Driver licenses WERE NEVER SUSPENDED for failure to pay a red light camera ticket. Why? Because in order to violate a failure to appear, you have to violate your promise to appear. Guess what? You never signed a promise to appear, because you were served your ticket by mail.
CC, with all due respect, and although I will agree with the fact that "Driver licenses WERE NEVER SUSPENDED for failure to pay a red light camera ticket", as far as I can see, there is nothing prohibiting the court from doing so... Only that the courts have "opted" not to do that by virtue of the usage of the term "MAY" (as opposed to"shall") in the code section authorizing such action... In other words, just because licenses were never suspended for a failure to appear does not mean they can't be or shouldn't be... And just because a promise to appear was never made (by way of a signature on a citation) does not mean that the court cannot... It only means that they have not been doing it, although they "may" do so...
Red light camera tickets are issued pursuant to VC 40518
(and in violation of 21453):
VC 40518.
(a) Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of Section 22451, or, based on an alleged violation of Section 21453, 21455, or 22101 recorded by an automated enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.5 or 22451, and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file with the department, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea. Preparation and delivery of a notice to appear pursuant to this section is not an arrest.
(b) A notice to appear shall contain the name and address of the person, the license plate number of the person's vehicle, the violation charged, including a description of the offense, and the time and place when, and where, the person may appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail. The time specified shall be at least 10 days after the notice to appear is delivered.
The VC section allowing the court to notify the Department of a failure to appear, thereby placing a hold on a driver's license is VC 40509 (or VC section 40509.5 which has similar language authorizing court action):
40509. (a) Except as required under subdivision (c) of Section 40509.5, if any person has violated a written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before the person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, or violated an order to appear in court, including, but not limited to, a written notice to appear issued in accordance with Section 40518, the magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice of the failure to appear to the department for any violation of this code, or any violation that can be heard by a juvenile traffic hearing referee pursuant to Section 256 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or any violation of any other statute relating to the safe operation of a vehicle, except violations not required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (6), and (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 1803. If thereafter the case in which the promise was given is adjudicated or the person who has violated the court order appears in court or otherwise satisfies the order of the court, the magistrate or clerk of the court hearing the case shall sign and file with the department a certificate to that effect.
To summarize, I'll combine the underlined portion of the code section:
... if any person has violated [--] an order to appear in court, including, but not limited to, a written notice to appear issued in accordance with Section 40518, the magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice of the failure to appear to the department for any violation of this code...
Now, a person who receives a red light camera notice to appear, that states "you are ordered to appear ...", who then failed to appear on the date/time indicated in the notice, is in fact, in violation of a "court order" to appear and therefore, is in violation of 40509 (or 40509.5)... However, because 40509 (and 40509.5) states that
"the magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice" such notices are optional and the courts have opted not to issue them, but that doesn't mean they cannot be issued!
In other words, and while I agree with your statement the "you can't violate a 'promise to appear' because you never signed a citation promising to appear", you can in fact be considered in violation of 40509 simply because you violated a court order to appear which was delivered to you by mail regardless of whether you signed a promise to appear or not.
So what/who determines whether a court should issue such notice? In reference to VC 40509, and pursuant to subsection (d) of the same code:
40509 (d) With respect to a violation of this code, this section is applicable to any court which has not elected to be subject to the notice requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 40509.5.
... as for the same in reference to VC 40509.5, you can look at subsection (g) of the same code:
40509.5(g) This section is applicable to courts that have elected to provide notice pursuant to subdivision (b). The method of commencing or terminating an election to proceed under this section shall be prescribed by the department.
Now, on a separate note, I will agree that the court cannot simply decide to add an FTA (along with the additional fines and assessments associated with that) pursuant to VC 40508 for citations issued by mail, because the defendant never signed a promise to appear, but that has no affect whatsoever on the validity of a notice to the department to place a hold on a DL pursuant to VC40509 or VC40509.5, at least not from the portions that I am reading... But I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong!
