Red Light Camera Ticket In Van Nuys, CA

[I_Got_Banned]

I will also get an engineering report which should show the current speed limit.

An engineering report showing the current speed limit -if it has been changed since your citation was issued- doesn't mean squat. You need the engineering report that utilized the speed limit that was posted on the date your citation was issued, from that, you can establish what the yellow time should be set to.

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?

Is it possible that a defendant can fudge all those numbers to save $475? Your timing, your digital watch and your allowance for human response time of whatever, will mean squat... You'll have to read the report and go by what it says.

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?

If you think the signage/markings are confusing the contact LADOT and let them know; because as you may already know, ignorance is not an excuse. As for the sign being covered by a tree branch, you started out by saying that along with "at the last possible moment", and I've addressed that bit by saying that neither the sign, nor the "wait here"/"keep clear" are required by law. Changing your wording now isn't going to change my answer.

Excuses won't do you much. Funny thing people drive through these areas for years and none of this bother them one bit, yet when they get a citation, their civic duty becomes their drive and their motivation!

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?".

And yet the pictures and the video are clear proof that your passenger is way off (to state it mildly). His credibility will somehow affect the credibility of your entire case. Your choice!

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?

So in your opinion, they should have someone there calibrating the equipment every time the light changes? And if so, how about you and all of those people who haven't paid their fines pay up... Maybe the city will consider your suggestion!

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.

1. What does the burden to prove your guilt have to do with ATS? They don't decide who gets issued a citation and who doesn't. Law enforcement does.
2. ATS does not get paid by the number of citation issued. You're obviously reading highwayrobbery.net but you must have missed the part where all of the contract related issues are YEARS old and have been resolved since.

What makes the officer an expert to substantiate what occured when they were not there.

What makes you believe that anyone has to be an expert to look at a video and see whether you crossed the line on yellow or on red? And if that should be a requirement, then what qualifies the officer to issue a citation when he witnesses the violation himself? See in this case, you get the chance to utilize all these used up excuses to defend yourself, whereas in the case of a citation issued in the field by a witnessing officer, your only excuse then is "the officer lied and said I entered on red but I know for a fact I entered on yellow"....

Maybe we should just repeal the vehicle code sections that deals with red lights all together because we need an "expert" to look at a picture and determine who crossed a painted line and at what point!

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.

I don't have the court schedule for that day with me today... So I don't know!!!

My email address was provided earlier if you want to discuss offline.

No thanks!

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.

well, it looks like you may get your wish... Just be mindful that the other way of issuing these citation, it is (STILL) up to the discretion of the officer to issue the citation; it will be your word against his; and my bet is had this been a non camera citation, you'd be here bitching about an officer who lied and a judge who is biased (you already included that last one)!

Extend the yellows by one second or have all lights red at the same time an extra second.

So what will your rant include when you run the light then? That you need 2 extra seconds? Or 3... ? Or how about we split the green phase time into half green and half yellow??? And how much do you want to bet that some people will stil be running red lights?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

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].)

"Bad case law"? It was good enough to affirm Goldsmith's original finding of guilt. And interestingly, the part your claiming is "bad" is the part that was certified for publication!!!

Furthermore, you should know that an opinion from the appellate department in one county is NOT binding in another county. Khaled happened in Orange County whereas Goldsmith happened in Los Angeles County (the OP's county).

Yet a cop is not an expert ..

Why would he need to be qualified as an expert (an expert in WHAT?) to determine if a violation occurred by reviewing a tape, versus him not needing to be qualified as an expert when he witnesses it in person?

nor was he noticed as an expert (a pre-trial requirement?)....

What "pretrial"? I'll ask the same question that was posed to you in another thread... When was the last time you were in a California traffic court room?

it would be easy to knock out the cop as an expert ..

Not so easy according to the Goldsmith case... Is that point really that difficult to grasp?

a high school diploma? Really? I don't think so.

How do you know the officer only has a high school diploma? And by the same token, what qualifies the defendant as someone who can make the determination of who can and who cannot decide if a citation should be issued?

See, its easy for you to sit behind your monitor making one irrelevant suggestion after another... All while it is not you jeopardizing your case because you've wasted the court's time and pissed off the judge.

 

[keechee1]

I Got Banned - thank you for all your thoughtful responses.

Based on digesting all you have indicated, it appears my only true defense then, is to validate what the posted speed limit was on the ticket issue date versus the speed shown on the informational ticket background which exists on line, along with related yellow times. All the other items are just fluff then?

So in your opinion, they should have someone there calibrating the equipment every time the light changes? And if so, how about you and all of those people who haven't paid their fines pay up... Maybe the city will consider your suggestion!

