Vandalism caught on Traffic Camera - California

[gypsytango]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Can red-light cameras at intersections be used to prosecute crimes such as throwing something at a moving vehicle? Somebody threw an aerosol can at my car while I was stopped at an intersection with a red-light camera and cracked my windshield.. I called the police on him and they stopped him further down the road, but it came down to his word against mine, so I didn't press any charges and he was not arrested. Could I obtain a warrant to review the footage and use it to prosecute him later on? if so, is there a statute of limitations on when I would I have to press charges or can I do that at any point? It's my understanding that a warrant to obtain photographic evidence can only be granted if it relates to a crime, but does that mean that I would have to press charges for them to even review the footage? I'd appreciate it if anybody with insight into this could chime in.

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Can red-light cameras at intersections be used to prosecute crimes such as throwing something at a moving vehicle? Somebody threw an aerosol can at my car while I was stopped at an intersection with a red-light camera and cracked my windshield.. I called the police on him and they stopped him further down the road, but it came down to his word against mine, so I didn't press any charges and he was not arrested. Could I obtain a warrant to review the footage and use it to prosecute him later on? if so, is there a statute of limitations on when I would I have to press charges or can I do that at any point? It's my understanding that a warrant to obtain photographic evidence can only be granted if it relates to a crime, but does that mean that I would have to press charges for them to even review the footage? I'd appreciate it if anybody with insight into this could chime in.

You are NOT a prosecutor. YOU can NEVER prosecute him. All you can do is file a criminal complaint and follow through on it. The prosecutor would then determine if there was enough to proceed with criminal charges. You have no rights to get a warrant at all. And if the red light camera was also evidence then it was not your word versus his. You screwed up. What you can do is attempt to file a criminal complaint at this juncture.

 

[davew128]

All you can do is file a criminal complaint and follow through on it.

Not entirely true in CA. OP could have made a citizen's arrest since it occurred in his presence and officers would have been obligated to take custody of the offender.

The prosecutor would then determine if there was enough to proceed with criminal charges. You have no rights to get a warrant at all. And if the red light camera was also evidence then it was not your word versus his. You screwed up. What you can do is attempt to file a criminal complaint at this juncture.

This is 100% on the money regardless.

 

[Ohiogal]

Not entirely true in CA. OP could have made a citizen's arrest since it occurred in his presence and officers would have been obligated to take custody of the offender.

This is 100% on the money regardless.

Yeah but she didn't make a citizen's arrest. She let it go. Therefore, at this point is what I was answering.

 

[gypsytango]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Sorry for the confusion ohiogal, I'm not very familiar with the legal system, but should I choose to lodge a criminal complaint against this person now is there a chance that the prosecutor would use the red-light camera footage as evidence? I was under the impression that such cameras were only used in cases regarding traffic violations, and even if they have the potential to obtain such evidence, would they even go through the pains of obtaining a warrant and making a case against this person? I'm asking because, during the ordeal, I got a very condescending impression from the officers involved that indicated to me that they had bigger fish to fry and that, without the footage, it boils down to his word against mine. I said that I would like to press charges, but once they informed the suspect, he told the officers that he wanted to press charges against me for the same reason! I didn't want to deal with the hassle of going to court only to have a judge drop the charges because there is a lack of evidence. Is my decision to not press charges binding, or is there a chance that I could lodge this complaint at a later time and if so, are red-light cameras in play?

 

[justalayman]

Not entirely true in CA. OP could have made a citizen's arrest since it occurred in his presence and officers would have been obligated to take custody of the offender.
.

764.16 Arrest by private person; situations.
Sec. 16.

A private person may make an arrest—in the following situations:

(a) For a felony committed in the private person's presence.

(b) If the person to be arrested has committed a felony although not in the private person's presence.

(c) If the private person is summoned by a peace officer to assist the officer in making an arrest.

