Red Light Ticket Issued to Wrong Person

[rjd598]

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

I was driving my mom's car and car is registered under her name. The ticket came in her name and I want to do a Trial By Declaration. I am attaching a copy of the ticket showing my face and a color copy of my mom's driver's license to show it's obviously two people. I also am going to write for "Statement of Facts":

Defendant's citation includes a photo of the face of the person driving the car. Defendant also encloses Exhibit A, which is a full color copy of Defendant's driver's license.

Defendant questions whether a comparison of the photos of the driver and the Defendant proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Defendant driving the vehicle. Defendant respectfully requests the Court to find the photos do not provide said proof, and to dismiss.

Defendant stands by the plea of not guilty - wrong defendant.

What do you guys think? Anything I should add or take out? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

 

[justalayman]

You can't do anything here. Your mother on the other hand, as the recipient of the ticket, can surely defend the citation issued to her by proving it was not her driving the vehicle.



there is more to this situation though but I don't have the time at the moment to research it. It seems that in one of the states with photo tickets, the registered owner can be held liable if they don't rat out the actual driver. I don't recall if it is California or not at the moment.

 

[rjd598]

You can't do anything here. Your mother on the other hand, as the recipient of the ticket, can surely defend the citation issued to her by proving it was not her driving the vehicle.



there is more to this situation though but I don't have the time at the moment to research it. It seems that in one of the states with photo tickets, the registered owner can be held liable if they don't rat out the actual driver. I don't recall if it is California or not at the moment.

From what I have gathered by searching online, my mom has no obligation to reveal my identity. I could be wrong in my research and if I am or if anyone has any more information please let me know.

 

[justalayman]

in a TBD, that appears to be correct and if the ticket is dismissed at that point, then you get off scott free, unless of course they can put 2 and 2 together and figure out who lives with your mother and take a peek at the people issued a license that also live at that address.


Now, what happens if she is found guilty in the TBD (while I agree it should be dismissed, that doesn't mean it will)?

 

[rjd598]

in a TBD, that appears to be correct and if the ticket is dismissed at that point, then you get off scott free, unless of course they can put 2 and 2 together and figure out who lives with your mother and take a peek at the people issued a license that also live at that address.


Now, what happens if she is found guilty in the TBD (while I agree it should be dismissed, that doesn't mean it will)?

I've thought of the scenario where she might be found guilty, but realistically how possible is that? What would the court say? "It's obviously not you, but you have to tell us who it is"? I just can't see them not dismissing it as it clearly is not her. Male driver and female defendant

 

[justalayman]

who knows? Maybe they would shoot it down simply to cause her to appeal and eventually testify in court where she could be compelled to disclose the drivers identity.

 

[rjd598]

who knows? Maybe they would shoot it down simply to cause her to appeal and eventually testify in court where she could be compelled to disclose the drivers identity.

Definitely a possibility, but let's hope that's not the case

 

[davew128]

who knows? Maybe they would shoot it down simply to cause her to appeal and eventually testify in court where she could be compelled to disclose the drivers identity.

I am not aware of anything under US law where a defendant would be compelled to testify at their own trial. It would however be a simple matter for mom to appear in court and ask the state to prove she is the person pictured in the photo. A red light ticket is an infraction and a criminal matter therefore she does retain a 5th amendment right.

 

[justalayman]

I am not aware of anything under US law where a defendant would be compelled to testify at their own trial. . A red light ticket is an infraction and a criminal matter therefore she does retain a 5th amendment right.

to the 5th; whether she has such a right due to the situation is irrelevant because the 5th gives one a right to not be compelled to incriminate oneself. It does not give one a right to refuse to incriminate others.

