Redlight Camera Ticket

[Anton Chigurh]

What is the name of your state? CA

Got one of the snitch tickets in the mail today, No court address, no Court #, no Case#
The Citation is for the well known company Redflex.
I am not identified by name on the ticket, however they want me to send a copy of my drivers license in and give them all my pertinent iformation.

I know there have been a couple of threads on these, but nothing current.

Background info: work vehicle-the vehicle is registered to a fleet service and the notice was mailed to my home location (not my home). My name is nowhere on it. there was no proof of delivery so There is no record that I even received it.

Suffice to say, If I can avoid this I am going to, wether Im guilty or not. I would think sending my info in would be self incriminating, however I could be wrong

Any suggestions

[JIMinCA]

I would ignore it. It is not a summons. It is not a promise to appear. It is not notification of a court date. It is simply a request by a company that has no more legal weight than a company asking you to respond to a survey.

[Pugilist]

JimInCA summarized it pretty well. A real traffic ticket always has the name, address and phone # of the court on it. Your fake ticket (also called a Snitch Ticket) probably has the PD's address on it. It is just a clever ruse used by California and Arizona police to try to get the recipient to ID the driver. Best advice is to ignore it, completely. If you become worried that MAYBE something is happening at the court, you can call the court and ask them if anything has been filed against you. But resist any temptation to call the police to ask about it. That will just stir them up, and motivate them to take the time to do some computer research to figure out who was driving your car.

While I'm here, I want to mention that in California, a bill has just been introduced in the state legislature, to allow speed cameras (also called photo radar). It is SB 1325 and hasn't yet been voted on, at all, so now is the time to stop it. Call your legislators, your auto club, and your local newspaper reporter.

Pug

[Anton Chigurh]

Originally Posted by Pugilist

JimInCA summarized it pretty well. A real traffic ticket always has the name, address and phone # of the court on it. Your fake ticket (also called a Snitch Ticket) probably has the PD's address on it. It is just a clever ruse used by California and Arizona police to try to get the recipient to ID the driver. Best advice is to ignore it, completely. If you become worried that MAYBE something is happening at the court, you can call the court and ask them if anything has been filed against you. But resist any temptation to call the police to ask about it. That will just stir them up, and motivate them to take the time to do some computer research to figure out who was driving your car.

While I'm here, I want to mention that in California, a bill has just been introduced in the state legislature, to allow speed cameras (also called photo radar). It is SB 1325 and hasn't yet been voted on, at all, so now is the time to stop it. Call your legislators, your auto club, and your local newspaper reporter.

Pug

Thanks for the responses, thats pretty much what I thought, and I must admit I felt a huge pull to call the PD, but I didnt. I love how it says " do not contact the court" yet there is no court information on the ticket lol.
also the place they delivered the letter has 200+ employees and came first class mail, no sig confirmation, so they cannot even prove that I ever received it.

Thanks again guys, Ill update if they manage to track me down

[JIMinCA]

Pugilist makes a good point. We should all contact our legislators to show our opposition to photo speeding tickets. I think our OP's case is a fine example of how the State is using deception and trickery for the sole purpose of financial gain. It is absolutely shameful. Traffic tickets are supposed to improve public safety. I don't think anyone can make me believe that these tactics will do anything for public safety. On the contrary, all these tactics do is create distrust and animosity between the public and the police. And that CERTAINLY is not in the interest of public safety.

We have a couple of CA cops who post here regularly (Carl and Sniper). I'd be very interested in they feel the same way or if they support the sneaky tactics to raise revenue in an already tax-crazy state.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Pugilist makes a good point. We should all contact our legislators to show our opposition to photo speeding tickets. I think our OP's case is a fine example of how the State is using deception and trickery for the sole purpose of financial gain. It is absolutely shameful. Traffic tickets are supposed to improve public safety. I don't think anyone can make me believe that these tactics will do anything for public safety. On the contrary, all these tactics do is create distrust and animosity between the public and the police. And that CERTAINLY is not in the interest of public safety.

We have a couple of CA cops who post here regularly (Carl and Sniper). I'd be very interested in they feel the same way or if they support the sneaky tactics to raise revenue in an already tax-crazy state.

They can send letters to anyone they want ... there is no law preventing the police or the camera companies for asking for a confession. The burden is still upon the state to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have not seen that these letters fuel any "distrust and animosity". Those that feel either of those emotions generally feel those even before they receive such a notice. While I currently do not live or work near a city that uses these cameras, I used to. Aside from some confusion as to whether it was a citation or not, I generally got the question, "Do you really think they can identify me from this picture?"

I am ambivalent to the notices. I don't care if they send them out or not.

- Carl

[Anton Chigurh]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

They can send letters to anyone they want ... there is no law preventing the police or the camera companies for asking for a confession. The burden is still upon the state to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have not seen that these letters fuel any "distrust and animosity". Those that feel either of those emotions generally feel those even before they receive such a notice. While I currently do not live or work near a city that uses these cameras, I used to. Aside from some confusion as to whether it was a citation or not, I generally got the question, "Do you really think they can identify me from this picture?"

I am ambivalent to the notices. I don't care if they send them out or not.

- Carl

So what do you think Carl? Am I OK to ignore this first notice as long as it has no court info on it?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Anton Chigurh

So what do you think Carl? Am I OK to ignore this first notice as long as it has no court info on it?

It does not appear to be a citation, so you are under no legal obligation to respond that I am aware of.

- Carl

[Anton Chigurh]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

It does not appear to be a citation, so you are under no legal obligation to respond that I am aware of.

- Carl

Thank you for the info sir, I will update the post as events transpire