(d) If the private person is a merchant, an agent of a merchant, an employee of a merchant, or an independent contractor providing security for a merchant of a store and has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has violated section 356c or 356d of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.356c and 750.356d of the Michigan Compiled Laws, in that store, regardless of whether the violation was committed in the presence of the private person.

was it a felony?

there is still the problem with proving the crime.


I don't know about the red light camera involved but I suspect that unless there was a red light violation the video was not preserved.

 

[gypsytango]

From what I gathered it was not a felony. The officer I conferred with told me that throwing something at a moving vehicle is a misdemeanor in California.

Why would the video not be preserved justalayman? I gave the police details such as the exact intersection at which this happened and in what direction he was heading, and I'd assume that following up by checking the footage in more serious crimes such as vehicular manslaughter would almost be an afterthought. I'm more concerned about the tendency for prosecutors to decide not to pursue charges and seriously investigate leads in misdemeanor cases such as this, especially when there are no witnesses to speak of.

Regardless, I did not need to make a citizen's arrest as the police had already detained the suspect on information that I gave them about his location.

 

[justalayman]

Ignore my statute. For some reason I had Michigan on my mind and that is from MI.

Why would the video not be preserved justalayman?

I would suppose that if there were no reason to preserve the video, such as somebody got a ticket, it would not be preserved any longer than it typically is. If you want to do something, I would suggest moving quite quickly since I do not expect it is reserved for very long.

 

[davew128]

was it a felony?

there is still the problem with proving the crime.


I don't know about the red light camera involved but I suspect that unless there was a red light violation the video was not preserved.

Quoting Michigan laws doesn't address that this is a California situation.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

It only needs to be a misdemeanor in CA for a citizens arrest.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Can red-light cameras at intersections be used to prosecute crimes such as throwing something at a moving vehicle?

If they were like video cameras, sure. As it is, they take stills, so, no.

Somebody threw an aerosol can at my car while I was stopped at an intersection with a red-light camera and cracked my windshield.. I called the police on him and they stopped him further down the road, but it came down to his word against mine, so I didn't press any charges and he was not arrested.

That was your option. You could have signed a private person's arrest against him, but it still would have come down to your word against his.

Could I obtain a warrant to review the footage and use it to prosecute him later on?

No. You're not a prosecutor and cannot request a warrant from the court. If you sued the guy you could get a subpoena, maybe, but since the camera is not a video recorder, it wouldn't do you much good unless it happened to catch him in the intersection when it snapped a photo of a violator.

if so, is there a statute of limitations on when I would I have to press charges or can I do that at any point?

The SOL for a misdemeanor is one year.

It's my understanding that a warrant to obtain photographic evidence can only be granted if it relates to a crime, but does that mean that I would have to press charges for them to even review the footage? I'd appreciate it if anybody with insight into this could chime in.

A subpoena can be sought for criminal or civil issues. If you sued him, you could seek a subpoena, but it would be of no avail.

 

[justalayman]

Quoting Michigan laws doesn't address that this is a California situation.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

It only needs to be a misdemeanor in CA for a citizens arrest.

I guess you missed my post immediately before the one where you said this.


I realized I looked up Michigan. Why? No idea but I did and I caught it before anybody else said anything so there thhtebebbtttttt. (that's a raspberry)

 

[CJane]

If they were like video cameras, sure. As it is, they take stills, so, no.

That's what I was thinking. AND, they don't take stills constantly, they only do so when triggered by someone driving through the intersection when the light is red.

 

[Zigner]

That's what I was thinking. AND, they don't take stills constantly, they only do so when triggered by someone driving through the intersection when the light is red.

And, furthermore, the shots don't have a wide field of view. They are focused on the car that is committing the violation. The chances that the actions of others outside the intended scopes would be clearly viewable are pretty darn slim.

 

[CdwJava]

This is another example of the impact of TV. In those shows the computer weenies can always seem to get access to red light cameras and get pictures of the bad guy(s) ... it doesn't work that way.