Red Light Camera Ticket In Van Nuys, CA

[keechee1]

Los Angeles County, California.

I received a summons for a red light camera ticket in Van Nuys. The ticket shows the light was red for 2 tenths of a second.

How can I beat this ticket? Also, I have heard these type of tickets are not enforceable? What does that mean? My trial date, as I have plead not guilty is August 25th. The fine was $480.00.

Some other facts. The speed limit was 40 MPH, but shows as 35 on the summons. I timed the yellow light and it was for 3.6 seconds, whereas it shows as 3.9 seconds on the summons. The Stop Here sign was obstructed by trees and can not be clearly seen until right upon it.

Appreciate responses only from intelligent individuals. Thank you.

 

[Free_Advice]

even 3.9 seconds is to short. Videotape with calibrated stopwatch & put results into a document .. maybe the judge will look at it.

Regards to not being enforceable? Could be your thinking about the documents not being admissible. Read Cal. v Khaled (sp?) is the main case discussing this issue. Object to the introduction of the document as soon as it is asked to be introduced into evidence...

 

[randomguy]

Ignore the ticket nothing will happen to you. This is LA COUNTY, most that will happen is ticket will be sent to collection. Your DL/registration will not be suspended and no arrest warrant will be issued.

 

[Free_Advice]

Ignore the ticket nothing will happen to you. This is LA COUNTY, most that will happen is ticket will be sent to collection. Your DL/registration will not be suspended and no arrest warrant will be issued.

If true, then can he go to the hearing, get found guilty & the same result will occur .. I avoid LA like I avoid Rose O'Donnoll

 

[randomguy]

If true, then can he go to the hearing, get found guilty & the same result will occur .. I avoid LA like I avoid Rose O'Donnoll

If he is found guilty and he fails to pay he will be in contempt of court. Only way nothing except for collection can happen is if he ignore the summon.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Also, I have heard these type of tickets are not enforceable?

Unenforceable? Not sure how that could be when it is in fact filed in court, you are ordered to appear, and failing to do so will result in it being sent to collection with no potential for it to simply disappear at any time in the foreseeable future.

My trial date, as I have plead not guilty isAugust 25th.

You've already entered a plea? If so, then even if it is unenforceable, it would be too late to make such a claim.

Some other facts.* The speed limit was 40 MPH, but shows as 35 on the summons. I timed the yellow light and it was for 3.6 seconds, whereas it shows as 3.9 seconds on the summons.*

Not sure what sort of device you used to time it, but unless you can suggest that your reaction time can be reduced to zero, then you measuring it n a stop watch is not going to get you anywhere.

To argue matters related to timing, approach speed... etc, you'd be better off obtaining a copy of the engineering report for that intersection (my guess from L.A.D.O.T.) once you have that, compare those values from the report with those from the citation.

The Stop Here sign was obstructed by trees and can not be clearly seen until right upon it.

A “Stop here” sign is not required by the VC code... Only a stop line and a traffic signal. So as long as the line is clearly marked and the signal is apparent upon approach, the stop here sign is not going to matter.

even 3.9 seconds is to short.

Where do you get that from?

The absolute minimum yellow phase timing for any traffic signal is 3.0 seconds.
For an approach speed of 35mph, it is recommended that it be set at 3.6 seconds...
For an approach speed of 40mph, it is recommended that it be set at 3.9 seconds...

This is all pursuant to the Federal standards as set in the MUTCD.

Sounds to me like its right on!

Read Cal. v Khaled (sp?)* is the main case discussing this issue. Object to the introduction of the document as soon as it is asked to be introduced into evidence...

People v. Khaled is far from being “the main case discussing this issue”... it was a fluke, an anomaly... And if you read People v. Goldsmith, Cal: Appellate Div. 2011 ( khaled - Google Scholar ) you'll see that Khaled will have very little impact on any red light camera citation.

Ignore the ticket nothing will happen to you. This is LA COUNTY, most that will happen is ticket will be sent to collection. Your DL/registration will not be suspended and no*arrest warrant*will be issued.

I disagree... I'm not sure how or why people can justify saying that having a ticket sent to collection means “nothing will happen”. Whether they are able to immediately collect or not is not the issue; the issue as I see it is that the ticket, being in collection will remain there forever or until paid. So you can either handle it while it is at the $480 level... Or you can ignore it and risk the possibility of it popping up unexpectedly after it gets to $480 +$300 level...

