Does Spousal immunity apply in traffic camera citations?

[SeaView]

What is the name of your state? California

I got a red light citation issued by a traffic camera recently, even though my husband was driving the car alone at the time of the alleged violation. (The car is registered in my name only, so the ticket was issued in my name.)

The citation has a form that allows me to file an "Affidavit of Non-Liability," however, the way it's worded, it apparently requires me to supply the name and other identifying information of the driver. If I don't fill it out completely with all information, the instructions say, the affadavit "cannot be processed and will be disregarded."

But I thought the spousal immunity statute protects a wife from having to bear witness against her husband? Doesn't this sound like the state is forcing me to do just that by identifying my spouse before they'll let me clear myself? (It's clearly NOT me driving in photo the traffic camera took.)

[CdwJava]

Actually, Curt, in CA traffic violations ARE criminal. they are infractions, they are considered a public ofense, and they are punishable only by fine.

Yes, spousal immunity would apply.

There is no real penalty for not completing the form from the city. However, depending on the agency, they may take the time to pull the license of everyone living at the residence or related to see if they can match the photo to another driver in the home. I know agencies that do this ... and others that really don't have the time.

Your call.

- Carl

[Zigner]

Let's see...wife says it wasn't me...and I don't have to tell you who it was under spousal immunity.

[CdwJava]

Of course, since there should be no penalty for not even returning the document from the police, there is no need to even invoke the privilege.

Though it would be funny ... "I decline to answer citing spousal privilege." Hmmm ... think they would quickly pull up the spouse's DL photo?

- Carl

[SeaView]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Of course, since there should be no penalty for not even returning the document from the police, there is no need to even invoke the privilege.

Though it would be funny ... "I decline to answer citing spousal privilege." Hmmm ... think they would quickly pull up the spouse's DL photo?

- Carl

Well, if I don't file the affadavit, I have to settle the matter through a trial, which I'd hoped to avoid.

However, the citation gives me the option of requesting a "Trial by Written Declaration," which might be the best route for me. In that case, I would not even mention who was driving, but simply supply the judge with a statement that it was not me in the red light camera picture, accompanied by proof in the form of my DL picture. Under that scenario, can you think of any reason the judge could still rule against me based on my refusal to also identify the driver?

[CdwJava]

The state would have to prove that it is you ... you do not have to prove that it is NOT you. Currently the registered owner cannot be held responsible for a red light photo ticket - though, I anticipate that some day this will change ... especially as the state becomes more strapped for funds.

If you were to do a TBD, you might simply assert that you were not driving the vehicle, and that the person pictured was not you. No one can predict what a judge might consdier, but the worst thing that is likely to happen is that you would have to get a new trial before a judge in court. Again, the same identification issue will stop the case dead.

- Carl

[garrula lingua]

The only way to do it, is to plead 'not guilty' and ask for a court trial.

You do not have to testify. Just state that you decline to testify pursuant to your 5th amendment rights, and you maintain (as you are the 'def atty') that identification of the violator is at issue. The Judge will recognize the problem .

Some cops may follow up on the ticket, asking you to ID the driver; busy jurisdictions just take the dismissal.

[CdwJava]

I know the sergeants for two LA County agencies who oversee their redlight programs ... if they cannot ID the driver, they won't even file. So it may never even GO to court. Right now it sounds like they're fishing for the ID of the driver ... I hear that more than half the people who receive those letters will dime off the driver.

- Carl

[SeaView]

Originally Posted by garrula lingua

The only way to do it, is to plead 'not guilty' and ask for a court trial.

You do not have to testify. Just state that you decline to testify pursuant to your 5th amendment rights, and you maintain (as you are the 'def atty') that identification of the violator is at issue. The Judge will recognize the problem .

Some cops may follow up on the ticket, asking you to ID the driver; busy jurisdictions just take the dismissal.

Thanks for weighing in that I would need an actual trial. Just confused as to why you don't think a trial by written statement would accomplish the same thing?

[SeaView]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

The state would have to prove that it is you ... you do not have to prove that it is NOT you. Currently the registered owner cannot be held responsible for a red light photo ticket - though, I anticipate that some day this will change ... especially as the state becomes more strapped for funds.

If you were to do a TBD, you might simply assert that you were not driving the vehicle, and that the person pictured was not you. No one can predict what a judge might consdier, but the worst thing that is likely to happen is that you would have to get a new trial before a judge in court. Again, the same identification issue will stop the case dead.

- Carl

Thanks! Good point you make about the state having the burden of proof, not me.

[garrula lingua]

Your appearance says it all.

TBD is often a rubber stamped approval of the ticket.
Your 'declaration' is testimony - you have the burden of disproving the validity of the ticket.
You can raise the issue of identity.

At the court trial, the prosecutor has the burden of proving ID and offense.


Take your choice.

[SeaView]

Originally Posted by garrula lingua

Your appearance says it all.

TBD is often a rubber stamped approval of the ticket.
Your 'declaration' is testimony - you have the burden of disproving the validity of the ticket.
You can raise the issue of identity.

At the court trial, the prosecutor has the burden of proving ID and offense.


Take your choice.

Yes, I see your point. As I hear it, you're suggesting that the smartest move is to put the burden of proof on the prosecutor, especially since I know in advance that they will clearly have a very hard time proving that the camera photographed me when it clearly did not. Filing a declaration is by its nature riskier, if only because the very act of filing is in itself a form of testimony.

Thanks again to all for taking the time to weigh in. You've been a big help!