Please Help - Red Light camera tickets

[chopra22]

[/B]What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
California

I've two red-light camera tickets from Long Beach Traffic Court, CA (left turn at tail-end of the yellow) I felt that was totally unfair for the assessed penalties (over $500 with court fee) and due to that fact I’m unemployed, I have to fight it in court. The 2 tickets are about 8 days apart and I only got one notice informing me of the second violation. I pleaded "not guilty" and the trial date is set for 11/01/11.

I found this website below rather useful and was going to use "Defect #10" as my defense (scroll all the way down on Home page to see Defect #10):

Home - Fighting Red Light Camera Tickets

It said:
At a trial, Foundation is the introductory evidence necessary to establish the admissibility of other evidence.
There was no witness to the crime. The case is based solely upon physical evidence - the photos and the data the computer recorded. But the police can't use evidence if it was gathered illegally. Vehicle Code 21455.5 (in box, below) specifies things the City must do and must not do in order to legally gather red light camera evidence.

At your red light camera ticket trial, the officer will testify first, and he is supposed to begin his testimony by "laying the foundation."[5] Without having to be reminded to do it, most officers will give a brief foundational speech (sometimes very brief) saying that they posted warning signs (Defect # 4), made announcements 30 days before starting up the system, gave warning tickets for 30 days (Defect # 6), have long enough yellows (Defects # 2 and # 3), etc.

"When it's your chance to cross-examine him, you could ask the officer if he provided public notice 30 days before firing up your camera,
issued warning tickets for the first 30 days of operation (of your camera - see Defect # 6),
had four signs (full 30" x 42") posted at your intersection at the time you were ticketed,
and has written guidelines."
... And so on and so forth - as the site presents numerous defense to these cases... ultimately to get the tickets dismissed as the evidence is in-admissible in court.
I also found more powerful arguments on other sites but...

However, when I went to traffic court yesterday to post my bail (to go to trial), the clerk said 99.9% of the defendants trying to fight these tickets loose because:
At the trial they will have the prosecutor/officer showing all the videos/pictures captured on that cameras and then the judge would ask the defendant: "Was that you in the videos/pictures?" I said: "But don't I get to cross-examine the prosecutor first?" He said: "No, they're not gonna waste time on that! You have to answer the question first. So either it's you or NOT you. If it's not you, you're gonna have to prove that it's NOT you. IF it's you, the video already captured the whole scene that you violated the law. It's that simple!"

My question is: Is that really true that I don't even have a chance to cross-examine the officer? That I have to answer that question first? What happened to the "Fair Trial” as guaranteed in our Constitution?


Thank you so much for your time.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[demurringdude]

First of all, even though the clerk is probably right that most people lose (I doubt its 99.9% though), the rest of what you were told is rubbish. Clerks are good at "selling" you on the idea of paying. They need the money.

You are not required to give any testimony at your trial, and you probably should not. So do not be sworn in. Do not testify. Tell the judge you are not testifying. Then he will not be able to ask you if you were driving. But if you start testifying, which is easy to do by accident, he can ask you.

You can cross examine any "witness". It is one of the most basic rights you have in law.

There may not be much point to any of this though, unless you have something good to ask the "witness". You can be sure he will be ready to produce all that foundation stuff. It will be in a big honkin' binder right in front of him.

 

[chopra22]

You're right that they needed the money: over $500 EACH ticket. His advise to me was to show up at the trial and change the plea to "Guilty", then ask the judge for community service in lieu of paying, cause I was going to post that same bail amount. Though I forgot to ask whether I still have to pay some even for community service. But doing this way will still add 2 points to my record so the insurance premium will still go up.

So it appeared that he's trying to help me save some money, but it might not be the case. You're right.

But you said: "You are not required to give any testimony at your trial, and you probably should not. So do not be sworn in. Do not testify..." This is the most important part that I didn't know. "Tell the judge you are not testifying. Then he will not be able to ask you if you were driving." Thank you. So so true.
Really really appreciate this.