Additionally, it sounds to me like the OP has already been to an arraignment and has entered a plea... Makes it a different story than just ignoring it at the outset!*

 

[vacren]

I've received two "red light" tickets, both in IL.

The first I plead not guilty to, appeared at a station house where I was found guilty by a retired DA, and ignored the fine. Because it's a non-moving violation and used specifically as a revenue producing device, it doesn't affect driving history. The device is installed for NO OTHER REASON than to increase city/county traffic violation revenues.

The second I ran through a shredder and used to help reinforce a paper-mache (sp?) basking ledge I made for my lizard.

Neither ticket has appeared on my driving record. Neither ticket has appeared on my credit report. I continue to maintain a security clearance (USN) and no warrants of any kind have been issued for my arrest. I recently changed my DL from IL to WI without issue.

IL law requires an officer be physically present at the time of the violation for it to be a moving violation. The way these tickets are processed is through a company located in Phoenix, AZ where, at a location similar to a call center, employees (not law enforcement) are tasked with viewing the incoming video and snapshots to determine if the violation was actual or camera error. If they determine it is a violation, the video is forwarded back to the city and a copy of the snapshots showing the vehicle and rear plate are sent to the registered owner.

Defense of these tickets is simple, don't acknowledge it. Don't go to the website provided, don't enter a plea. Shred the document and move on with your life... In IL. In CA, I'm sure that the law would be similar, if not word for word the same.

Since you've acknowledged the ticket...

I would worry less about the engineering of the traffic signal. You're not going to out-geek the city planners, civil engineers, and state inspectors who have all verified that light is in proper working condition.

Find out if it was a properly issued ticket. Does CA require an officer be present? Was the light properly shaded against glare from the sun? Were you "blowing" the light to avoid potentially T-Boning cross traffic because your leg fell asleep or some other unfortunate incident which could not conceivably have been avoided by you? Were you distracted by the "LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCED" sign and not looking at the light itself? Does the photo CLEARLY show you as the driver? (You're not required to incriminate your spouse)

All of these "excuses" will likely be shot down if you're going to see an actual judge, but anything is better than paying out $480 for missing a light by 0.2 second.

 

[Zigner]

I've received two "red light" tickets, both in IL.

You DO understand that IL is not now, nor has it ever been, controlled by California law...right?

 

[demurringdude]

Don't go to the website provided,

This is an "urban legend".

Assuming you mean that looking at the web link demonstrates the complaint has been served.

The allegation that a web page had been visited would never be admissible in court in California for proof of service. How would you prove who visited it?

In this case, the defendant has already pled, so that point is moot.

It is further moot because proof of service is not required in the first place. A "certificate of mailing" is sufficient.

 

[demurringdude]

Does CA require an officer be present? Was the light properly shaded against glare from the sun? Were you "blowing" the light to avoid potentially T-Boning cross traffic because your leg fell asleep or some other unfortunate incident which could not conceivably have been avoided by you? Were you distracted by the "LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCED" sign and not looking at the light itself? ...
...All of these "excuses" will likely be shot down if you're going to see an actual judge, but anything is better than paying out $480 for missing a light by 0.2 second.

Which is better:

a) Paying $480 by mail, or
b) Spending a morning in court offering useless defenses, and then paying $480.

 

[keechee1]

Follow-up To My Red Light Camera Ticket in Van Nuys

Follow-up to an earlier post.

In looking at the background supplemental information on my red light camera ticket, printed from the cite-web.com site, it shows the Speed Limit entry: 35. In actuality, the speed limit is 40. This 40 mph is in the pictures and videos I took. My question is can this be a technicality to dismiss the ticket on? The reason I ask is in the Yellow Time section it shows 3.9 seconds whereas after timing in person, the time was 3.6 seconds, which is the time associated with a 35 MPH zone, although on the ticket background it shows 3.9 seconds. Some ambiguity?

Any other suggestions you can give me (please, please, please only intelligent defense related replies), would be appreciated.

To recap, I received a summons for a red light camera ticket in Van Nuys - Southbound White Oak Avenue at Busway. The ticket shows the light was red for 2 tenths of a second. I had a passenger with me whose face is blocked.