Since people are being singled out mostly by the accuracy of a machine, and to fight such a ticket is an absolute time gobbling uphill struggle of a nightmare, a degree of reasonableness should exist to ensure the equipment is operating correctly. What is reasonable then is not for me to say but I would think at least every few days minimum. This equipment is very sophisticated, affected by weather, seismic activity, idiots pounding on the storage unit, etc. It needs to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time, not 99%accurate.

Planes flying need to be 100% operational, 100% of the time. 99% of the time means 1 plane in a hundred crashes. The same holds true here. Why should I be held accountable for operational inaccuracies? How can it be proven the machine was correct at the precise specific moment in time the photo was taken?

If you think the signage/markings are confusing the contact LADOT and let them know; because as you may already know, ignorance is not an excuse. As for the sign being covered by a tree branch, you started out by saying that along with "at the last possible moment", and I've addressed that bit by saying that neither the sign, nor the "wait here"/"keep clear" are required by law. Changing your wording now isn't going to change my answer.

Excuses won't do you much. Funny thing people drive through these areas for years and none of this bother them one bit, yet when they get a citation, their civic duty becomes their drive and their motivation!

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but I need to know what I do not know, which is where exactly do I stop the car in this particular busway intersection? There is a human reaction time element here. The various items mentioned previously impact that reaction time. 3.9 versus 3.6 seconds makes a difference. So would 4.9 or 5.9 seconds for that matter. If an officer was there instead of a machine, I could explain these things because they are all reasonable and influence the outcome.

And yet the pictures and the video are clear proof that your passenger is way off (to state it mildly). His credibility will somehow affect the credibility of your entire case. Your choice!

Not sure I understand your comment "passenger is way off" - sounds slightly biased. If the video shows my crossing the limit line while still yellow, or let's even say before it is a steady red light, I repeat steady red light, then this is in my favor yes? If the flash went off during the change from yellow to slightly red to fully red, then this is also in my favor yes? Would this not be corroborated by input from my witness? I mean I am innocent until proven guilty yes of running a steady red light?

My trial is August 25th in Division 109 in Van Nuys at 1:30pm. Do you know if I will have a true Judge/Commissioner or Pro Tem? If it’s 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.

You did not answer my question but what improves my odds - standing before a judge or Pro Tem and why or why not? Again, thank you for your candor and time.

So what will your rant include when you run the light then? That you need 2 extra seconds? Or 3... ? Or how about we split the green phase time into half green and half yellow??? And how much do you want to bet that some people will stil be running red lights?

No matter what you do, people will always run the light. About the only real thing is to slow down and scan the intersection in as safe a manner as possible before entering. Increasing yellows and all red lights can only help not hurt - yes?

Aside from this ticket, I am very passionate about this subject because many years ago, I was taking my son to daycare and was stopped at an intersection. He was in his car seat on the front passenger seat.

My light turned green but I always look both ways before entering an intersection - thank God I did. To my right (passenger side), an elderly gentlemen was driving an older Buick or Chevy and went right through the red light at about 30 mph. Had I not looked before entering, my son would surely have been killed, and probably me in my small Honda Civic. Not looking for sympathy but the fact is a red light camera would not have prevented this from occurring. If all the lights were red at the same time for one second longer, would present a higher degree of preventing accidents than silently recording one committed, and profiting off of the incident.

Red light camera's are nothing more then profit centers, the accuracy of which is questionable, based on who is manipulating what statistic. Extending the yellow and red lights by a second or two seconds seems simple and logical to me, to enhance intersection safety. Unless of course the prime motivator is not safety but revenue generation.

It may sound like a rant, ok, but the nexus of the matter is these camera lights are silent observers and do nothing but record during the fact, reactive versus proactive.

Thank you once again for your time and responses.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Based on digesting all you have indicated, it appears my only true defense then, is to validate what the posted speed limit was on the ticket issue date versus the speed shown on the informational ticket background which exists on line, along with related yellow times. All the other items are just fluff then?

More like a waste of time than "fluff"!

Since people are being singled out mostly by the accuracy of a machine...

Oh come on... Lets keep things on the level. You're being singled out because of your own actions, not because the system is unfair or discriminatory!

... and to fight such a ticket is an absolute time gobbling uphill struggle of a nightmare, a degree of reasonableness should exist to ensure the equipment is operating correctly. What is reasonable then is not for me to say but I would think at least every few days minimum. This equipment is very sophisticated, affected by weather, seismic activity, idiots pounding on the storage unit, etc. It needs to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time, not 99%accurate.

So a system that is regularly maintained and calibrated is, as far as you're concerned, not sufficiently accurate. And yet the digital watch you own, which I'm guessing has NEVER been calibrated or tested for accuracy should be the standard by which this case is decided?

How about your vehicle speedometer? When was the last time you took it to a speedometer shop to have it tested? And are you suggesting that the speed at which you were approaching the intersection was at EXACTLY the posted limit? After all, stopping distance is predicated mainly upon your actual speed, not the posted speed limit.

