Camera Red Light Violation send to wrong address

[davew128]

hey, anybody very familiar with the camera systems in california? do they even have a shot of the drivers face? seems most i have seen don't.

The one in particular that my GF got did. Even had a clear shot of her right hand holding something that may or may not resemble a cell phone up to her right ear.

 

[justalayman]

http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/traffic/citations-red-light-camera.aspx

About Red Light Camera Citations
Citations issued by automated enforcement systems (red light cameras) are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the incident.

this is from San Mateo and is on their camera tickets:

Certificate of Mailing

I, {name_of_mailer}, of Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. 15020 North 74th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260, do
certify that I am over 18 years old and not a party to the above entitled case. On {Print_Date} I placed this
Notice to Appear in an envelope addressed to the registered owner or lessee as shown above, sealed it and
deposited the envelope in a United States Postal Service receptacle located at the Airpark United States Postal
Service office at Scottsdale, Arizona. In the ordinary course of business, the envelope is sealed, affixed with
proper postage and mailed. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true

based on that, the ticket would have to be sent to the registered owner or lessee.



I cannot imagine any cop going to the trouble of looking up the registration, chasing the insurance provider for that vehicle (where unless the OP was named as a policy holder would not even be available to the cop), then took the name they somehow discovered, looked up their license picture, compared the driver's license picture to that in the picture for the red light violation, determined it was the OP and send the ticket to the registered address of the OP.

First, I doubt any cop is that energetic. They have other things to do and there is no need given the system in place does not require any action of that sort. Second, from what I have found, the company in Arizona noted above operates most of the cameras in California. As can be seen, a technician employed by that company is the entity that actually mails the ticket to the registered owner. That technician would not have the ability to look up the information beyond the registered owner OP claims was researched to discover OP's identity and subsequently sent the ticket to her. If the camera involved was operated by that company, what the OP described just could not happen.

I suspect there is also law that requires the ticket to be sent to the registered owner (but haven't found it) given the fact that is who the law allows the ticket to be sent to. If the ticket is sent to a person that is not the registered owner, the laws in place that allow the registered driver to either accept the ticket or name some other person that was driving would not be able to be relied upon to enforce the ticket.

and then there is this:


Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems: Notice to Appear

40518. (a) Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of Section 22451, or, based on an alleged violation of Section 21453, 21455, or 22101 recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.5 or 22451, and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file with the department, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea. Preparation and delivery of a notice to appear pursuant to this section is not an arrest.

(b) (1) A notice to appear shall contain the name and address of the person, the license plate number of the person’s vehicle, the violation charged, including a description of the offense, and the time and place when, and where, the person may appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail. The time specified shall be at least 10 days after the notice to appear is delivered. If, after the notice to appear has been issued, the citing peace officer or qualified employee of a law enforcement agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the citing agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate or the judge that the case be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and be filed with the court. If the magistrate or judge makes a finding that there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered on the record and the infraction dismissed.

again, nothing speaking to sending the ticket to some person found through chasing various sources of information to guess who the person in the picture was.



and of course, how would the cop know it wasn't the registered owner's girlfriend, sister, mother, or any other woman in the world other than the registered owner's wife.

 

[CdwJava]

If the face of the driver does not match the name of the registered owner, many officers working these red light camera enforcement details will look for any other licensed drivers in the home (via DMV records, insurance, or whatever) and, if they can, seek to try and match DMV photos to see if one of them is the driver. If not, they can still send a request to the registered owner to asking that he identify the driver.

Ultimately the law requires you to update you driver's license with the DMV to include your address, and those of your registered vehicles. If you did not update your driver's license address, that onus is on you.

Have you run your driver's license through the DMV to discover the reason for the suspension? A mailed citation cannot generally result in a license suspension for a failure to appear. So, there must be some other cause for the suspension. What is the Vehicle Code section under the "authority" for the suspension?

 

[Zigner]

To be fair to the OP:

The form that is submitted when changing addresses allows you to change registration AND DL information on the same form. It sounds to me like the OP sent in one form with multiple changes. I don't think the OP failed to change her address, I just think that only one of the requested changes was made.

Personally, if I ever need to change my address with our DMV in the future, I am going to submit separate change notices for each vehicle as well as my license. I like to cover my bases.