 

[Free_Advice]

[/B]What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
California

At the trial they will have the prosecutor/officer showing all the videos/pictures captured on that cameras and then the judge would ask the defendant: "Was that you in the videos/pictures?" I said: "But don't I get to cross-examine the prosecutor first?" He said: "No, they're not gonna waste time on that! You have to answer the question first.

[/B]

Hahaha what a funny judge. The correct response is: I object to the admission of the pics/videos due to a lack of foundation. And a cop needs to say much more than that to lay a foundation. If you lose the objection, then simply take the fifth and say "I'm not required to make the state's case for them !" I object to this line of questioning. And then request a mistrial.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I've two red-light camera tickets from Long Beach Traffic Court, CA (left turn at tail-end of the yellow)

If you had crossed the limit line at "tail-end of yellow" you can be sure that you would not be here nor would you be looking at a $1000 in fines.

The 2 tickets are about 8 days apart and I only got one notice informing me of the second violation. I pleaded "not guilty" and the trial date is set for 11/01/11.

So what happened to the first citation? How did you know about it if you never received notice of it?

I found this website below rather useful and was going to use "Defect #10" as my defense (scroll all the way down on Home page to see Defect #10):

Home - Fighting Red Light Camera Tickets

It said:
At a trial, Foundation is the introductory evidence necessary to establish the admissibility of other evidence.
There was no witness to the crime. The case is based solely upon physical evidence - the photos and the data the computer recorded. But the police can't use evidence if it was gathered illegally. Vehicle Code 21455.5 (in box, below) specifies things the City must do and must not do in order to legally gather red light camera evidence.

At your red light camera ticket trial, the officer will testify first, and he is supposed to begin his testimony by "laying the foundation."[5] Without having to be reminded to do it, most officers will give a brief foundational speech (sometimes very brief) saying that they posted warning signs (Defect # 4), made announcements 30 days before starting up the system, gave warning tickets for 30 days (Defect # 6), have long enough yellows (Defects # 2 and # 3), etc.

"When it's your chance to cross-examine him, you could ask the officer if he provided public notice 30 days before firing up your camera,
issued warning tickets for the first 30 days of operation (of your camera - see Defect # 6),
had four signs (full 30" x 42") posted at your intersection at the time you were ticketed,
and has written guidelines."
... And so on and so forth - as the site presents numerous defense to these cases... ultimately to get the tickets dismissed as the evidence is in-admissible in court.

Understand that red light cameras have been in use California since 1996. Also understand that while that website does in fact offer a good analysis of how things work, that defect that you are so impressed by as well as the others that listed there like it, have been tried and tested numerous times and had they had any meaningful rate of success then you wouldn't be here today.

Here's the most recent case that went to appeal and discussed those issues in detail:

People v. Goldsmith, 193 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 - Cal: Appellate Div., Superior 2011
21453 red light camera - Google Scholar

As you can see, it didn't turn out too well.

I also found more powerful arguments on other sites but...

But what?

However, when I went to traffic court yesterday to post my bail (to go to trial), the clerk said 99.9% of the defendants trying to fight these tickets loose because:
At the trial they will have the prosecutor/officer showing all the videos/pictures captured on that cameras and then the judge would ask the defendant: "Was that you in the videos/pictures?" I said: "But don't I get to cross-examine the prosecutor first?" He said: "No, they're not gonna waste time on that! You have to answer the question first. So either it's you or NOT you. If it's not you, you're gonna have to prove that it's NOT you. IF it's you, the video already captured the whole scene that you violated the law. It's that simple!"

I have had the misfortune of having dealt with court clerk quite a bit in my past, and I can honestly say that in all the times I interacted with them, I have not ever had any of them even come close to holding that detailed a conversation about what happens in traffic court. The typical response I usually receive when asking a minimally invasive question is "we are not allowed/supposed to give legal advice", period, end of topic. Right off the bat, the comment/line about "At the trial they will have the prosecutor/officer showing all the videos/pictures..." throws your entire conversation into question because fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court, and certainly none in L. A. County and even more certainly, not in Long Beach!

So are you sure it was a court clerk you had that conversation with as opposed to... maybe... someone in line?