The officer will likely testify that the system is regularly tested, checked and calibrated... Those procedures seemed to be fine to you until you got cited? How many intersections do you pass each and every day, and how many of those are controlled by traffic signal? How many times have you passed through an intersection and took it upon yourself to measure the yellow time and then if found to be inconsistent with the MUTCD recommendation, took it upon yourself to contact LADOT to report it? Yet all of a sudden, you've become an expert in traffic signal operation, and quite the critic when it comes to the various forms of traffic enforcement, but ONLY as it relates to this one particular intersection and ONLY because you have a case pending in court? In fact, skip the random stops and measurements, your claim here is that the timing for this particular signal is incorrect. Did you bother to contact LADOT to let them know?

Planes flying need to be 100% operational, 100% of the time. 99% of the time means 1 plane in a hundred crashes. The same holds true here. Why should I be held accountable for operational inaccuracies?

Unless you're telling me that your in constant contact with the FAA and consider yourself to be the watchdog for Van Nuys airport maintenance operations, then this issue is not even remotely relevant to what we're discussing here!

How can it be proven the machine was correct at the precise specific moment in time the photo was taken?

You measure it and provide accurate and verifiable proof of your findings. Yet to deem the entire system that exists nationwide (or should I say worldwide) as a farce and a revenue scam simply because you read on the internet that this happened to work for someone years ago borders on the ridiculous!

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but I need to know what I do not know, which is where exactly do I stop the car in this particular busway intersection? There is a human reaction time element here.

And if you must know, then the calculation utilized to determine yellow phase time includes an entry for "reaction time" of one second... Yet earlier, your claim is that your reaction time is limited to 0.16 to 0.18 seconds. Which would have given you an additional 0.82 to 0.84 second to stop, yet you missed the red by 0.2 seconds??? Funny how you're pretty quick with the stop watch and yet when you need to stop for a red light in accordance to the law, your reaction time more than quadruples...

3.9 versus 3.6 seconds makes a difference. So would 4.9 or 5.9 seconds for that matter. If an officer was there instead of a machine, I could explain these things because they are all reasonable and influence the outcome.

No one is stopping you from exploring and explaining any and all of those issues. However, and unless you have a legitimate proof that an error occurred, you need to set those issues aside and look for a different defense! If an officer is at the intersection, your only defense to this type of citation would be a dishonest officer and a biased judge. You can complain all you want about how unfair and illegal red light cameras are, at the end of the day, they do provide accurate, irrefutable, documented proof of a violation. Whereas with an officer issued citation, it is left up to the officer's judgment and is based upon his attention span, his vantage point from the location where he was at the moment.

Not sure I understand your comment "passenger is way off" - sounds slightly biased.

Oh the hypocrisy!

If the video shows that you entered the intersection on red, you bringing your BIASED friend/relative passenger to claim that he/she saw the flash during a yellow is not biased but my comment is? Seriously???

If the video shows my crossing the limit line while still yellow, or let's even say before it is a steady red light, I repeat steady red light, then this is in my favor yes? If the flash went off during the change from yellow to slightly red to fully red, then this is also in my favor yes? Would this not be corroborated by input from my witness?

You've seen the video... I haven't... So you tell me, does it show you crossing the limit line on yellow? How is that possible when it shows a "Red Time" of 0.2 seconds? And if it does in fact show you entering on yellow, then why are we even discussing any or all of the other issues?

But wait... More to the point about your civic duty... If you're still sticking to your argument that one light was red while the other was still yellow, have you contacted LADOT to report the malfunction? If your claim is true, then why not get a report from the agency responsible for maintaining the light to document the malfunction for you???

I mean I am innocent until proven guilty yes of running a steady red light?

You are innocent until proven guilty... Its just that the evidence against you is clear, concise, accurate and leaves no room for doubt... You knew it when you crossed the line, you know it today, and you'll still know it on the day of your trial. And yet you're wasting your time and more importantly, the court's time and resources only to come back and complain that the fines are too high... No wonder!

You did not answer my question but what improves my odds - standing before a judge or Pro Tem and why or why not? Again, thank you for your candor and time.

I didn't answer your question because, idealistic as it may be, I honestly believe that a judicial officer who's been sworn to apply the law would do so equally regardless of the title on the name plate in front of him/her! Who am I to guess who will be hearing your case or whether he/she will be better or worse than someone else???

Question is, if you feel you have a legitimate defense, what difference does it make who's judging you??? If on the other hand you're looking for a judge who's biased against red light cameras, then maybe you should read the L. A. Times and maybe you'll find something.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

No matter what you do, people will always run the light.

And... your point is what, that your citation should be forgiven simply because people do what they do?

About the only real thing is to slow down and scan the intersection in as safe a manner as possible before entering.