My defense at trial will consist of questioning 1. Accuracy of equipment. 2. Lack of foundation because picture evidence is hearsay. 3. Unable to confront my accuser - rights violated. 4. Intersection where camera is located has a poor design (street wording says wait here, then beyond limit line says keep clear - do a google earth to see what I mean). 5. The Stop Here sign (for the limit line) is obstructed by a tree branch - unable to see until the last moment. 6. Poor lighting of intersection to process all this information at night). 7. Picture tampered with (i.e. - passenger face blocked - how do I know other items were not altered?).

Needless to say I am fighting this ticket and appreciate any support – perhaps a Pro Bono to defend me. My trial date is August 25th at 1:30pm in Van Nuys courthouse, Division 109. My email [email protected]

Thank you.

 

[keechee1]

Follow up to my Red Light Camera Ticket in Van Nuys

Follow-up to an earlier post.

In looking at the background supplemental information on my red light camera ticket, printed from the cite-web.com site, it shows the Speed Limit entry: 35. In actuality, the speed limit is 40. This 40 mph is in the pictures and videos I took. My question is can this be a technicality to dismiss the ticket on? The reason I ask is in the Yellow Time section it shows 3.9 seconds whereas after timing in person, the time was 3.6 seconds, which is the time associated with a 35 MPH zone, although on the ticket background it shows 3.9 seconds. Some ambiguity?

Any other suggestions you can give me (please, please, please only intelligent defense related replies), would be appreciated.

To recap, I received a summons for a red light camera ticket in Van Nuys - Southbound White Oak Avenue at Busway. The ticket shows the light was red for 2 tenths of a second. I had a passenger with me whose face is blocked.

My defense at trial will consist of questioning 1. Accuracy of equipment. 2. Lack of foundation because picture evidence is hearsay. 3. Unable to confront my accuser - rights violated. 4. Intersection where camera is located has a poor design (street wording says wait here, then beyond limit line says keep clear - do a Google earth to see what I mean). 5. The Stop Here sign (for the limit line) is obstructed by a tree branch - unable to see until the last moment. 6. Poor lighting of intersection to process all this information at night). 7. Picture tampered with (i.e. - passenger face blocked - how do I know other items were not altered?).

Needless to say I am fighting this ticket and appreciate any support – perhaps a Pro Bono to defend me. My trial date is August 25th at 1:30pm in Van Nuys courthouse, Division 109. My email is [email protected]

Thank you.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I'll address this bit first:

Any other suggestions you can give me (please, please, please only intelligent defense related replies), would be appreciated.

You mean only post information that might give the impression that you have a valid defense when in reality, the only thing it is bound to do is irritate the judge?

Beg all you want... And feel free to skip this post all together since it is not likely to help you get any more false hope than you already have... So this is not for you, I'm posting this info in case someone comes across this thread in the future....

Follow-up to an earlier post.

You mean a rerun to an earlier post...

In looking at the background supplemental information on my red light camera ticket, printed from the cite-web.com site, it shows the Speed Limit entry: 35. In actuality, the speed limit is 40. This 40 mph is in the pictures and videos I took. My question is can this be a technicality to dismiss the ticket on?

Could be... (To use your own words, "how do they know the pictures weren't tampered with") You'll have to find a way to get your pictures and video authenticated... Maybe you can get the cop to verify them, but if its different than what he knows or what info he has on his documentation (engineering report) then he's not likely to confirm your findings.

As I stated previously, get a copy of the engineering report for that intersection. Without that, anything you say is mere speculation!

By the way, and although there is no way to tell how old these Google StreetView pictures are or whether the signs have been changed since they were taken, here is the one speed limit sign on Southbound White Oak, Just South of Victory (i.e. before you cross the busway):
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=white+oak,+van+nuys,+ca&hl=en&ll=34.186246,-118.51848&spn=0.002174,0.009645&sll=33.835293,-117.914504&sspn=0.307993,0.617294&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.186244,-118.518481&panoid=rmmj1TFzhMXn0KdolEOuaA&cbp=11,204.32,,0,0

... and that looks to me like a "35MPH limit"...

