Red light traffic camera

[AgentSmithers]

What is the name of your state? What is the name of your state? California.
So.. I have been caught not stopping all the way. I was lost in Culver City, and made a wrong turn, upon the pressure of ongoing traffic I decided to loop back around the block asap instead of forcibly halting traffic, I tap the breaks and turn right. Then the dreaded FLASH hits me. Almost a week later I get the letter sent to me, " Notice of violation" and "Notice to appear". There's an address, but no bail amount is seen anywhere.
Here's the catch, they accuse my brother instead of me! We look alike, and he has a solid alibi to prove that he was not the one driving and he can use the attached paper to disprove the claim and identfy the driver as me, the real perpetrator.
I know that it sounds really evil for me to do this, but I want to see if I could use this error to my advantage to save a couple hundred dollars.
My current plan is that I'm going to use cvc 40518. It still hasn't been 15 days since the infraction but until then, I am going to wait for the 15 days to pass and then have my brother submit the true identity claim, leading to me trying to dismiss it. Will it work? Can they amend all of that information and shift it to me?( And yes I will treat my brother for an expensive dinner if it works)

(For reference: "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." The bold wording keeps me awake at night because it is correct and they technically fufilled that part.)

Sir,
The best way to fix this issue is craft a letter to the clerk stating the following.
*Have your brother send it, It's his letter, let him drop it in your front yard mailbox*

FROM:
[Brothers name]
[Address]
TO:
[Court's name]
[courts address]
re: Case Number [Your Ticket case number] Request For A Trial By Written Declaration
To Whom It May Concern:
Per Vehicle Code section 40902(a) and Rule of Court 4.210(b)(2), I am hereby requesting a trial by written declaration.
Per said rule, I expect to receive from you my appearance date along with forms TR-200 and TR-205. I have attached with this letter a check for the amount of $[Full Bail Amount]. You may mail them to my address found above.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
[brothers name]

make sure you extend your court date if its nearby as mail request can take 2-3 weeks to process (Call every week to confirm they received it and it's being processed). You can do this by contacting the clerk over the phone in most do. *They will cash the check but you will get it back after they find your brother not guilty*

*Receive a copy of the Written Declaration form from the clerk sometime later*

In the defense just state, "Wrong Defendant" and nothing else.

In the attachments put the number "1" then a copy of his driver's license *Hoping you guys don't look TOOOO ALIKE as you described*.

Thing's to note, Wrong defendant is a pretty strong defense in this case unless you guy just looks too much alike then the Judge will find your brother guilty. If that happens promptly file a Trial De Novo to pull the trial in person to let the judge get a look at your brother before he dismisses it.

Can they go after you, Yes depending on the citing agency they can say this guy looks a little bit too close to the picture so it's probably his cousin or brother and they will pull your driver's license to spotcheck your photo and reissue another citation *Perfectly legal*

Anywho, I would be surprised if it even get's past the declaration part but... there you go

*Note* not getting into Lala land but your brother or anyone is not required to testify as to the matters of who did it, In this case he just needs to defend himself from the charges against him. It is not his duty to reveal to the court/PeaceOfficer who did what.

*Cheers* stop running red lights sir.

 

[Ejay]

Your brother is not required to nor can he be forced to say that you are the violator. The prosecution is making the presumption that your brother, likely the registered owner of the vehicle, was the one who was driving it. It is not your brother's responsibility to find out who was but since he is being accused it is his responsibility to show that it wasn't him. He needs to submit convincing evidence that the picture is not of him. He may first want to try a TBWD, if that does not work he can request a new trial. In both instances he should present as much evidence as possible supporting the fact that it is not him. Simply writing "wrong defendant" may not be enough depending on how similar you two look.

Given the circumstances, this is one of the easier citations to beat.

 

[CdwJava]

One note: If he is in court and the judge inquires as to who was driving the car, he will be bound to answer the question truthfully. There is no law precluding the judge from making the inquiry or allowing the brother NOT to answer. He can get away from identifying the real driver up until the moment he is asked by the court.

 

[Ejay]

He would be allowed to not answer. Why wouldn't he?