I won't disagree with having to scan the intersection, as I do often do that myself... Better yet, take responsibility for your own actions rather than blaming everything else and everyone else for your own mistakes... Drive the speed limit, and upon approach, pay attention to the traffic light, comply with the signals it gives, rather than assume that if cited, you can raise hell trying to undermine the system by which you were caught! Understand that that “yellow” does NOT mean “oh ****, I better step on it cross my fingers and hope I make it”, it means “red is coming up next and I should attempt to stop, NOT speed up”...

Increasing yellows and all red lights can only help not hurt - yes?

How would increasing the red time help your case? If red time started 0.2 seconds prior to you crossing the line, then even if it were set to 5 minutes, you'd still be in violation!!! As for increasing yellow times, and as long as it is consistent across the board and for each and every traffic light - not only those monitored via cams-... But then again, if that were to happen, then what's the point of establishing federal standards that each state, county and municipality have to follow.... Why not forgive every first time offender and ask them how they would prefer the system to change so they can avoid breaking the law, AGAIN!!!

If they do happen to increase yellow times, and although one second each seems like nothing, imagine the overall impact on traffic flow in the world capital of traffic congestion!!! As far as I know, the main purpose for traffic engineering and operations is two fold... One, the general safety of the drivers and pedestrians, and two, the normal and orderly movement of traffic. Unless you're suggesting that "reducing the number of citations to those few careless drivers who choose to take chances" should be part of the equation, anywhere in the MUTCD, I don't see how or why increasing yellow times should even be considered...

But since we're here offering suggestions, I suggest they keep red light cameras, keep the timing as recommended by the California-MUTCD and its related supplements, but enforce court ordered appearances by suspending the D/L of the registered owner or the registration of the vehicle pictured in any red light violation that is issued. Tough luck for those who get caught!

Aside from this ticket, I am very passionate about this subject because many years ago, I was taking my son to daycare and was stopped at an intersection. He was in his car seat on the front passenger seat.

My light turned green but I always look both ways before entering an intersection - thank God I did. To my right (passenger side), an elderly gentlemen was driving an older Buick or Chevy and went right through the red light at about 30 mph. Had I not looked before entering, my son would surely have been killed, and probably me in my small Honda Civic. Not looking for sympathy but the fact is a red light camera would not have prevented this from occurring. If all the lights were red at the same time for one second longer, would present a higher degree of preventing accidents than silently recording one committed, and profiting off of the incident.

Passionate about this subject for years??? I assume you live in and/or drive through the Los Angeles area (including Van Nuys) on a regular basis... The city of L.A. Has recently held a few highly publicized city council meetings the timing of which seems to be conveniently coincidental with this citation of yours. Have you attended any of these meetings whether it be to simply listen, or better yet, to passionately voice your input and opinion?

And thank you for sharing your story... But again, increased red time would not have helped you avoid this citation... So your story is far from being relevant here!

Red light camera's are nothing more then profit centers...

And to avoid having to contribute to that "profit center, you should drive within the limits of the law, you can then avoid being cited and not have to contribute! (But hold that thought for a few...)

... the accuracy of which is questionable..

Oh stop being such a silly hypocrite! Isn't that your main defense here? Are you complaining that you'll get the opportunity to question the accuracy of the signal timing?

... based on who is manipulating what statistic.

You want to talk about manipulating statistics, then scroll back upwards in this thread and re-read your own comments and suggestions and tell me who's trying to “manipulate statistics”... Then you should take a few moments to remove foot from mouth!!!

Unless of course the prime motivator is not safety but revenue generation.

Aaah, yes... As we all know by now, the amount of profit that the City of L.A. has generated from its Red Light Camera system should serve as a prime example to the accuracy of your statement. Says a lot about the rest of what you're stated in this thread...

At any rate, it goes without saying but you're free to explore any and all options in your defense. Just keep in mind that your next one, if it ever happens again, will ultimately depend on YOUR attention span at the time, YOUR approach speed and the decision YOU make to either stop and wait for the next green cycle, or whether YOU decide you won't wait and continue through!

Unless I see you bringing something new to the table, I think I'm done here... So, good luck, and let us know how it works out!!!

 

[keechee1]

Red Light Camera Ticket in Van Nuys, CA

I Got Banned - Thank you for all your thought provoking comments, I found them very refreshing and inciteful.

As I am not totally adept at understanding the rule of law as I would like to be, hence my contributing to this website, I would welcome alternate comments from other learned individuals to what has been discussed and add to the content.

Thank you once again and I will advise future outcome.

 

[TicketKick]

Definitely do NOT ignore the ticket. The only Red Light Camera (RLC) ticket you can technically ignore without consequence are "snitch" tickets, but what you have is NOT a snitch ticket. I work for a company called TicketKick and we specialize in RLC defense through a trial by written declaration in every county in California. LA County is are largest source of RLC tickets. We know everything there is to know about RLC's. There is SO much defense for RLC's. There's about 25 defenses we use in just about every case.

