Contesting VC 21453(a) Camera enforced

[Willy Wonka]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Thanks in advance for comments.
Details of violation.....
Violation for right turn on red. No limit line. Crosswalk clearly defined.
The street speed limit approaching the red light is 55MPH. The red light video camera was activated and indicated my speed as 15MPH. I slowed and eventually came to a complete stop 3/4 of the way into crosswalk. I know this is a cut and dry violation. However, is there a law indicating that the camera enforcement has to be non-biased. I have seen that if you approach the right turn red light at a slower speed the video camera is not activated and does not issue a citation for those that cross into the crosswalk before making a complete stop. Is it worth it for me to document this activity or am I wasting my time. BTW, bail is $480, w/ traffic school $532 and still need to pay traffic school fees.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I have seen that if you approach the right turn red light at a slower speed the video camera is not activated and does not issue a citation for those that cross into the crosswalk before making a complete stop.

Question is, what is that speed? And are you willing to risk getting other citation(s) (by the camera) as you make your test run(s) to see what speed will not activate the camera?

Even if it were to work on your first try, are you saying you would walk into court and say "your honor, here is video taped evidence of me approaching the light, not stopping at the limit line before proceeding with my turn (an admission to another 21453(a) violation), and the camera didn't activate, so my ticket should be dismissed"...

Seriously!!!

 

[Willy Wonka]

You are partially correct. I will not risk getting another ticket...learned my lesson. I had planned on setting up a video camera with a similar vantage point as the red light camera. It would have visibility of the red light, crosswalk, and flash in order to make a determination if a ticket would be issued. This way I could get many instances demonstrating that the camera is indeed bias. Do not believe it will take longer than 20 minutes to prove this.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Let us know how it works out for you.

 

[Dillon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Thanks in advance for comments.
Details of violation.....
Violation for right turn on red. No limit line. Crosswalk clearly defined.
The street speed limit approaching the red light is 55MPH. The red light video camera was activated and indicated my speed as 15MPH. I slowed and eventually came to a complete stop 3/4 of the way into crosswalk. I know this is a cut and dry violation. However, is there a law indicating that the camera enforcement has to be non-biased. I have seen that if you approach the right turn red light at a slower speed the video camera is not activated and does not issue a citation for those that cross into the crosswalk before making a complete stop. Is it worth it for me to document this activity or am I wasting my time. BTW, bail is $480, w/ traffic school $532 and still need to pay traffic school fees.

dont worry, its my underwstanding, the state has no legal standing in this matter.

also video cameras cant testify in a court of record. LOL

I wonder who will accuse you in a court of record ?

its my understanding, these (notices to appear) citations are non-accusatory documents if no party is damaged.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

dont worry the state has no legal standing in this matter.

video cameras cant testify in a court of record. LOL

And there goes Dillon with another pointless meaningless post... "LOL"

I wonder who will accuse you in a court of record ?

The officer who reviewed the photos and/or video tape and prepared the citation.

its my understanding, these citations are non-accusatory documents.

And, as often is the case, your would be wrong in your understanding!

 

[Dillon]

The officer who reviewed the photos and/or video tape and prepared the citation.

the officers testimony is hearsay, U tink ? - no first hand knowledge of the facts.


indictments and informations are the only accusatory documents in law - sorry, notices to appear dont count, U know ?


------------------

 

[CdwJava]

dont worry, its my underwstanding, the state has no legal standing in this matter.

Your understanding is incorrect.

also video cameras cant testify in a court of record. LOL

You're right. But the officer(s) that review the photos and issue the citations can testify as to what they observed.

I wonder who will accuse you in a court of record ?

The state of CA. The case will be entitled State of California v. defendant

its my understanding, these (notices to appear) citations are non-accusatory documents if no party is damaged.

Not sure what that means, but they replace a certified complaint in a CA court.

Dillon, either get on board with an understanding of California law or stop posting your misrepresentations and misunderstandings.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

the officers testimony is hearsay, U tink ? - no first hand knowledge of the facts.

Perfect proof that you haven't a clue!

indictments and informations are the only accusatory documents in law - sorry, notices to appear dont count, U know ?

Doubtful that you'll even comprehend what it means, you should still read it and try to understand: V C Section 40513 Filing of Complaint

40513. (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere."
If, however, the defendant violates his or her promise to appear in court or does not deposit lawful bail, or pleads other than "guilty" or "nolo contendere" to the offense charged, a complaint shall be filed that shall conform to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 948) of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, which shall be deemed to be an original complaint, and thereafter proceedings shall be had as provided by law, except that a defendant may, by an agreement in writing, subscribed by him or her and filed with the court, waive the filing of a verified complaint and elect that the prosecution may proceed upon a written notice to appear.​

 

[Dillon]

You're right. But the officer(s) that review the photos and issue the citations can testify as to what they observed.

