Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 06/09/2010 12:45:58 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
California: Appellate Decision Strikes Down Red Light Camera Evidence Three-judge appellate panel finds a total lack of evidence from Santa Ana, California red light camera program.
Appellate courts in California are becoming increasingly upset at the conduct of cities and photo enforcement vendors. On May 21, a three-judge panel of the California Superior Court, Appellate Division, in Orange County tossed out a red light camera citation in the city of Santa Ana in a way that calls into question the legitimacy of the way red light camera trials are conducted statewide. Previously, a string of brief, unpublished decisions struck at illegal contracts, insufficient notice and other deficiencies. This time, however, the appellate division produced a ten-page ruling and certified it for publication, setting a precedent that applies to the county's three million residents.
"This appeal involves an issue far too often presented to this court, namely the admissibility of evidence and the statutory compliance with the procedures employed by several municipalities in this county in what have come to be known as 'photo enforcement' citations," the unanimous ruling stated.
At trial, attorney R. Allen Baylis objected to the admission of the red light camera photographs because the city had failed to lay a proper foundation for the evidence. The court agreed.
"The photographs contain hearsay evidence concerning the matters depicted in the photograph including the date, time and other information," the ruling summarized. "The person who entered that relevant information into the camera-computer system did not testify. The person who entered that information was not subject to being cross-examined on the underlying source of that information. The person or persons who maintain the system did not testify. No one with personal knowledge testified about how often the system is maintained. No one with personal knowledge testified about how often the date and time are verified or corrected. The custodian of records for the company that contracts with the city to maintain, monitor, store and disperse these photographs did not testify. The person with direct knowledge of the workings of the camera-computer system did not testify."
Santa Ana Police Officer Alan Berg testified in the lower court case, but the appeals panel found his direct knowledge limited.
"This witness testified that sometime in the distant past, he attended a training session where he was instructed on the overall working of the system at the time of the training," the ruling stated. "Here the officer could not establish the time in question, the method of retrieval of the photographs or that any of the photographs or the videotape was a reasonable representation of what it is alleged to portray.... Here, Officer Berg did not qualify as the appropriate witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of underlying workings, maintenance or record keeping of Redflex Traffic System. The foundation for the introduction of the photographs and the underlying workings of the Redflex Traffic System was outside the personal knowledge of Officer Berg."
Lawyers for the city of Santa Ana argued that the evidence should be admitted under the hearsay exemption for official government records. The court rejected this argument because the photographic records were created by a for-profit Australian company, not a state or local government agency.
"Here, the signator of the document, Exhibit #3, states they are employees of the 'Redflex Traffic Systems,'" the ruling stated. "At no point does the signatory state that 'Redflex Traffic Systems' is a public entity or that they are otherwise employed by a public entity. Absent this critical foundation information, the document that they created cannot be and is not an 'official record' under Evidence Code section 1280."
With the evidence inadmissible, the appellate panel found that "there is a total lack of evidence to support the vehicle code violation in question." All charges were dismissed.
A copy of the ruling is available in a 600k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: California v. Khaled (Orange County, California Superior Court, 5/25/2010)
Fore profit law enforcement, its about time the courts realize this is a bad idea and nothing good will come of it.
At the very least you have the basis for challenging a red light camera citation. Bookmark this case.
Money pressures being what they are, something will be worked out to satisfy the chain-of-evidence technicalities such as leasing the systems to the municipalities. The biggest shark has been jumped already, which is to automatically blame the owner of the car for the traffic violation.
Without identifying the driver, I don't see how they could legally issue a station. Such technicalities matter not anyway. It's all about generating revenue.
Maybe, but in states like Tennessee the constitution expressly prohibits private business from engaging in law enforcement functions. Something that was put in place here after a dust up and fall out with the feds over Oak Ridge national Labs after WWII.
One attorney here is challenging our traffic safety money makers on those grounds in a few months before the TN Supreme Court.
Ping
Kirk's lawyer won the case by pointing out that one has a right to confront ones accuser only in this case the accuser was a machine so the right was denied.
He forced the issue and they found that the machine lied.
Regardless of the technology one still has a right to confront ones accuser and if he or it cannot be cross examined the trial is unconstitutional and should be dismissed.
“He forced the issue and they found that the machine lied.”
Actually, the recording was manipulated by the ‘dead’ guy, who wasn’t really dead.
Dude, spoiler.
:0)
Glad to see a rational decision out of the left coast court system.
Beyond the specific issue of these camera’s, the whole idea that driving is a privilege needs to be wiped off the books too. Driving a car is as much a right as walking, biking, or riding a horse on a roadway the taxpayers PAID FOR just for that “privilege”. In my mind, it is confiscation of property without pay.
OMG?!?!
You haven’t seen it yet?
ooops!!!
Sorry!
;0)
But they found him with a device that amplified human heart beats by "one to the 27th power". Guess the show's writers weren't familiar with one of the basic concepts of exponentiation.
as to id’ing the driver...you can contest the citation as an owner by certifying (squealing) who the driver was at the time the picture was taken. (at least in MD)
it’s all a pile of unconstitutional crap
Excellent! It’s hard to believe it’s taken this long for a ruling like this. However, reading between the lines, it looks like the court would consider the cameras proper if they changed the procedures they use. I would imagine the localities are scrambling right now to make cosmetic changes to their procedures to get around the ruling.
Good! The government are trying to ram these red-light camera down our throats and to prevent anybody from challenging them, their system, their methodology, their analysis, their input, their decisions on who get tickets, and such and such.
They tell you in the citation that if the registered owner was not driving, then to avoid having to pay, you’re to turn in the name, address, etc. of the person who was driving so they can go after them.
If you don’t turn in the person, you’re liable.
Kirk is not one to be trifled with regarding computers. He beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario, so he knows computers can be manipulated.
thanks bamahead
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.