Many of the arguments we use are based around the legal issues in the contract between the county and the red light camera company. These are public records that you can gather, as we have copies for every county. Believe it or not, most cities, including Van Nuys, are not in full compliance with every aspect of the law regarding camera systems.

If you can get a copy of the contract between Van Nuys and American Traffic Solutions (the red light camera company), you can pick it apart to find the inconsistencies with the law. You'll have to be pretty knowledgeable about whats legal and whats illegal, so if not, you can always contact us if you don't feel like doing all of the research.

There is also a ton of previous case precedence you can refer to in your defense, one of which is People vs. Khaled

Hope this helps! Don't hesitate to contact me. -Sara

 

[randomguy]

Definitely do NOT ignore the ticket. The only Red Light Camera (RLC) ticket you can technically ignore without consequence are "snitch" tickets, but what you have is NOT a snitch ticket. I work for a company called TicketKick and we specialize in RLC defense through a trial by written declaration in every county in California. LA County is are largest source of RLC tickets. We know everything there is to know about RLC's. There is SO much defense for RLC's. There's about 25 defenses we use in just about every case.

Many of the arguments we use are based around the legal issues in the contract between the county and the red light camera company. These are public records that you can gather, as we have copies for every county. Believe it or not, most cities, including Van Nuys, are not in full compliance with every aspect of the law regarding camera systems.

If you can get a copy of the contract between Van Nuys and American Traffic Solutions (the red light camera company), you can pick it apart to find the inconsistencies with the law. You'll have to be pretty knowledgeable about whats legal and whats illegal, so if not, you can always contact us if you don't feel like doing all of the research.

There is also a ton of previous case precedence you can refer to in your defense, one of which is People vs. Khaled

Hope this helps! Don't hesitate to contact me. -Sara

In LA county ticket can be ignored with no real legal consequences. Most that can happen is they will send it to collection. Court in LA county do not do anything to DL/registration without person signature. If you really work for this type of company you should know this already.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Definitely do NOT ignore the ticket. The only Red Light Camera (RLC) ticket you can technically ignore without consequence are "snitch" tickets, but what you have is NOT a snitch ticket.

Good advice there, Sara...

I work for a company called TicketKick and we specialize in RLC defense through a trial by written declaration in every county in California. LA County is are largest source of RLC tickets. We know everything there is to know about RLC's. There is SO much defense for RLC's. There's about 25 defenses we use in just about every case.

Nice advertisement there, Sara...

There's about 25 defenses we use in just about every case.

Although I haven't really counted, I think we pretty much covered quite a few of the defenses you're alluding to... Too bad you couldn't be a bit more specific (but then again, what would be the point of having a company if you're going to offer advice for free... )

Many of the arguments we use are based around the legal issues in the contract between the county and the red light camera company. These are public records that you can gather, as we have copies for every county. If you can get a copy of the contract between Van Nuys and American Traffic Solutions (the red light camera company), you can pick it apart to find the inconsistencies with the law.

1) Most legal contract related issues (or should I say "'illegal' contract related issues") are far and few in between, in that there has not been any MAJOR issues that are bound to deem any RLC citation as invalid. While I will admit that I have not seen the particular contract that covers this particular RLC, though my bet is that it is in full compliance with the law...

2) Most RLC contracts in Los Angeles COUNTY are drawn between incorporated CITIES within the County and the RLC operators... Rather than between Los Angeles County as one party to the contract and an RLC operator as the other. Although I will add that I believe that this particular signal (and others like it which exist at "MTA bus crossings") might be ONE of the few that are run under contract between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)/the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (LASD) on one end and ATS on the other end (the same with LASD having jurisdiction over any other MTA terminals/stations and law enforcement matters)having the LASD. So it is not likely to fall under the recent debate regarding RLCs run by the LAPD which are run under contract between the city of Los Angeles and ATS, but it certainly would not exist between the City of Van Nuys and ATS. Reason being that there is no such thing as a Van Nuys "City" simply because Van Nuys is only one of the 92 districts within the City of Los Angeles; as such, a contract for an RLC within the city of L. A. would either exist under the same contract which has been in the news lately between the City of Los Angeles and ATS, or under the contract between MTA/LASD & ATS!!!

You'll have to be pretty knowledgeable about whats legal and whats illegal...

It really is not that complicated... The legal issues related to the validity of RLC contracts are usually centered around one simple provision of the California Vehicle Code... Specifically, subsection (g) of CVC 21455.5 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21455_5.htm) which states:

(1) A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004.

In short, it simply states that the contract must NOT include provisions where the operator of the RLC (ATS in this case) can be compensated based on the number of citations that are issued or as a percentage of the revenue generated from the use of the equipment. The one exception is that for contracts entered into prior to 1/1/2004; though it is highly UNlikely that any such contract still exists where it has not been renewed, extended and/or amended to comply accordingly since then.