And here the speed limit sign that is posted on Southbound White Oak, Just South of (just past) "Busway & Oxnard" (i.e. after you cross the busway):
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=white+oak+and+busway&hl=en&ll=34.180002,-118.518507&spn=0.001538,0.004823&sll=34.184968,-118.519478&sspn=0.038341,0.077162&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=34.179996,-118.518506&panoid=CAYeOjhBZq1t2DcjcaY8Kw&cbp=11,211.22,,0,3.9

That too looks like 35mph to me...

I don't know where you're getting the 40mph limit from!

The reason I ask is in the Yellow Time section it shows 3.9 seconds whereas after timing in person, the time was 3.6 seconds, which is the time associated with a 35 MPH zone, although on the ticket background it shows 3.9 seconds. Some ambiguity?

And again, your timing is far from being "official", whether it is sufficiently or even remotely accurate isn't something that can be verified... We're talking about less than a third of a second here where as the error rate in human reaction to start the timer PLUS the same time to stop it, can exceed that by a great margin.

To recap, I received a summons for a red light camera ticket in Van Nuys - Southbound White Oak Avenue at Busway. The ticket shows the light was red for 2 tenths of a second. I had a passenger with me whose face is blocked.

OK...

My defense at trial will consist of questioning 1. Accuracy of equipment.

See above...

2. Lack of foundation because picture evidence is hearsay.

Its not hearsay... read the Goldsmith case I linked above.

3. Unable to confront my accuser - rights violated.

Your accuser is the officer who reviewed the tapes/pictures and made the decision that there is sufficient basis to issue the notice to appear... Chances are he'll be there so you'll get to face your accuser... If he's not there, then you've got a much easier dismissal than you'd like!

4. Intersection where camera is located has a poor design (street wording says wait here, then beyond limit line says keep clear - do a google earth to see what I mean).

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=white+oak,+van+nuys,+ca&hl=en&ll=34.18061,-118.518502&spn=0,0.009645&sll=33.835293,-117.914504&sspn=0.307993,0.617294&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.180614,-118.518502&panoid=kcY2Xp7frwRhsfOyvS69cw&cbp=12,205.21,,0,16.62

I see what you mean... (<--- sarcasm). How would you suggest it should be designed?

5. The Stop Here sign (for the limit line) is obstructed by a tree branch - unable to see until the last moment.

For starters, seeing the "Stop Here" sign -at the last moment- wouldn't have done you any good... That aside, the sign, the "Wait Here"/"Keep Clear" pavement markings are all icing on the cake... The 2 things that the law dictates must be clear of any obstruction are the signal head and the limit line... And in that picture, they look pretty darn clear to me!

6. Poor lighting of intersection to process all this information at night).

If this occurred at night, then poor lighting at the intersection would suggest that the traffic signal looks brighter in its several phases, but when you combine poor lighting with your headlights, and since both the sign and pavement markings utilize reflective paint to enhance visibility in darkness, it would be safe to assume that they would be easier to see... Not harder!

7. Picture tampered with (i.e. - passenger face blocked - how do I know other items were not altered?).

Well, for one, the decision to accept the picture as authentic and to allow it to be introduced into evidence is not up to you, it is up to the judge. So while you can raise an objection to the picture being introduced, chances are, and by virtue of the fact that those pictures are "official records", your objection will be overruled, the pictures will more than likely be introduced into evidence, the judge will probably take judicial notice of their accuracy and authenticity and your argument will fail.

As for blocking the face of the passenger, it is not done as an attempt to damage it... The face of the passenger is not relevant to the case, so they cover it up to protect his/her privacy.

Don't take my word for it though... Go ahead and hire an expert, have him/her analyze that picture and then bring him/her in to testify that the picture was altered... That ought to substantiate your claim that its all fake!

Needless to say I am fighting this ticket and appreciate any support – perhaps a Pro Bono to defend me.

KEECHEE1, WAKE UP... YOU'RE DREAMING!!!!!

 

[Free_Advice]

Goldman case is bad law

The goldman case, is bad case law however...even reading the opinion it states:

In any event, notwithstanding the presumption of accuracy, there was sufficient evidence of authentication. "A photograph or other writing may be authenticated by `the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is' (Evid. Code, § 1400) . . . ." (People v. Beckley, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 514.) Authentication does not require the person who takes a photograph to testify in order to lay a proper foundation for admission of the photograph into evidence. (Holland v. Kerr (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 31, 37 [253 P.2d 88].) Rather, authentication of a photograph "may be provided by the aid of expert testimony . . . although there is no one qualified to authenticate it from personal observation." (People v. Bowley (1963) 59 Cal.2d 855, 862 [31 Cal.Rptr. 471, 382 P.2d 591].)