Objection, officers testimony is hearsay, second hand info, u tink?

why not just have the prosecutor review the tapes and cut out the middle man?

a real person with first hand knowledge of the crime is required to enter the video evidence under oath on the record for any court to have subject matter jurisdiction, U tink?


there appears to be a lack of understanding about Jurisdiction. The fact is that people grant jurisdiction--not courts, not judges, not any public official.

For example, If you want to borrow my lawn mower, you ask for my permission and I grant it (license). yes it is a contract however, it is a contract on my terms because I can revoke the use of my lawn mower at any time for any reason--even if I just make the reason up while you're using it.

 

[Dillon]

40513. (a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere."​

I. The CITATION was implemented by use of threat, Duress and Coercion.

The Aggrieved Party was coerced into receipt of the CITATION by use
of threat and duress, by statement that an officer would take the Aggrieved
Party to jail, if the Aggrieved Party did not agree to the terms as they
appear on the CITATION.

Forced performance does not create a valid contract/agreement.

II. Constructive Fraud

You appear to be attempting to induce a constructive fraud under U.C.C.
3-305 (a) (1) (iii) by requiring the Aggrieved Party to accept said
instrument.

It is possible that FRAUD has been committed. The law presumes men and
women, operate in good faith. However, if The Aggrieved Party is caused a
damage, The Aggrieved Party will probably pursue remedies in the STATE and
FEDERAL court system, naming officer as an interested party.

III. There is No bona fide affidavit in support of the alleged complaint.

The CITATION states that it is a complaint, but it lacks the elements to
convert it to an information. There is no signature by a duly sworn officer
of the Instrumentality named on the Citation. As you are aware, the
elements of a complaint require sworn testimony by the officer, regarding any
allegations, as part of the requirement for the complaint to be complete.

In order for a complaint/notice to appear to be converted to an information, the affidavit
requires the signature of a duly appointed attorney with the appropriate
jurisdictional authority. Such is not the case.

ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW can issue an information, based on complaint. (with supporting affidavit) - if the state is the plaintiff it must sign the supporting affidavit.

ever hear of separation of powers ?

Since the CITATION is not an Information, The Aggrieved Party can only
assume it is a commercial instrument.​

 

[CdwJava]

Objection, officers testimony is hearsay, second hand info, u tink?

Nope. because the officer will testify to what he saw - that is NOT "hearsay."

why not just have the prosecutor review the tapes and cut out the middle man?

Because, the prosecutor would not testify, and, in CA traffic infractions are required to be filed directly with the court and NOT the District Attorney.

a real person with first hand knowledge of the crime is required to enter the video evidence under oath on the record for any court to have subject matter jurisdiction, U tink?

That would be the direct testimony of the officer.

there appears to be a lack of understanding about Jurisdiction. The fact is that people grant jurisdiction--not courts, not judges, not any public official.

You need to study up on this a wee bit more.

For example, If you want to borrow my lawn mower, you ask for my permission and I grant it (license). yes it is a contract however, it is a contract on my terms because I can revoke the use of my lawn mower at any time for any reason--even if I just make the reason up while you're using it.

That would be a civil arrangement and either of you could sue the other should you wish to. It would not be generally be criminal, though embezzlement might apply under the right fact set. Even then, a criminal prosecution would be THE PEOPLE v. Neighbor, and not Dillon v. Neighbor.

Dillon, we've been over this before and you are just plain wrong. The UCC does not apply and a promise to appear is not a contract. Do the posters a favor and stop posting this hokey interpretation of the law.

 

[Zigner]

For example, If you want to borrow my lawn mower, you ask for my permission and I grant it (license). yes it is a contract ...

No, it is not a contract.
So, not only do you have no clue with regard to traffic law, you have no clue with regard to contract law. You're batting a thousand there champ.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

people v khaled - Google Scholar


Is the Khaled case relevant ... in this one the camera evidence being admitted was found to be in error.

It is not that the "camera evidence was found to be in error".... The Khaled case was reversed based on the fact that the testifying officer failed to lay the proper foundation for the photographic evidence.

So without knowing what the officer will testify to, there is no telling whether the Khaled case would apply to every "photo enforcement" citation...

JMHO

 

[CdwJava]

If it is still relevant, it has been addressed, I suspect, by additional training and certification of the officers. The complaint of the court was that the officer was unable to testify as to the procedure involved in the "underlying workings, maintenance, or recordkeeping" of the system. It is my understanding that this case helped to change these procedures so that they now tend to conform to the court's requirements.

I cannot say whether all agencies operating red light cameras have gone so far as to address this, but those that I do know of seem to have done so.

Understand that while Khaled can be cited, it is a local appellate decision in Orange County, and as such it is not binding on other courts even though it can be cited in court.