regardless of the actual motivation, they increase rear end accidents while reducing side impact collisions and doing nothing meaningful to the overall safety equation. Regardless of this, cities that choose to continue using them will conduct "studies" purporting to show improvements in safety.

Third, in California at least, the fine is way too high considering the relative seriousness of the offense.

Fourth, many cities maintain illegal contracts within the meaning of the law (in CA it's CVC 21455.5). They employ tricky contract lingo in order to confuse courts on this question. Fortunately, a number of cities have discontinued their programs altogether because the programs are not profitable or represent too much of a political risk without the illegal Cost Neutral provisions.

Fifth, the majority of the revenue generated is sent out of town, with much of it going to the corporate contractor.

For these reasons, and others, these citations should be fought at every turn. This means filing an Informal Discovery Request. It means requesting a Trial by Declaration. It means disqualifying a Commissioner if you appear in front of one. It means using a 170.6 challenge on the first Judge you appear in front of when legally appropriate. It means challenging all of the prosecution evidence when appropriate. It means appealing your case at least to the appellate division when appropriate. All of this takes time, but not a whole lot of it. And it takes very little money, especially when you consider that you might get by without paying any fine at all. I’ve received three of these. They all resulted in not guilty verdicts...two at Trial by Declaration and one in a Court Trial. The last one took eight months...but the look on the City Attorney’s face (who was apparently trying to prosecute the case with no legal authority) made it all well worth it. Well, he didn’t say he was actually prosecuting, but he was arguing and acting like a prosecutor until the judge agreed with me that he had no legal right to do that.

Red LIght Cameras are receiving less and less public support. Some people believe they do help with safety. If you’re one of those, and you ever get a citation, pay it with a smile on your face. The rest of you should consult www.highwayrobbery.net and www.helpigotaticket.com. If you’re willing to invest your time and effort, you can win your case!

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

How To Appear in Court, Dress and Attitude

I’d suggest wearing your best. The court will notice and you’ll stand out from those in T-shirts and jeans (or worse). The judge is supposed to decide the case on the law and on the merits but judges are human and your professional appearance will be a plus. Business attire is appropriate, not provocative attire.


Don’t openly or aggressively disagree with the judge. Make the points you think are worth making but don’t argue with the judge. Refer to the judge as "Your Honor" and don't interrupt the judge.


In most cases, you’ll probably not want to testify. You don’t have to. It never hurts to tell the judge you don’t intend to testify and you can still ask questions or object as appropriate. Your decision not to testify can't be held against you.


Know the format of the trial. If the judge is doing things correctly, the officer and you will have a chance to make opening statements, although this may be skipped over. You can request an opening statement to state what you believe the evidence in the case will show. The officer will be allowed to present the prosecution case. Then, you can cross examine or question the officer. You will be given the chance to testify and the officer may ask you questions after that, although this could constitute the practice of law and would be improper legally, unless the officer is duly authorized to prosecute by the District Attorney (See Government Code Section 26500). Because the prosecution has the burden of proof, they might have a chance to rebut your closing. Since traffic cases are less formal legally, the opening and closing arguments are frequently skipped over.


Don’t argue during the time you’re supposed to be asking questions. Ask questions. If the judge tells you to move on or to do something differently, either apologize or thank him/her and modify your approach. If you argue with the judge, you’ll probably be legally wrong and even if you’re not, you’ll probably lose your case.


You should know before going to court what the elements of the offense are. The prosecution must prove these. If the officer finishes presentation of evidence and testimony without doing that, I’d move for dismissal. The elements of the charge are found in the code section you allegedly violated. All of these must be proven.


Be respectful to the officer and any other witnesses. You might think he or she is a liar (and you may or may not be right) but the judge will assume you’re wrong. The judge has the task of assessing witness credibility. You have an incentive to lie (a financial one) while the officer does not. Most judges will attribute more credibility to the officer and less to the defendant, although if you can impeach the officer's credibility, this might change. Impeachment here means proving objectively that what the officer says is wrong or showing that the officer has no recollection of what happened, etc. It does not mean arguing with the officer or simply contradicting what the officer says.


Make sure you’re prepared. You should read case law and statutes relating to your alleged offense. (I use words like alleged offense deliberately.) In my own case, I knew the case law better than the City Attorney did (unless he was lying) and I pretty much proved that to the judge. When the judge asked me about a recently decided case, I said I didn’t agree with the appeals court decision but that the case also didn’t apply here. Then, I explained why. You might think that this is impossible unless you’re a trained lawyer but actually, these cases are frequently written in readable and understandable language. If you look over the case law from highwayrobbery.net you’ll see this. In California v. Evelyn McGee (this case is cited in CA v. Gray) I read the section on mandatory vs. directory statutory requirements several times before understanding it completely.

I know of a case where a City Attorney lied to the judge about a certain case and it’s meaning and application to the case at hand. After I read the case, which I might never have done except for the lie told, I was able to cite it effectively in my own case. In fact, it supported both my case and the earlier case in its correct application.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

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?