• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Red light ticket - Identify driver?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

amk007

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? CA

Hello,
Does the owner of the car (by law?) has to identify the driver of the vehicle in case of a red light
violation ticket? I was driving my wife's car and did not come to a complete stop at a right turn
when the light turned red just at that instant.S ince the cross traffic hadn't started and there was
no one crossing the road on the right side, I mande the right turn.
My wife receieved a ticket since the car is registered
to her. The picture in the ticket is not very clear and one cannot make out by the picture who is
driving the car. She did call up the police and asked them to cancel the ticket since she is not the person
in the picture on the ticket. They asked her to identify the driver which she said 'I don't know' (http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#NotMe).
She sent the ticket back to the police with a letter asking them to cancel the ticket. She has now received
a letter from the police dept asking to identify the driver of the vehicle.

What do we do now? Has anyone faced a similar situation?

Thanks,

amk007.
 


tranquility

Senior Member
There is no law requiring identification of another that I know of. What is their threat if you ignore the request for identification? Fight the ticket by having the wife show up and point out she is not the party in the picture. Case dismissed. Toss the police request in the trash. Fight the good fight against computer-controlled taxation.

It would have been better not to say anything, however. If she did know who was in the picture and she said she did not know, she may have committed a crime. It probably won't be prosecuted, but that's not really the point.
 
Last edited:

CdwJava

Senior Member
Zigner said:
Carl - what's your take on this? :cool:
Unless it is a document from the court, there is no legal requirement that the document be completed. Until CA changes these violations to effect the registered owner (like registration and equipment violations), the owners of a vehicle are under no legal obligation to dime off the driver.

However, if the department wanted to be REALLY creative there ARE things they could do. But, having talked with several supervisors of these programs in other cities, I can honestly say that the agencies are not going to push the envelope beyond sending out officious letters.

- Carl
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
"For example, if a woman is driving a car registered to her husband, then she won_t be cited because the photographed driver must match the gender of the vehicle owner for a ticket to be mailed."

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=46503

granted this is Arizona, but maybe California has the same concept written into it's law??

oops, just saw Carl's response, I will leave this here anyway as it is interesting reading.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
What the agencies do is they will search the DMV photos of every driver and ID card they can find ever associated with the residence or the owners to see if they can get a match on the photo. This is time consuming, but pays off for them.

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
If the department goes through all that hassle, the chance of prosecuting one who lied to the police about who was in the photo goes up. I haven't heard of it, but it just seems more likely.

You don't have to talk to the police (generally), but you shouldn't ever lie to them.

Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Aside to Carl:
What are the statistics regarding red light cameras in your area?

Where I am, the data are equivocal. All the intersections seem to have less side impact collisions and most have more rear ended ones. Serious injuries seem slightly less while property damage seems increased.
 

amk007

Junior Member
>You don't have to talk to the police (generally), but you shouldn't ever lie to them.

In our case my wife has already talked to them and when they asked her about the driver of the vehicle she said - I don't know. On one side, I hear that there is no law that says one needs to disclose the original driver and on the other hand if one says 'I don't know' it is not disclosing the truth. What do you suggest we do?
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I wrote my reply earlier. On the other part, you can't unring a bell so you might just keep your head down and not repeat the comment. If the judge asks you the same question, claim marital privilege. If he asks again--gut check time.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
tranquility said:
If the department goes through all that hassle, the chance of prosecuting one who lied to the police about who was in the photo goes up. I haven't heard of it, but it just seems more likely.
I specifically asked them about that, and all three fellows that I know denied their agencies pursue anyone for that ... however, if they were outright lied to I can see an individual officer getting a burr in his behiond and trying to pursue an obstruction charge.

You don't have to talk to the police (generally), but you shouldn't ever lie to them.
Yeppers!

Aside to Carl:
What are the statistics regarding red light cameras in your area?
There aren't any.

Sacramento has about 17 last I heard, but there are none I know about in the cities north of there (which includes mine). Redding is putting it for a council vote in October, and if THEy get it, the rest of the cities between Sacramento and Redding might consider it.

Where I am, the data are equivocal. All the intersections seem to have less side impact collisions and most have more rear ended ones. Serious injuries seem slightly less while property damage seems increased.
I have heard that anecdotally, but since property damage only collisions are not required to be reported by the state of CA, it might be hard to determine if the data is anecdotal or if people are reporting it due to the presence of the cameras where it was not reported before.

And injury collisions are down in these intersections.

When I travel to most larger cities, I do not start across on a green light until I do a 5 count ... usually cars go through the intersections on red lights and I don't want to be tagged.

- Carl
 

moburkes

Senior Member
Isn't the whole point of asking her to identify the driver so that they can remove her name from the ticket, and replace it with his? Obviously, this is not required, but it only helps her out by not having to be responsible for the fine, right?
 

gawm

Senior Member
moburkes said:
Isn't the whole point of asking her to identify the driver so that they can remove her name from the ticket, and replace it with his? Obviously, this is not required, but it only helps her out by not having to be responsible for the fine, right?
The point is so they can get some $$$ for the ticket. If it is obviously not her, it's not her. They don't need to replace her name on the ticket to make her not responsible. They can ask any question they want, you don't have to answer. I love how these cities claim that they don't make any money on these things, someone is making money on these things. Otherwise they would not have them. It kind of reminds me of the sport team owners who claim they can't make any money without a brand new stadium:rolleyes: I guess you can twist the numbers to make the books say anything you want.:eek:
 

tranquility

Senior Member
She isn't responsible for the fine as she was not the driver. She does have to deal with the ticket and telling the police is one way to do so.

Money is clearly the real reason if you listen to the city councils' discussion on implimenting the system. They start by talking about a problem intersection for a moment and then for hours on the financial deal. To cover themselves they then authorize a study to determine if the intersection is safer. The study comes back with some things being better and some things being worse and concluding it is not possible to determine the outcome for whatever reason. The council accepts the study and files it in the place such things get filed and no action is taken. The money continues--more cameras are contemplated--and someone suggests that many accidents come from speeding. Another mentions radar cameras and the circle of life continues.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top