Yet a cop is not an expert .. nor was he noticed as an expert (a pre-trial requirement?).... it would be easy to knock out the cop as an expert .. a high school diploma? Really? I don't think so.

It is not a business record .. it was produced for the conviction .. so Melendez-Diaz and subsequent rulings this year require an expert from the camera company. There was a recent case about certificates (a dui case) and SCOTUS re-affirmed Melendez & added that folks who author certificates must be the person who testifies, not someone else as a sub.

And it also looks like the yellow times ARE paper-whipped --- take a video & pictures of your measurements -- you can win on this point too. But this is an affirmative defense -- the OP needs to establish proof.

 

[keechee1]

Red Light Camera Ticket - Van Nuys

Thanks for the detailed responses. My comments.

1. Fact: Speed limit is 40MPH not the outdated Google pictures showing 35MPH - I have actual photos and video, which the officer can confirm. I will also get an engineering report which should show the current speed limit. Hopefully the 35MPH shown on the supplemental ticket information will cause this to be dismissed due to the inconsistent speed limits shown. Comments?

2. Yellow light time. I timed the yellow using a digital stop watch a total of 5 times. Allowing for human response time of .16 - .18 seconds [try it using your digital stop watch), the yellow time came in at 3.6 seconds, not 3.9 for the 40MPH zone. This makes a difference when it shows the light was red for 0.2 seconds. What is the success rate in cases involving 0.2 seconds compared to 1, 2 or more seconds?

3. "Wait Here" and "Keep Clear" phrasing is confusing at intersection areas - where do I actually have to stop? Also, the Stop Here sign obstructed by tree branch (documented in my photos). Also, glass beading and paint faded so reflectivity and noticeability not optimum [at 3am - very dark as opposed to 12 noon using an overhead, daytime Google view], also impacting reaction time - where do I stop/what do I do? In its totality these items can not be ignored - right?

4. Person in photo whose face is blocked will accompany me as my witness stating - under penalty of perjury - "light was yellow when bright flashes went off - why?". This person will indicate they were facing and looking out the front window since they were trying to find a friends house, as opposed to being asleep or otherwise distracted. Since the picture was altered (persons face blocked), how can it be proven nothing else was altered in the picture? Will they have an unaltered photo showing who was with me or do I have to prove this too? (again, I am just a regular guy looking for help).

5. Accuracy of equipment. Who can state with complete certainty the equipment was functioning correctly at that exact moment in time the picture was taken? This equipment is calibrated for a reason right? And that reason is to ensure its accuracy - correct? So, based on whatever the calibration interval was - earlier that day, a week prior, etc., how can it be proven to be correct at that exact, precise, specific moment in time. If the equipment was recalibrated the next day or week or month, does this not create reasonable ambiguity as to its correctness? How can it be proven accurate at that moment the flash went off?

5. Isn't the burden of proof on the law to prove my guilt? Isn't the report compiled by an employee of the ATS company, which has a vested interest in my being found guilty so they can reap the monetary rewards? Isn't this a conflict of interest and against the law? What makes the officer an expert to substantiate what occured when they were not there.

6. My trial is August 25th in Division 109 in Van Nuys at 1:30pm. Do you know if I will have a true Judge/Commisioner or Pro Tem? If its a Pro Tem, should I decline and opt for the judge trial? What is best in this situation? Do you know if it is a judge, who it might be and if they area biased one way or the other.

Thank you for your candid responses and helping an honest citizen. My email address was provided earlier if you want to discuss offline.

These red light cameras are nothing but revenue generators. The city keeps crowing about how accidents have dropped where they are installed. I don't believe it. They have probably declined because motorists take alternate routes and avoid the camera intersections. Has anyone researched how much the accident rate has increased at nearby intersections?

Proponents keep blabbering about the good these cameras serve? Wake up! Extend the yellows by one second or have all lights red at the same time an extra second.