It would however be a simple matter for mom to appear in court and ask the state to prove she is the person pictured in the photo

um...what? Just who do you propose she ask this of and how? In a trial, you present evidence to the court whether it be physical or through testimony.

so, the state presents a picture of her license plate and proof it is her plate; state rests


then OP can either accept losing or testify she was not driving the car and then enter the evidence of the pic of her son. While she is testifying the state gets to grill her. You do not get to testify sort of from the defense table which is what it sounds like you are suggesting.

but you might say; she enters the physical evidence without any testimony. Ok, so what is it? How did she obtain it? Without testimony, it is nothing but a picture. It requires testimony to prove its purpose.


and I never said mom could be compelled to testify.

 

[davew128]

to the 5th; whether she has such a right due to the situation is irrelevant because the 5th gives one a right to not be compelled to incriminate oneself. It does not give one a right to refuse to incriminate others.

Missing. The. Point. In California, a traffic is an infraction and therefore a criminal matter. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States allowed a defendant to choose not to testify in their own defense.

um...what? Just who do you propose she ask this of and how? In a trial, you present evidence to the court whether it be physical or through testimony.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

so, the state presents a picture of her license plate and proof it is her plate; state rests

Cross examination: Sir/Madam, did you have a chance to view the picture of the person you issued the ticket to? Do you have that picture (answer is actually yes they do)? Is that person in the court room (no)? The defense rests.

then OP can either accept losing or testify she was not driving the car and then enter the evidence of the pic of her son. While she is testifying the state gets to grill her. You do not get to testify sort of from the defense table which is what it sounds like you are suggesting.

One can make an opening and closing argument without anyone testifying.

but you might say; she enters the physical evidence without any testimony. Ok, so what is it? How did she obtain it? Without testimony, it is nothing but a picture. It requires testimony to prove its purpose.

California law requires the picture be sent with the ticket (ergo how the OP got it in the first place). The prosecution already has it. Anything else?

 

[Just Blue]

OP is rather sickening. Why make Mom jump through legal hoop? Why not just come forward and admit he did it and pay the fine?

 

[justalayman]

davew128;3302782]Missing. The. Point. In California, a traffic is an infraction and therefore a criminal matter. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States allowed a defendant to choose not to testify in their own defense.

yes you do seem to be missing the point. I never said mom could be compelled to testify BUT for her to put on any sort of defense, she will end up having to testify

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

that was not pointing out anything. That was asking you just who you thought she would say this to where it would have any effect on her trial.

Cross examination: Sir/Madam, did you have a chance to view the picture of the person you issued the ticket to? Do you have that picture (answer is actually yes they do)? Is that person in the court room (no)? The defense rests.

prosecution continuing cross;

do you know who that is in that picture (yes)

and who is the person in that picture (my son)

and his name? (whatever it is)


prosecution motions to dismiss the charges

prosecutor then has a new citation issued to the son.

One can make an opening and closing argument without anyone testifying.

what is said in opening and closing statements is not evidence.

California law requires the picture be sent with the ticket (ergo how the OP got it in the first place). The prosecution already has it. Anything else?

of course they have it but if they choose to not present it, so be it.

anything else?

 

[cbg]

OP is rather sickening. Why make Mom jump through legal hoop? Why not just come forward and admit he did it and pay the fine?

What? Actually take responsibility for his actions like a grown up and submit to consequences? Blue, Blue, Blue, what CAN you be thinking?

 

[Just Blue]

What? Actually take responsibility for his actions like a grown up and submit to consequences? Blue, Blue, Blue, what CAN you be thinking?

I know...silly me. I forget how terrible some adult children can be.

 

[davew128]

prosecution continuing cross;

do you know who that is in that picture (yes)

and who is the person in that picture (my son)

Prosecutor can't "continue cross" when there are no defense witnesses. The only witness is the prosecution's to identify the person in the picture.

of course they have it but if they choose to not present it, so be it.

and they lose the case immediately. Do you have any idea how a red light camera ticket works in California? You're completely ignoring that not only does the picture of the offender get sent along with the ticket, most of the COURTS provide weblinks to view the pictures online. If a picture is not included with the "ticket" it is not a legal citation.

anything else?

You're welcome for the education you just received.