Red light camera violations

[okokrepo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CALIFORNIA.

I have some questions and would like help in getting advice on a motion that I have to challenge a Judge for cause.

[okokrepo]

Below is the wording that I will submit challenging for cause, please advise:


I, Dr. IXX XXX, PhD., declare:


1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled action.

2. That on October, 22, 2009, the date set for my trial in said action the judge made pre-trial statements implying prejudice as follows:


a) The honorable Cxxxx Hxxxxxx suggested that certain arguments were generally not successful, vis the questioning of identity, based on photographic evidence as furnished by the police officials.

b) Furthermore, the judge stated that greater than 50% of prior identity determinations based on photographic evidence as offered by officers were subsequently agreed upon by the presiding honorable Cxxxx Hxxxxxx.

c) The honorable Cxxxx Hxxxxxx also stated that arguments based on identity would require an alibi, where there was a “resemblance” between the photo and the defendants in question.

d) The honorable Cxxxx Hxxxxxx further stated that arguments based on identity where photographic evidence could not distinguish between close relatives were irrelevant and would not be heard.

3. Additionally, during the officer’s general group foundational statements, the honorable Cxxxx Hxxxxxx made statements that appeared to explain the meaning, or clarify the officer’s foundation.


WHEREFORE, Defendant requests ex parte, per CCP Section 170.3(c), that said Commissioner proceed no further and that another commissioner or judge be assigned to hear this proceeding.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

[Zigner]

I see no prejudice implied...

[HighwayMan]

I see none either.

Did the red light camera take YOUR picture or a picture of your car? Not sure about CA...

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by HighwayMan

I see none either.

Did the red light camera take YOUR picture or a picture of your car? Not sure about CA...

It's supposed to take both. The front and rear license plate should be shown, along with a photo of the driver that is clear enough to identify the driver.

It sounds to me like our OP met all of the above conditions, but wants to try to get out of this by crying when the judge points out the odds.

[okokrepo]

Hi,

There are pictures of the car, and driver, in my (slightly biased) opinion a bit blurry.

The late time is 0.41 seconds, which to me seems very short, but appears the norm for the city in question.

By the way, the ticket plus traffic school comes up to $640.

[Jim_bo]

So, are you saying that there was someone else driving your car or that the prosecution isn't meeting its burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt with the blurry picture??

[okokrepo]

In my opinion, it is unfair that these cameras are setup to capture very minor violations under the guise of public protection, where the true aim is the generation of revenue.

As such I hope to argue all options available to me, so far I am thinking:

1) That the evidence of the police is not sufficient to determine my identity beyond a reasonable doubt, due to a blurry photo (in my opinion).

2) That the late time is so short as to be not accurate, based on the inherent error of the recording device.


Any other suggestions?

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by okokrepo

Additionally, during the officer’s general group foundational statements, the honorable Cxxxx Hxxxxxx made statements that appeared to explain the meaning, or clarify the officer’s foundation.

Nothing wrong with that...

From people v. Carlucci 23 Cal. 3d 249:

The law of this state confers upon the trial judge the power, discretion and affirmative duty, predicated upon his primary duty and purpose 'to do justice,' to, in any proceeding, whether criminal or civil, with or without a jury, participate in the examination of witnesses whenever he believes that he may fairly aid in eliciting the truth, in preventing misunderstanding, in clarifying the testimony or covering omissions, in allowing a witness his right of explanation, and in eliciting facts material to a just determination of the cause."

Originally Posted by okokrepo

In my opinion, it is unfair that these cameras are setup to capture very minor violations under the guise of public protection, where the true aim is the generation of revenue.

Well, that point might work in your attempt to convince the legislature of your opinion. However, that has no bearing or effect on your guilt or innocence of the alleged violation.

Originally Posted by okokrepo

1) That the evidence of the police is not sufficient to determine my identity beyond a reasonable doubt, due to a blurry photo (in my opinion).

So are you saying that you should be the one to decide whether the prosecution did in fact prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? "In my opinion", that is why the judge is there... He gets to make that determination.

Originally Posted by okokrepo

2) That the late time is so short as to be not accurate, based on the inherent error of the recording device.

Well, unless you can somehow present to the court some sort of proof that the recording device has an error rate that is higher than the "late time", or that the system was not maintained properly, then you might have a valid argument.

Request the engineering report for the intersection as well as the maintenance records for that system and see what you find. My guess is that the officer either testified to the accuracy of the same and had such documents with him in court.

With all this being said, am I understanding correctly that your case was continued and you have a scheduled hearing date to show cause that the Judge should be removed from the case? Or where you found guilty and now you're back tracking because you did not agree with the court's decision?

[okokrepo]

I had a court date last week, where I submitted a motion to have the action transfered to the county seat. The judge said the motion was not valid as it was not filed in a timely manner, and offered a continuance which I accepted.

So for my trial in 6 weeks, I guess all contributors here think I should just pay the fine and accept traffic school ($640 total), for being captured on a video camera 0.41 seconds after the light turned red?