 

[justalayman]

so, it appears I am wrong. I think it is a waste of energy to do what Carl states is done since it becomes a matter of sifting through sources of information that may or may not contain the information needed to resolve who the driver is. It also means they are going to attempt to determine the identity of the driver based on a comparison of the pictures from a street cam and the driver's license.

I do wonder how they obtain any names from an insurance providers name though. The state is not legally privy to the details of the policy so unless the driver is listed as an owner of the policy, using the insurance providers name would gain them nothing. I would think that even obtaining the name of the policy owner might be a breach of the law though.

but if they go the route of spending the resources to chase whatever leads they desire, then I would think they have removed the possibility of enforcing the ticket via the means allowed by statute regarding the registered owner since by the time all is said and done, the time to issue the ticket to them will have passed.

so, what happens if you have a daughter and mother that look similar enough they are mistaken one for the other? What happens if the driver and whatever name they come up with in their search look similar and are mistaken one for the other? not only have they made the prosecution of that person difficult, if they fail, they lose the chance to prosecute the ticket as allowed in the set process when issuing the ticket to the registered owner.


sounds like a waste of time with no certain results especially when there is a more cost efficient and simpler means to prosecute the ticket available.


i guess i am starting to see why California continues to have financial problems. Not wasting financial resources would be a place to start to stop the bleeding.

 

[GANA]

In my attempt to have this address change resolved with DMV I went and got my records printed out for me, which show that my car registration information was updated when we moved and drivers license was not. when I asked how is that possible all I was told is that sometimes the system is not working properly. Since I have moved to the states couple years ago, I could not have known that such an important institution could function so poorly, and that I would need to be checking if my information was entered correctly.

Now for the photo enforcement manager going out of his way to figure out who the driver was. I had a friend attorney call and get the information on how was my name connected to the vehicle.
He started with the registration of the vehicle got my husbands name, and since the picture shows its a female he went on and played a detective. went to check my husbands insurance and got my name of the policy.
We asked him weather there is a procedure that he follows in case of the driver not being the registered owner. He was supposed to email it to us, but still nothing

 

[justalayman]

GANA;3271604]Since I have moved to the states couple years ago, I could not have known that such an important institution could function so poorly, and that I would need to be checking if my information was entered correctly.

if you have only been here for a few years, hold on. You have only seen the beginning of problems in various systems within our government.

Now for the photo enforcement manager going out of his way to figure out who the driver was. I had a friend attorney call and get the information on how was my name connected to the vehicle.
He started with the registration of the vehicle got my husbands name, and since the picture shows its a female he went on and played a detective. went to check my husbands insurance and got my name of the policy.
We asked him weather there is a procedure that he follows in case of the driver not being the registered owner. He was supposed to email it to us, but still nothing

CDWJava is a California cop and quite knowledgeable of matters within California (not inferring he doesn't have knowledge of matters outside California but specifically knowledgeable of matters within California) As he explained, apparently they have so much time on their hands they can spend it chasing a situations such as yours. Once they reach a conclusion they have identified the driver, they can issue a ticket to that person. One problem in doing it that way is what you are experiencing. Your address was not changed for whatever reason so they sent it to your old address and you didn't get it. Now the onus is on you to prove you did apply for a change of address and the state screwed up.

so, welcome to the US.

 

[CdwJava]

so, it appears I am wrong. I think it is a waste of energy to do what Carl states is done since it becomes a matter of sifting through sources of information that may or may not contain the information needed to resolve who the driver is. It also means they are going to attempt to determine the identity of the driver based on a comparison of the pictures from a street cam and the driver's license.

This is how it is done in at least two agencies where I have friends working the detail. If the image is clearly not of the same gender as the R/O they search other records to see if they can find a possible.

I do wonder how they obtain any names from an insurance providers name though. The state is not legally privy to the details of the policy so unless the driver is listed as an owner of the policy, using the insurance providers name would gain them nothing. I would think that even obtaining the name of the policy owner might be a breach of the law though.

As a note, insurance information can be retrieved online from a publicly accessible website. I have never retrieved this information, so I cannot say what information it contains, but it likely lists the names of the policy holder(s) and, perhaps, other drivers.

but if they go the route of spending the resources to chase whatever leads they desire, then I would think they have removed the possibility of enforcing the ticket via the means allowed by statute regarding the registered owner since by the time all is said and done, the time to issue the ticket to them will have passed.

