Red light Camera ticket

Location: Baldwin Park, CA.

Received a red light camera ticket, stating traffic violation of 21453A (failure to stop at a red light) but was making a right turn 21453B is this an improper ticket and grounds for dismissal?

also I believe I can dispute the physical evidence (photos/video) under 21455.5(g)(1) "A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004."

the contract between The city council approved Baldwin Park's contract with RedFlex in Jan. 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost

If the contract was signed or amended after Jan. 1, 2004 and the quantity of tickets (or the amount of ticket revenue the city gets from the court) has any effect upon the amount paid to the camera supplier it was gathered illegally.

can I have this ticket dismissed on the grounds of illegally obtained evidence?
If yes when and how do I move forward with this?

frantic84 said:

Received a red light camera ticket, stating traffic violation of 21453A (failure to stop at a red light) but was making a right turn 21453B is this an improper ticket and grounds for dismissal?

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether you made a right turn or not, failing to stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection (as required by 21453(a) is still a citeable offense.

So it depends on what you did or didn't do... And since we can't see the video or whether a "no right turn on red sign" is posted, we don't know the answer.

frantic84 said:

also I believe I can dispute the physical evidence (photos/video) under 21455.5(g)(1) "A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004."

the contract between The city council approved Baldwin Park's contract with RedFlex in Jan. 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost

If the contract was signed or amended after Jan. 1, 2004 and the quantity of tickets (or the amount of ticket revenue the city gets from the court) has any effect upon the amount paid to the camera supplier it was gathered illegally.

Click to expand...

You'll have to get a copy of the most current contract to see whether it is in violation of the code you cited. My guess is that the contract that existed in 2006 was amended long ago so as to conform with the requirements of 21455.5(g)(1).

Other cities in CA have gotten into trouble on this issue, however, the judge is not going to allow you to use it as grounds for dismissal of your ticket. If you believe the town is in violation of the law you would have to bring a separate law suite on those grounds. It does not invalidate the ticket the ticket can still be valid in spite of the towns illegal actions. It is like ticket quotas, they are illegal too, but even if a town is using ticket quotas it a labor/union issue not an issue whether a ticket is invalid.

Just because the court force a town to fund the fines it not to say the ticket was not valid, it to punish the town so the do not profit from their activities.

if you going to fight a RLT in CA go to this site http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ that guys is the expert on the subject.

There is recent CA case law on the hearsay rule about the use of cameras and the admissibility of evidence which was not actually witness by someone. This is better way to win if all you are interested is in winning, now if you want punish the town then file a law suite.

Maestro64 said:

Other cities in CA have gotten into trouble on this issue, however, the judge is not going to allow you to use it as grounds for dismissal of your ticket. If you believe the town is in violation of the law you would have to bring a separate law suite on those grounds. It does not invalidate the ticket the ticket can still be valid in spite of the towns illegal actions.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is not necessarily true... A violation of VC 21455.5(g)(1) is indeed grounds for a dismissal. Defendant can walk into court with a copy of the current contract (assuming its provisions are in violation of 21455.5(g)(1)), he can cite People v. Fischetti and make a motion for a dismissal. 21453 21455.5 - Google Scholar

However, like I said before, the City of Baldwin Park as well as Redflex, are both aware of this issue and I'm betting that their contract has long been amended so that it is in compliance with the code.

Maestro64 said:

It is like ticket quotas, they are illegal too, but even if a town is using ticket quotas it a labor/union issue not an issue whether a ticket is invalid.

Click to expand...

That is not the issue.

Maestro64 said:

Just because the court force a town to fund the fines it not to say the ticket was not valid, it to punish the town so the do not profit from their activities.

Click to expand...

See, the problem used to be that the cities set up the cameras, however, and since all the proceeds from the associated fines would normally go to the county and state coffers, the cities went ahead and set up a agreements that allowed them to share he compensation received by the company that operated the cameras... It was later ruled that the cities doing that where in violation of code and were forced to amend their contracts accordingly... This is an old issue that dates back to 2004. And I highly doubt that you will find ANY current contracts that are not in compliance.

Maestro64 said:

if you going to fight a RLT in CA go to this site Home - Fighting Red Light Camera Tickets that guys is the expert on the subject.

Click to expand...

I think that is where the OP got the idea for his question.

Maestro64 said:

There is recent CA case law on the hearsay rule about the use of cameras and the admissibility of evidence which was not actually witness by someone. This is better way to win if all you are interested is in winning, now if you want punish the town then file a law suite.

Click to expand...

