red light cameras

[flyenby]

Hi,
Anybody have any suggestions on how to fight a camera ticket??
Happened at 12.20 am, newly istalled system, was red by .22 of a second, am sure that it is set for a short amber.
Does anybody if it is legal for a signal to have shorter amber late at night???


THANKS

[pwd72s]

Sounds like you're screwed to me...unless you can go back to the intersection, measure it...time the yellow. Use TSD math to see if it's possible to enter the intersection on green & still run the red. Decades ago, I got a ticket dismissed this way. Not a red light camera, but a "crackdown" on cruising in Portland. Hey, anybody know if the relective plate spray advertised In Car Magazines works? Albany, Oregon just upped their fine for running a red light to $237, and has announced that they'll soon be looking out for the safety of the public by installing red light cameras. Also, anybody have a pic of these cameras? I want to know what to look out for...

[vangndy]

Back-seat driver: Judge fights red-light camera ticket -- and wins
By Matthew Barrows -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PST Monday, November 4, 2002
Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

Presumed guilty.
That's what Ed Jaszewski says is the attitude at Sacramento County traffic court when it comes to motorists contesting red-light camera tickets.


Like thousands of drivers, Jaszewski was captured on film while allegedly running a red light, in his case at Watt Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard.
But of all the drivers who have cried foul over the process, Jaszewski is unique in two respects: He has worked as a traffic court judge and, unlike most people, he fought his ticket and won.

Last year at this time, Jaszewski, an attorney, was volunteering as a pro tem judge at traffic court.

He said he mostly was presiding over run-of-the-mill cases such as speeding citations or stop sign violations when one day a batch of red-light photo enforcement cases landed on his desk.

Jaszewski said he learned how the tickets usually are handled by the court when he acquitted one of his first cases.

"The next thing I know, I'm handed a note that the traffic commissioner wanted to see me," he said.

He stepped into the hallway to meet the commissioner, who wanted to make sure Jaszewski was clear on how the camera system works.

On the same day, Jaszewski went home, opened his mailbox and found a red-light citation with his name on it inside.

It should be noted that Jaszewski isn't certain whether he ran a red light on the day in question. He says he's pretty sure the light was yellow when he crossed the intersection, but maybe it was red.

What he is insistent about, however, is that the trial procedure is flawed.

For one thing, he said, the prosecution never lays a legal foundation for the evidence. In most cases in which a photo is used as evidence, the photographer is called to the stand to verify that it's legitimate, that it hasn't been doctored.

That can't be done in red-light cases because you can't put a machine on the stand.

He also takes issue with the officer who testifies in the cases because the officer wasn't present when the driver is suspected of running the red light.

"The only person who (is) at the intersection when the incident allegedly occurs is the driver," he said.

Despite those arguments, Jaszewski fared about as well as most when he had his day in traffic court. That is, he lost.

So he decided to appeal.

After a period of several months, the District Attorney's Office responded to his appeal by saying they were willing to drop the case.

During the interim, the area's red-light system had been temporarily shut down after the District Attorney's Office grew concerned that the programs did not have enough police oversight.

The system, at least in unincorporated parts of the county, resumed in July, and officials insist that it's now airtight. But cases that were appealed up until that time were automatically dismissed.

"We were erring on the side of justice at that point even though we believed the people who got tickets probably ran a red light," said Deputy District Attorney Lana Wyant.

Another reason for dismissing appeals, according to other district attorney's officials, was to avoid a lawsuit such as the one that shut down the city of San Diego's camera system for more than a year.

As it turns out, Jaszewski didn't take the District Attorney's Office up on its offer to drop the case because he said he wanted a higher court to hear his concerns.

At his hearing last month, the judge ruled in his favor.

But he's still not satisfied. He said the judge dismissed the charges because the District Attorney's Office offered to do so, not because of the merits of his argument.

"I think the police, the DA, the traffic court, the whole thing is corrupt," Jaszewski said. "I have seen both sides of the system and I think it's wrong."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------









Also check out http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm
Be sure to read cvc 21455.5 21455.6 21455.7 there is quite a burden of proof on the state............



*EDIT* does it say the fine that they are asking you to pay? I have seen fines as high as $351 posted at intersections.
From the DMV website

"Traffic Lights: fractions: Penalty 42001.15. Every person convicted of an infraction for a violation of subdivision (a) or (c) of Section 21453, subdivision (c) of Section 21454, or subdivision (a) of Section 21457 shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100). "

Added Sec. 4, Ch. 852, Stats. 1997. Effective January 1, 1998.







Check out this appeal from California v Bohl:
"Appellant objected to the maintenance logs as hearsay. The trial court ruled that the maintenance logs were admissible under the official records exception. A review of the record indicates that the People provided scant evidence relevant to the foundational requirements of this hearsay exception. Notably, there was no evidence that the logs were made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event. (See Evid. C. Section 1280.) The evidence should have been excluded. (Evid. C. Section 353; Cf. People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, 126-129.)

Even if the logs had been properly admitted, they would only show that a technician spent four minutes on September 10, 2002 and four minutes on September 11, 2002 "checking" the system. During that four minutes, the technician recorded the "Condition" of lanes, pole/cabinet and camera. Also during that four minutes, the technician changed the film, changed the memory card and verified settings. Although the technician checked the box for "verify the system is functioning properly," there is no explanation of what he did to verify that the system functioned properly or how he knew the camera would not take a picture of a driver unless the light was red. The system appears to involve technology that has not been established as reliable in any published cases. (Cf. People v. MacLaird (1968 264 Cal.App.2d 972 (establishing radar as accurate.)) As the photographs generated by the system do not show the signal light, the system must be proven reliable in order for the People to meet their burden of proof. It is unreasonable, as a matter of law, to assume that logs showing four minutes of weekly maintenance would be all that is necessary to ensure that the system reliably worked. Further, because there was no explanation from an expert who was qualified to render opinions on this technology's maintenance and reliability, appellant had no ability to cross-examine an expert on the system's maintenance and reliability. The conviction is reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint. (People v. Kriss (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 913, 921.)"

Apparently 21455.5 which requires that the equipment be regularly inspected is not enough, the state must also show what the technician does to inspect the equipment and insure that it is functioning properly, in this case the maintenance log only showed a four minute inspection, not enough info for the court to determine "regular maintenance." Furthermore, this case also provides an out if the photos do not show the camera in that the state has an additional burden of proof to show that the system is reliable.

[Evans, Marv]

The yellow light may have been set for a shorter period of time than it should have been. In San Diego, the city contracted out the operation of the cameras to a private company. When the operation of the cameras was brought to court, it was disclosed the company had actually shortened the yellow light timing to increase revenue. They were getting something like 50% of each ticket.