I can check that information in less than a couple of minutes. If there are no leads, I could send out the so-called "snitch ticket" and move on.

so, what happens if you have a daughter and mother that look similar enough they are mistaken one for the other? What happens if the driver and whatever name they come up with in their search look similar and are mistaken one for the other? not only have they made the prosecution of that person difficult, if they fail, they lose the chance to prosecute the ticket as allowed in the set process when issuing the ticket to the registered owner.

You either send the ticket to the one you think it is, or the R/O asking them to ID the driver. if you send it to the one you think it is, they can go to court and say it was not them. The court may then ask the defendant, "If it wasn't you, who was it?" but, that's an issue for them to deal with later.

sounds like a waste of time with no certain results especially when there is a more cost efficient and simpler means to prosecute the ticket available.

The most cost efficient means is to send the ticket to the true suspect as that is more likely to result in the defendant paying the fine. Sending it to the R/O as a request for info can - and often does - result in no reply and no action that can be taken.

i guess i am starting to see why California continues to have financial problems. Not wasting financial resources would be a place to start to stop the bleeding.

California doesn't spend money on these issues, the local agencies do. And it takes less time to search names and data than it did for me to type this response.

 

[CdwJava]

In my attempt to have this address change resolved with DMV I went and got my records printed out for me, which show that my car registration information was updated when we moved and drivers license was not. when I asked how is that possible all I was told is that sometimes the system is not working properly. Since I have moved to the states couple years ago, I could not have known that such an important institution could function so poorly, and that I would need to be checking if my information was entered correctly.

It could also be that the information was not completed properly on the form. Or, horror-of-horrors, the DMV made a mistake in their data entry. Unfortunately, PROVING this mistake will be nearly impossible - and prohibitively expensive.

Now for the photo enforcement manager going out of his way to figure out who the driver was. I had a friend attorney call and get the information on how was my name connected to the vehicle.
He started with the registration of the vehicle got my husbands name, and since the picture shows its a female he went on and played a detective. went to check my husbands insurance and got my name of the policy.
We asked him weather there is a procedure that he follows in case of the driver not being the registered owner. He was supposed to email it to us, but still nothing

The law enforcement agency is under no legal requirement to tell you how they got your name.

 

[davew128]

To be fair to the OP:

The form that is submitted when changing addresses allows you to change registration AND DL information on the same form. It sounds to me like the OP sent in one form with multiple changes. I don't think the OP failed to change her address, I just think that only one of the requested changes was made.

Personally, if I ever need to change my address with our DMV in the future, I am going to submit separate change notices for each vehicle as well as my license. I like to cover my bases.

I have found that changing the address for registration online with DMV works well. The same input which in theory also covers change of address for driver's license (by checking a couple of boxes) has NEVER been successfully processed by DMV and always required a paper form submission to Sacramento. I've had to move a couple times in the last 2 years and its a real pain to have do this on paper because the system rejects it online.

 

[davew128]

It could also be that the information was not completed properly on the form. Or, horror-of-horrors, the DMV made a mistake in their data entry. Unfortunately, PROVING this mistake will be nearly impossible - and prohibitively expensive.

I can tell you that the online change of address form doesn't really work on the driver's license. Every time I moved, the submission would get 2 responses in a few days, one that the registration change was successfully processed and one that the license change was NOT. I suspect the OP encountered this specific problem and didn't log back in to verify the transaction was processed.

The law enforcement agency is under no legal requirement to tell you how they got your name.

If the ticket was being contested in court they certainly would.

 

[justalayman]

As a note, insurance information can be retrieved online from a publicly accessible website. I have never retrieved this information, so I cannot say what information it contains, but it likely lists the names of the policy holder(s) and, perhaps, other drivers.

you have a screwed up state then. My insurance policy is private info and who is on my policy is not public knowledge. As I said, I don't believe the owners name should be available as it serves no legal purpose. In other words; it's none of your business. Stay out of it. All the state needs to know is there is a legally adequate policy in force. Who pays for it is irrelevant and what drivers are on it is none of anybody's under most circumstances.