There is also a ton of previous case precedence you can refer to in your defense, one of which is People vs. Khaled

You probably missed my comments regarding People v. Khaled..... 1) it is not bonding in L A County and 2) Goldsmmith is an L A County case that seems to dispel the myth that haled has any significant relevance to the average RLC camera citation.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

In LA county ticket can be ignored with no real legal consequences. Most that can happen is they will send it to collection. Court in LA county do not do anything to DL/registration without person signature. If you really work for this type of company you should know this already.

You can keep singing that same tune, but you should understand that current policy can change (unless you're offering some sort of guarantee that it won't)... And it is not that the court cannot enforce compliance, it is that they choose not to... Which doesn't mean they won't!

And again, in the case of the OP n this thread, he's already entered a plea, it is past the point where the court won't do anything if the citation is ignored...

 

[keechee1]

I WON: My Red Light Camera Ticket In Van Nuys, CA

Follow-up.

I won my case and was found not guilty! Trial was on August 25th in Van Nuys.

No more theorizing, no more what ifs, no more guessing.

I beat the red light camera ticket by being prepared, logical, and presenting evidence which caused reasonable doubt.

The point I want to make since I went through this ordeal and won is this:

1. Never use a Pro Tem judge. They are useless. Get a real judge to try your case, which is what I did. I declined the Pro Tem judge for my trial and while waiting to get reassigned to another court, I watched this one in action. Utterly useless (disinterested) - could not care less to the testimony being presented. Found everyone guilty. The judge I was assigned to was fair and just, and helpful as he saw me struggle presenting my case without the aid of a lawyer, although he came pretty close to throwing my father out, who sat in the spectator section providing moral support, and who would grunt or groan or shake his head yes or no when he heard the officer say something I should challenge or focus on.

2. If you get a red light camera ticket, fight it, fight it, fight it! Disregard all the negative advice you read about on these posts. If you have the time and determination, fight the ticket. While waiting to be reassigned, and just before trial was to start, about 8 red light camera tickets were dismissed by the officer who represented the city/camera company. I ran out and asked a few of the accused why their ticket was dismissed and they said their face was blocked by the mirror - he showed me. The point I want to make here is these weasel sheriff department officers who speak on behalf of the ACS vendor and city (it was a Metro ticket from a busway camera), will do everything in their powers to get you to pay, until the absolute last second before the trial is to start. I found it disgusting they would wait knowing they did not have enough evidence to stand up during a trial hoping the accused would cave in and pay up. Never give in - always fight the ticket as you have nothing to lose! These people will try to grind you down and make you give in. If your face is blocked or you have reasonable evidence to present, fight the ticket. Do not be a sucker!

3. Take photo's, cite examples, and prepare a written script to keep your thoughts focused and on track. Do not be afraid to speak up or challenge what the officer is saying. Get educated on what you can and cannot do. My dad spent a lot of his time doing the background work on all of this for me. Collectively, if he were to charge for his time, he spent about $2,000 [for his time] doing all the research and preparation, and helping me learn and prepare. To him, it was well worth it for this $480 ticket and to deal with a system designed to fleece the public. Again, it was well worth it!

4. Have multiple avenues to quote and use in your defense. Do not just have one line of defense. I cited Khaled - denied; California Vs. Bohl - denied [unpublished], etc. In other words, I kept presenting items until something would stick.

I won my ticket because the busway intersection on White Oak @ Busway in Van Nuys is right next to another intersection. This is a poorly designed intersection in that the first signal (monitored by the camera) is about 2 to 3 car lengths in front of another signal. The photos I took showed the first signals yellow light, with the signal for the 2nd intersection green (directly in back of the this one). The judge felt this was confusing, and based on my testimony that the light was yellow when the camera went off, since I was there and the officer was not, I was found NOT GUILTY!

Again, no theory but reality here. I beat a system which is designed to wear you down,stacked against you, where you are guilty until proven innocent - don't kid yourself! If you want help for a similiar situation, send me an email: [email protected]

 

[I_Got_Banned]

((( Duplicate post to what I posted in the other "https://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/red-light-camera-ticket-van-nuys-ca-i-won-my-case-559964.html" thread )))


Simmer down for a minute here... The system is not "stacked against you"; for one the rights that the system offers you in this country fills it past the rim with loopholes, and compared to a legal justice system anywhere else in the world, you have no idea what "stacked against you" means. If it were stacked against you, it would be devoid of the sympathy that you received and instead, you would have been running home along with Daddy, to cry over Mommy's shoulder about how "its not fair, its not, its not..."!

Lets put things in proper perspective... For starters "poor intersection design" is not, by any means, a result, or an element of the legal justice system. Yes both worlds are related and do co-mingle when it comes to traffic design and traffic violations, but neither the court, nor law enforcement had anything to do with how that intersection was laid out. The fact that the Metro's Orange Line was added as an after thought, would suggest that the engineers had a number of huge obstacle to overcome to bring that project to reality, with a few "design issues" being a close second to "construction costs"! As a result, a combination of those factors contributed to an intersection where two traffic lights were installed as you describe.