His advise to me was to show up at the trial and change the plea to "Guilty", then ask the judge for community service in lieu of paying, cause I was going to post that same bail amount.

And yet even more specific legal advice that you are not likely to get from the clerk!!!

Though I forgot to ask whether I still have to pay some even for community service.

Yes, there is a fee associated with community service.

But doing this way will still add 2 points to my record so the insurance premium will still go up.

Well, it sounds to me like you can probably benefit from taking a traffic school course for one of the two citations (after all, you ran a red light one day, and obviously didn't learn a lesson in spite of the huge fine you're complaining about) and then you repeated 8 days late), and if you do that, you'll only have the one point for the one conviction, instead of 2 for 2.

First of all, even though the clerk is probably right that most people lose (I doubt its 99.9% though), the rest of what you were told is rubbish.

OK, so it might not be 99.9%... But its certainly higher than 99.8%...

Clerks are good at "selling" you on the idea of paying. They need the money.

Is that why he added that the defendant should come back, change his plea to "Guilty" and ask for a fine reduction and/or community service? It seems to me if they're into selling, they'd rather have him come back to a trial, lose, and likely pay the full fine!

You're not making any sense!

You are not required to give any testimony at your trial,

True!

and you probably should not.

VERY true...

So do not be sworn in.

Is that really an option?

Court Clerk says "raise your right hand and repeat after me..."
What are you suggesting the defendant should respond with?

Do not testify.

Agreed!

Tell the judge you are not testifying.

I think he gets the point!

Then he will not be able to ask you if you were driving.

Great point... But you're also leaving the judge to decide the case solely based on the officer's testimony. So you're caught between a rock and a hard place... And the likelihood that either the rock or the hard place will benifit you in any way is close to zero!

You can cross examine any "witness". It is one of the most basic rights you have in law.

Very very true...

There may not be much point to any of this though, unless you have something good to ask the "witness". You can be sure he will be ready to produce all that foundation stuff. It will be in a big honkin' binder right in front of him.

Which brings us back to why 99.9%... Oops, I meant "the majority" of people who choose to take this to trial end up getting convicted, and possibly end up cutting their nose to spite their face by the possibility of losing the chance for a big/bigger fine reduction and possibly losing the opportunity to take traffic school and avoid the conviction.

Hahaha what a funny judge. The correct response is: I object to the admission of the pics/videos due to a lack of foundation. And a cop needs to say much more than that to lay a foundation. If you lose the objection, then simply take the fifth and say "I'm not required to make the state's case for them !" I object to this line of questioning. And then request a mistrial.

Seriously dude, get out of here!

 

[demurringdude]

Is that why he added that the defendant should come back, change his plea to "Guilty" and ask for a fine reduction and/or community service? It seems to me if they're into selling, they'd rather have him come back to a trial, lose, and likely pay the full fine!

You're not making any sense!

The clerk knows that the instant you plead guilty you are on the hook for $550. There isn't going to be any fine reduction or community service, and the clerk knows that. It's a bait and switch.

Is that really an option?

Court Clerk says "raise your right hand and repeat after me..."
What are you suggesting the defendant should respond with?

You respond with "I'm not a witness"

If you think you can be compelled by a clerk to testify in your own trial, you have no business giving legal advice to anyone.

 

[demurringdude]

... throws your entire conversation into question because fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court

Everyone is wrong then. Prosecutors often appear in court for Red Light Camera tickets in the Vista courthouse, prosecuting Del Mar tickets.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

The clerk knows that the instant you plead guilty you are on the hook for $550. There isn't going to be any fine reduction or community service, and the clerk knows that. It's a bait and switch.

That's not an accurate assessment and you know it. Your exaggerating the outcome is more fitting of "Bait and switch" than ANYTHING any clerk can do!

For one, the fine is NOT $550... Instead, it is $480.

Second, even if you decide to add traffic school, you can add the additional $50 thereby making it $530, but there is NO "hook", both actions are OPTIONAL!

Third, if you "plead guilty" by appearing at the arraignment, then there is always the slight chance that the judge, by request or simply because, will reduce the fine; in fact, the chances of a fine reduction at the arraignment are ALWAYS MUCH HIGHER than they are after a trial.