The most cost efficient means is to send the ticket to the true suspect as that is more likely to result in the defendant paying the fine. Sending it to the R/O as a request for info can - and often does - result in no reply and no action that can be taken.

doesn't the law allow for charging the registered owner? I am apparently mistaken then as I thought it did.

California doesn't spend money on these issues, the local agencies do. And it takes less time to search names and data than it did for me to type this response.

it all comes out of the same pocket; taxpayers

 

[CdwJava]

If the ticket was being contested in court they certainly would.

In traffic court? Not likely.

The state would argue that the person identified in the photo is Jane Doe based upon name, registration, photo, etc. The defense would argue it wasn't for whatever reason. It is exceedingly unlikely the issue of HOW they got the info would ever come up. Unless it was thought to have been found unlawfully, it's not likely to be an issue.

 

[CdwJava]

you have a screwed up state then. My insurance policy is private info and who is on my policy is not public knowledge.

I do not know WHAT info appears on that site as I have never used it. But, if the DMV has it, I suspect it is also available to law enforcement upon request ... though, I am not familiar with the nature of the request, I only know that it does not apepar to be through CLETS.

As I said, I don't believe the owners name should be available as it serves no legal purpose.

Well, if it is, it is. And, since the information is required to be reported to the state, while it might not be publicly available, it is available to the state.

Also, keep in mind that in CA anyone can get the registered owner's info from any license plate. There is a delay in the release of the info, and a fee, and the owner is noticed that a request has been made, but it IS available. I imagine the same theory is in place for insurance as well. But, as I said, I am not sure.

In other words; it's none of your business. Stay out of it. All the state needs to know is there is a legally adequate policy in force. Who pays for it is irrelevant and what drivers are on it is none of anybody's under most circumstances.

Your opinion probably is of little concern to the state of CA.

doesn't the law allow for charging the registered owner? I am apparently mistaken then as I thought it did.

No. Vehicle infractions are quasi-criminal matters and not civil matters. If they changed the law to make these civil issues, and allowed us to cite the registered owners for a violation committed by their vehicles, then the state would probably see a huge uptick in paid cites for these offenses. But, it might also see increased litigation as they try and sort out whether you can hold the owner liable for the misuse of their vehicle.

it all comes out of the same pocket; taxpayers

You're paying the officers to process the tickets anyway. They can either be spending the time on Facebook, or, they can be doing their jobs and attempting to identify the offenders.

 

[justalayman]

CdwJava;3271675]I do not know WHAT info appears on that site as I have never used it. But, if the DMV has it, I suspect it is also available to law enforcement upon request ... though, I am not familiar with the nature of the request, I only know that it does not apepar to be through CLETS.

no reason for the DMV to have it either. Ownership of the policy is irrelevant.

Well, if it is, it is. And, since the information is required to be reported to the state, while it might not be publicly available, it is available to the state.

at least back here, ownership of the policy is not required to be reported to the state. The state records a insurers name and policy number. That's it.

Also, keep in mind that in CA anyone can get the registered owner's info from any license plate.

but it appears OP was not on the registration.

There is a delay in the release of the info, and a fee, and the owner is noticed that a request has been made, but it IS available. I imagine the same theory is in place for insurance as well. But, as I said, I am not sure.

If so, again, your state is really screwed up. That info is not needed by anybody. In fact, even if I was in an accident out there I would not be compelled to involve my insurance company.

Your opinion probably is of little concern to the state of CA.

ya, some states are that way; they really don't give a damn what a citizen thinks.

No. Vehicle infractions are quasi-criminal matters and not civil matters. If they changed the law to make these civil issues, and allowed us to cite the registered owners for a violation committed by their vehicles, then the state would probably see a huge uptick in paid cites for these offenses. But, it might also see increased litigation as they try and sort out whether you can hold the owner liable for the misuse of their vehicle.

then my error. In other words, the law regarding the registered owner ratting out a driver to escape a ticket is not enforceable? The registered owner says; not me and unless that picture does him/her in, the ticket simply gets trashed?

You're paying the officers to process the tickets anyway. They can either be spending the time on Facebook, or, they can be doing their jobs and attempting to identify the offenders.

what a foolish statement. There are myriad other activities they could be dealing with other than spending time on Facebook. If not, then there are too many people on the force. Apparently inefficiency is its own reward out there.