You should also understand that just because you were found "not guilty" does not mean you are "innocent". Fact of the matter is, and by your own statement and admission, you did run the red light which means you did commit the infraction you were cited for, and not one single defense that you presented worked to prove your innocence or refute the state's version of the story, that being that "you ran the red light". You didn't prove that the charge was unwarranted, you didn't win the case based on insufficient evidence, and the multiple avenues which you utilized ALL failed to prove your "innocence".

Knowing how likely you knew that you'll be back here bragging, you should have utilized the one defense that you had... That being that the yellow phase was set up based on a different speed limit, therefore it does not meet the requirements that would make for a valid citation, and at that point, the judge would have had to dismissed "on merit" and not out of the goodness of his heart! So you didn't earn your "not guilty" verdict and you didn't really "win your case". You simply took the more than generous, sympathy filled "not guilty" - a gimmee - and ran with it, only to end up here to bitch complain and brag all at the same time!

The standard of proof here is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and in the grand scheme of how these things run, if you were to take the "sympathy" factor out of the equation, you'd still be here complaining about a system that is "stacked against you" -and you'd be wrong about it then too-. In this case, you were found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"; and from a legal stand point, the case could have ended there. However, the judge decided to take that "sympathy" component usually present in cases like this one, and increased its share to a level where your "guilty finding" was set aside only to give rise to a "not guilty" verdict.

Should it matter or make a difference if the end result is the same? Not by any stretch... But to go from "I am too freaked out to talk to a judge"... to being as coc.ky as you have shown, to stand on your soap box and only to chastise and persecute the same system that afforded you the break you received; that's a slap in the face of the same judge that you thought was "fair and just"!!! You oughta be ashamed of yourself!!!

Oh, and gt over yourself... You're not the only person who's won a case in traffic court... Plenty have achieved that long before you came along!

 

[keechee1]

Red Light Camera Ticket in Van Nuys, CA

My lengthy response is to "I Got Banned Comments" on my win. I could not use all his quotes with my replies because the response was too long - refer to his original comments.

I_Got_Banned - Dealing with this ticket was a miserable, time consuming ordeal and not a stroll in the park. Of course our legal system is the greatest in the world - I am not making comparisons with other countries so let's stay focused on the good ole USA. Stacked against me as used here, was the constant focus on pay the ticket by the courts or designated agencies, take traffic school, multiple long drives to the courthouse to be able to talk to someone, etc. You should know the pursuit of fighting a ticket is a laborious, time consuming process to deal with and overcome, as opposed to a simple phone call or snap of the fingers, hence the usage of the phrase Stacked Against You.

Regarding the presumed sympathy I received. The judge, actually Commissioner [Division 115 - Van Nuys Courthouse], observed me squirming and struggling to read my "script", notes and 7 handout exhibits, so he most likely did give me a break - so what! Why can't the system allow me to have someone sitting next to me, as my advocate, keeping silent and not saying a word, yet able to slip me a note to help me maintain my focus or catch something I may have missed because I am nervous as hell. Stacked Against me used in this example prevents me from having help, short of paying a lawyer to assist me. Pity the individual who stutters, gets lost in thought, or is unable to be a good public speaker.

What you seem to forget or keep overlooking or mocking me on is that I am not a Harvard Law School graduate or retired Supreme Court Judge. I'm just a regular 22 year old who never was in a court room before this. The extent of my knowledge and development started with my first post on this website in June, several months ago. From that first post to now much has happened to make me a better informed individual. Truth be told, your comments were very thought provoking and put me to work so I thank you for that - very constructive feedback, insights, arguments, etc. - thank you.

However, I am not perfect or all knowing or a seasoned professional. I will admit I had a very hard time defending myself and speaking up for these very reasons. Should I be mocked or looked down upon for trying? I don't think so. So again back to my point, not being able to have silent or some assistance, in my opinion, stacks the process against me not for me.

Okay, so your point is what that I should suffer because of someone else’s design issues or construction cost concerns? The fact of the matter is, because this was one of my defense items, it was successful in being cited as a confusing intersection, impacting my response time or knowing where exactly to stop - absolutely contributing factors no matter what you think.

Faded lettering saying Wait Here, along with faded Keep Clear lettering in the busway intersection, coupled with 2 signal lights for each of these separate intersections almost directly behind the other, with a Stop Here sign blocked by trees. These are contributing elements which can not be ignored or overlooked. I'll say it again, these are contributing elements which can not be ignored or overlooked. If my red or late time was 0.14 hundreds of a second, not the 0.2 tenths the prosecution claims [which they rounded up to by the way instead of down - they call it 'truncated' - another rotten issue I noticed- erroneous rounding up], then its because of my reaction time being impaired by where do I stop. Of course, this does not take into account the other defense points - accuracy of the equipment, no forward facing photos showing an actual red light, no video, etc.