If you are speaking of the People v. Khaled case, and although I've only glanced at it, it sounded to me like the testifying officer screwed that one up big time... Not sure if it would apply to every case. Moreover, and in addition to the ruling issued by the court in that case, they also presented a clear definition of what must be presented in court to secure a conviction.. So while the effects of that case might be applicable here or in recent cases, you can bet that the way these cases are presented in court will change accordingly, and yet red light cameras will still be around.

than you everyone for you opinions (advice would obviously not be legal).
I have been to highwayrobbery.net that is defenetly where I got the idea. I will have to look into the most current contract signed on or before my date of alleged offence . Do I need a certified copy of the contract to use it in court or with a TBD?

also here is a curious one. If I go to araignmet an get the judge to release me on O.R. can I still do a TBD and not forward a payment or does a TBD void me being released on O.R. also Can u request A TBD at Araignmet or can that only be done through the clerk and or mail?

frantic84 said:

Do I need a certified copy of the contract to use it in court or with a TBD?
:

Click to expand...

Not sure whether the city will "certify" a copy of the contract... But you can ask... Also, expect that they may charge you a niminal fee for copies...

frantic84 said:

also here is a curious one. If I go to araignmet an get the judge to release me on O.R. can I still do a TBD and not forward a payment or does a TBD void me being released on O.R.

Click to expand...

You can ask to be allowed the TBD option without being required to post the bail amount... I doubt that your request will be approved but you can ask.

frantic84 said:

Can u request A TBD at Araignmet or can that only be done through the clerk and or mail?

Click to expand...

Normally, you can request it from the clerk without appearing inside the courtroom. However, if you're going to request an "OR release" then you'll have to appear before the judge (the clerk is not authorized to make that decision) so that might be your only choice.

You should be aware that "requesting an extension of your initial appearance date" MIGHT result in your TBD request being rejected and you would be scheduled for an in court trial instead... So if you're going the TBD route, make your request on or before the appearance date shown on your notice to appear (your citation).

I_Got_Banned said:

Not sure whether the city will "certify" a copy of the contract... But you can ask... Also, expect that they may charge you a niminal fee for copies...

Click to expand...

can the contract between Baldwin Park and Redflex (that is public record) be subpoenaed to be of value in court?

Also do I have to wait until arraignment to file any of the papers subpoena, discovery, etc?

frantic84 said:

can the contract between Baldwin Park and Redflex (that is public record) be subpoenaed to be of value in court?

Click to expand...

I don't know whether a subpoena would help you much here... A subpoena requires the other party to provide documents to you on the date of the trial. That means you'll have to sit there and look through the entire contract for the information that you're looking for all while the judge sits there twirling his/her thumbs.. I'm not sure if he/she will allow you that much time.

Want my honest opinion? Find yourself another defense or take the traffic school option. You're not going to find what you're hoping for in that contract. This "WAS" an anomaly that obviously existed back in 2006 (that's over 4 years ago)... You can bet your bottom dollar that many have since looked through the current contract and have found it to be in compliance because the violation has been amended long ago...

frantic84 said:

Also do I have to wait until arraignment to file any of the papers subpoena, discovery, etc?

Click to expand...

Nope... The sooner you request discovery the better the better off you will be..

O K so now that i have decided what to do. (request for discovery)

is my citation number also my case number?
if not what is the best way to get my case number before arraignment?

frantic84 said:

is my citation number also my case number?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is...

I_Got_Banned said:

Yes, it is...

Click to expand...

Thanks . . . Time to get the ball rolling.

I'll be sure to post the verdict when its all over.

frantic84 said:

I'll be sure to post the verdict when its all over.

Click to expand...

Please do... Good luck!

Update

So I filed my discovery request back in September with the DA, Court and Police department. To this day no one has complied with discovery. my arraignment is on Friday (what is the best way to get the case dismissed with this, do I plead first then tell them about discover or do I move for dismissal first thing?

frantic84 said:

So I filed my discovery request back in September with the DA, Court and Police department.

Click to expand...

What documents did you request?

frantic84 said:

To this day no one has complied with discovery. my arraignment is on Friday (what is the best way to get the case dismissed with this, do I plead first then tell them about discover or do I move for dismissal first thing?

Click to expand...

Highly unlikely you'll get a dismissal.... You're still quite a few steps away...

Are you still going the TBD route?

I_Got_Banned said:

What documents did you request?


Highly unlikely you'll get a dismissal.... You're still quite a few steps away...

Are you still going the TBD route?

Click to expand...

I requested eveything from camera reports to the contracts for use.
As well as a high quality copy of any camera footage, and any other related document as required by law
I have to request tbd as I am moving out of state.