Forth, as I stated above, it defies any and all logic that a clerk of the court will even consider having the type of conversation that the OP cited here. If you're gullible enough to buy into that story, then so be it!

You respond with "I'm not a witness"

If you think you can be compelled by a clerk to testify in your own trial, you have no business giving legal advice to anyone.

You can try and twist my words simply to attempt to prove your ridiculous statement, when in fact, all you're doing is showing how (either) inattentive (or) ignorant you can be at times.

I never said "the clerk can compel you to testify", I simply said that the clerk will ask you to "raise your right hand so you can be sworn in"... (two completely separate acts)... all while the judge is only a few feet away, watching and listening. You let me know how your refusing to be sworn in before your trial will work out for you the next time you're in court.

..." throws your entire conversation into question because fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court

Everyone is wrong then. Prosecutors often appear in court for Red Light Camera tickets in the Vista courthouse, prosecuting Del Mar tickets.

Again, you can try to twist my words or quote me out of context... In this case, it is more likely that your A.D.D. kicked in... I'm only guessing, that it was a fairly long paragraph for you to read it in its entirety and comprehend it.

Here, I'll post the pertinent portion of that remark by shortening the paragraph for you... hoping this will help:

..." throws your entire conversation into question because fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court, and certainly none in L. A. County and even more certainly, not in Long Beach!

OP's quoted conversation happened in "LONG BEACH" which is not only 75+ miles from Vista, and 85+ miles from Del Mar... it is in L. A. County, unlike Vista and Del Mar both of which are in SAN DIEGO COUNTY!

Get over yourself! You've offered very little to the OP and even then, you only confirmed what he already knew.

 

[demurringdude]

you can try to twist my words

My mad twisting skills turned this...

... fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court

into this

... fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court

 

[I_Got_Banned]

My mad twisting skills turned this...




into this

1. FACT: For a California traffic court to have a prosecutor present during a trial is a rare exception, not the RULE. So regardless of your opinion, my statement of "everybody knows that there are no 'prosecutors' in California traffic court", and whether you like it or not, is pretty much reflection of the RULE, not the few rare exceptions.

2. FACT: I qualified my statement further by saying: "and certainly none in L. A. County"

3. FACT: And then I narrowed it down to the specific court where the Op will be appearing by saying: "and even more certainly, not in Long Beach"

4. FACT: The OP will be appearing in Long Beach Superior Court, therefore my statement is fitting and on point.

5. FACT: The OP will not be appearing in Vista nor will he be appearing in Del Mar and therefore you, your statement, the argument your making out of this AND your mad twisting skills, are the realm of USELESS!

Deal with it!

 

[demurringdude]

My apologies. When you said this:

... fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court

I rashly assumed you meant ...

... fact is, everybody knows that there are no "prosecutors" in California traffic court

 

[demurringdude]

I never said "the clerk can compel you to testify", I simply said that the clerk will ask you to "raise your right hand so you can be sworn in"...

Glad you cleared that up.

 

[davew128]

The clerk knows that the instant you plead guilty you are on the hook for $550. There isn't going to be any fine reduction or community service, and the clerk knows that. It's a bait and switch.

Then I'm calling you out as a liar. My girlfriend (and many other people I witnessed) was given the opportunity to perform community service in lieu of a fine on HER redlight ticket. Oh did I mention that this judge was ALSO in San Diego County?

 

[davew128]

Everyone is wrong then. Prosecutors often appear in court for Red Light Camera tickets in the Vista courthouse, prosecuting Del Mar tickets.

I am inclined to drive up to Vista on Tuesday just to see if this is true.

 

[Free_Advice]

The clerk knows that the instant you plead guilty you are on the hook for $550. There isn't going to be any fine reduction or community service, and the clerk knows that. It's a bait and switch.



You respond with "I'm not a witness"

If you think you can be compelled by a clerk to testify in your own trial, you have no business giving legal advice to anyone.

Or you could answer every question "YO MOMMA!" and at least get a laugh from the audience ... and pass a hat around...