I always thought not guilty meant innocent of the charges presented against me, regardless of the defense route taken or evidence used. I never admitted my guilt to running the red light so not sure exactly where you are getting this from, and find it surprising that you are leaping to saying I did run the light and did commit the infraction - please, you are jumping to erroneous comments. I have repeatedly questioned/disputed the timing, accuracy, methodology, etc. During trial I indicated no forward facing photo, showing an actual red light - one was never shown or provided.

What this all boiled down to was technology saying I did something wrong, when I have repeatedly said otherwise. So, being found not guilty is validation to me as an individual, that I was correct in maintaining my innocence of this charge. You can put whatever spin you want on this, but at the end of the day, I left that courtroom with no weight on my shoulders. Of course, I would have preferred to win by proving the technology was flawed, or the evidence being hearsay, or being unable to confront my accusers, or no actual front facing photo showing a red light or a video. But I didn't. So, one of my other truthful strategies was used and worked.

I tried multiple approaches, and this approach was one of them [35 MPH sign on ticket should have been 40 MPH due to signage change, and related yellow time 3.9 versus 3.6 seconds]. For whatever reason - poor presentation, not convincing enough, etc., etc., did not get cited/used by the judge. In thinking about this further, He decided to use the intersection design reason to resolve my case, possibly because there would be numerous appeals by others who were cited for this because of the wrong sign speed limit posted on the ticket. The sign was changed years ago - in 2009, yet the information flaw showed up on my March 2011 ticket. [NOTE TO READERS - IF YOU GOT A RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET AT WHITE OAK @ BUSWAY IN VAN NUYS - USE THIS WRONG 35/40 MPH SIGN DEFENSE].

On your other point on not earning my verdict or winning my case. I would have to disagree with you - I did win my case and did earn my not guilty verdict by going through about 30 minutes of something I have never done before - alone. Try as hard as you like to diminish and minimize my victory, which, based on your tone and response you appear to be trying to do, one of my multiple defense points was accepted and cited. Whether it was based on the judge’s sympathy or sadness for me, my bad breath, his running late for dinner - who knows, the fact remains - one of my reasons presented was used. To me this is an earned victory and not a welfare handout gimmee.

You and I will never know for sure what went through the judge’s mind, based on his collective assessment of the 5 reasons or so I presented, except for what he said on record, and that's good enough for me.

Regarding red light camera tickets. How many people who go to trial and fight these tickets [either with and without using a lawyer] win? 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%? I think it’s the lower percentage. Is it because they are all liars and are all guilty? Maybe yes, maybe no. Is the low win percentage due to a system that is stacked against you, presenting all kinds of ways to grind you down and wear you out? I think so. Again - not comparing to other 3rd world countries - just here. I think the general population would agree, and have no answers as this is not the forum on a solution.

Yes, the end result is that I won fair and square using truth coupled with a reasonable judge. As mentioned previously, I have learned mucho from my first post to right now. I do not mean to be swaggering and if I came across that way, I can be humble and will apologize.

The judge who tried my case (Dennis E. Mulcahy - Division 115, Van Nuys Courthouse) was fair and just, and not because I received a favorable outcome. He listened, paid attention, asked questions and appeared interested in what I had to say. As I mentioned previously, I elected to not have a Pro Tem judge try my case [something else I learned on these posts]. So, while waiting to get reassigned, I sat and observed the Pro Tem in action. He found everyone guilty and couldn't care less about the reasons given - a true hanging judge if ever there was one. My other point is before the trial started, 8 cases were dismissed since the whole session was red light camera ticket day at the Division 109 courtroom in Van Nuys. When I asked the actual persons and found out why their cases were dismissed (faces were blocked/obscured by mirror), I thought what creeps these cops were to wait until the absolute last second to dismiss these cases in the hopes these people would get cold feet, pay up, and not continue with their cases because the judge would most likely dismiss them.

This is what I thought really sucked. But then, these very same cops are involved with the red light camera program because when I went to review the evidence against me at the sheriff’s office, the same ones were present in the courtroom. So I have to wonder, is their employment tied in to supporting the red light camera program by testifying? And if so, why not let every ticket (including blocked and obscured tickets) be sent out for payment. If the recipient does not challenge and just pays up like a good little sheep, good for the system. That's what sucks. Again, this is real not theory, I saw this occur and asked the people accused about it.

Try as hard as you like to diminish and minimize my victory, I know I'm not the only one to win in traffic court. But I won my case, my way, using my evidence and examples. For someone who knew nothing, with the help of his dad, to now knowing quite a bit, that says something. Thank you for all your hard edged examples, feedback, etc. You were very instrumental in making me work harder to overcome those items which were obstacles.