Posted on 02/18/2012 12:32:14 PM PST by DogByte6RER
Court Reverses Red-Light Camera Conviction
A court ruling that reversed a red-light camera conviction for a Los Angeles woman could have implications for drivers throughout California, including San Diego County, a local attorney said.
Last month, the state’s 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles agreed with the woman’s argument that a Beverly Hills police officer who testified at her traffic court trial was unqualified to do so because he was not the one who monitored and calibrated the red-light camera that cited her.
Instead, Annette Borzakian — an attorney who represented herself in the case — argued that the government should have presented testimony from a technician or records keeper from Redflex Traffic Systems, the company that installed the camera.
Borzakian was cited in June 2009 for allegedly failing to stop at a red light at the intersection of Beverly Drive and Wilshire Boulevard.
Mitchell Mehdy, a San Diego lawyer billed on his website as “Mr. Ticket,” said that although Borzakian’s argument isn’t new, the appellate court decision in her case is significant.
Most often, the attorney said, defendants who choose to fight red-light camera tickets in court have to try to refute testimony from a police officer armed with photos and other printed data provided by the camera company.
The officer typically would have no personal knowledge of the camera’s accuracy.
“If you’re going to allow a fight, do it on a fair basis and equitable basis,” Mehdy said. “You can’t question a piece of paper.”
He said he expects the court’s opinion to be cited in many other red-light ticket cases, and could lead to several dismissals.
“I think that it could actually be applied in every case,” Mehdy said. “I think that a number of judges are going to follow this decision on a case-by-case basis.”
Jonathan Heller, a spokesman for San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, said evidence in red-light camera cases is handled differently here than in Los Angeles. He said certain witnesses who testify on the government’s behalf are ordered by the court to bring evidence and a detailed affidavit by the custodian of records at American Traffic Solutions, the Arizona company that provides San Diego’s red-light cameras.
“By following these procedures, the courts have consistently held our evidence to be admissible,” Heller wrote in an email.
Nine cities in San Diego County use red-light cameras. The others are Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, Poway, Solana Beach and Vista.
Amen! “Serve and protect” has morphed into “stand and deliver”!
More like “Have a photoelectric machine take an automated picture, have a computer spit out a fine letter and dump it into the mail bin for pickup.”
red light cams are an increasingly important issue because many counties are turning to these to raise big money.
Some were caught reducing the yellow light time below state ordered minimum and had to refund hundreds in thousands in fines
I’m most concerned about having short yellows at such sites.
Yeah they really screw people with that in some places.
I think the only place I’d support these types of cameras are on the dedicated left turn lanes, and then only during rush hours. I mean we have people 5 car lengths back going thru the left turn after they’ve lost the turn arrow. This is where such a system would be useful. But for only those high volume times of the day.
Of course it’s really a common sense solution that actually addresses a real problem, so I would never expect a politician anywhere to adopt it.
Red light cameras almost exclusively have been put in for revenue generation rather than helping traffic flow or making things safer.
If anything red light cameras increase accidents by either encouraging speeding across the intersection or slamming on the breaks before the intersections, and causing drivers to increase speed to get through the intersection for fear of getting a ticket, increasing the number of accidents. Plus at higher rates of speed the accidents cause more damage.
As I have mentioned the best place to put these are on dedicated left turn lanes that get their own arrows, but ONLY during rush hours. This would quickly end the practice of cars that are 5-6 back continuing to turn after losing the arrow 10-15 seconds prior.
Then there is the “short green light” fund raising strategy where the locality running the RL Camera rigs the intersection to build up traffic in the hope of generating more income even with an approved yellow.
This is just evil government.
Instead of properly tuning lights for efficient traffic management they turn it into revenue generation schemes. Hoping people will lose their cool and break the law, thus getting their tickets.
Every one of those people need to be fired. Seriously. It’s called entrapment. It’s also just wicked when they are supposed to be being paid to keep roads and traffic moving smoothly, they are deliberately NOT doing what taxpayers are paying them to do.
Fired, all of them, and lose their seniority, their cushy pensions and healthcare. No longer be eligible for any other government job either except litter picker-upper.
You know, you may be able to get some of the enviro-weenies on your side as this does lead to a lot more cars idling and burning gas. And even enviro-weenies want to get to the “medicinal” (yeah right, that’s where they go) marijuana shop in a timely manner. Don’t want traffic to harsh the buzz.
I think the new motto is “To serve and collect.”
Ever since they put these cameras up in Houston (since shut off, hopefully permanently), I’ve started to run red lights where it made sense to me (such as when there’s little traffic, or if it’s close, in some cases). Of course I never ran the lights where there were actual cameras - in those cases, I was more interested in getting through the intersection without getting rear-ended, particularly if I was making a right turn - I would drive very carefully and defensively. But for the 99% of the other intersections, I need to make up for my cautiousness.
I’m sorry if that bothers people, but this is how I respond to cities that think they can install a tolling system without calling it just that.
Maybe when they try to convict her again, responding to the admonition that a policeman who did not see what took place in the view of the camera and was not an expert on the operation of the camera was not qualified to testify against her, and they instead bring in the camera expert, she might ask if “the camera was deputized” to make legal charges against her (yea, I am looking for a “catch-22” “gotcha” here).
Like any prostitutes, their motto should be “to service and collect”.
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.