He could also answer that he does not know who it is, which, unless he was in the vehicle when the event happened, he can truthfully say. Faces in the pictures of the red light cameras are almost always nearly impossible to make out so it's also quite likely he doesn't know without reasonable doubt who is in the picture.

If he did say it was the OP the odds of charges being refiled against him are somewhat slim. The red light specialist would have to have a personal issue with the situation for him to feel the necessity to go beyond his regular line of work and do something he is not required or accustomed to. The process would be different from how it is done normally with the vendor since the citation would need to be initiated by the officer.

The red light camera ticket systems are a money machine, any hiccup in the machine is usually thrown away with.

In some cities if the registered owner does give the name of the individual he believes was driving the vehicle to LE often times a snitch ticket is mailed which is a fake ticket designed to look like a real one. These you can ignore. More info on identification of these can be found on highwayrobbery.

 

[CdwJava]

He would be allowed to not answer. Why wouldn't he?

If the judge says answer, you answer. It's NOT a 5th Amendment issue.

He could also answer that he does not know who it is, which, unless he was in the vehicle when the event happened, he can truthfully say. Faces in the pictures of the red light cameras are almost always nearly impossible to make out so it's also quite likely he doesn't know without reasonable doubt who is in the picture.

Good idea! Perjury! Wonderful!

Then, "Did you report your car stolen?" ... how would he answer that one?

He would have to really like his brother to risk jail for him over a ticket.

 

[Ejay]

I wouldn't answer.

Also the judge should never ask who was driving the car. The judge is only to be concerned with the matter at hand. In thIs case it would be whether or not the defendant committed the offense and more specifically if he was driving the car during the time the photos/videos were taken. The judge can not play the role of the executive. Questioning the defendant to persuade him to "snitch" on his brother would be far beyond the limit of what he is allowed to do. The judge is only to determine the truth of the matter before him.

That is not perjury. Not even in the slightest sense. He would not be be prosecuted or punished for perjury if he said he did not know for certain who was driving his car.

And if we really want to get into it, if the defendant was smart he could defend his ticket without testifying. He can go into court and act as if he is an attorney representing himself and he himself is not there. There would be no questioning, no cross-examination, nothing. If the judge asked him to testify he is not obligated to respond. I have personally done this in CA court and won.

 

[HighwayMan]

That is not perjury. ... if he said he did not know for certain who was driving his car..

But he DOES know who was driving, so he would be lying under oath which is perjury.

What would YOU call it?

 

[CdwJava]

And, yes, if a judge asks a question and you refuse to answer without any legal support for said refusal, then you can be subject to contempt of court. Anyone who thinks you can just ignore an order of the court with impunity is naive, or very hopeful.

 

[Ejay]

If the judge asks you a question during a trial that is not an order of the court.

If he says "Your honor, that is not me in the photos. I was not present for the alleged offense and I do not know for certain who was driving my vehicle during that time." He would not be lying.

 

[CdwJava]

And if the judge continues to press him?

Look, the point is (and I have seen this happen in the courtroom) if you play verbal games with a judge, you'll lose. Trying to plead stupid doesn't tend to work. Risking jail to protect a brother from a flippin' traffic ticket is downright stupid.

 

[not2cleverRed]

If the judge asks you a question during a trial that is not an order of the court.

If he says "Your honor, that is not me in the photos. I was not present for the alleged offense and I do not know for certain who was driving my vehicle during that time." He would not be lying.

And your legal experience is?

OP should heed the advice of CdwJava, who is a retired CA cop, so might actually know something about CA traffic tickets.
OP should listen to Highwayman, who has relevant experience, albeit in a different state.

I have *no* experience in traffic court, but in the courts I have been, the judges did not seem to appreciate coy or evasive answers. Actually, they seemed to get downright irritated. They seem to think that people who are coy or evasive are hiding something, and lack credibility.

 

[HighwayMan]

If he says "...I do not know for certain who was driving my vehicle during that time." He would not be lying.

He certainly would be lying.

I will echo what's already been said... if you go into court and act like you're Perry Mason and start playing games with the judge it will turn out very badly for you.

 

[Zigner]

...and I do not know for certain who was driving my vehicle during that time." He would not be lying.

Yes, he would be lying. He KNOWS that it was his brother driving and not him.

 

[Ejay]

It is relatively easy to beat a redlight camera ticket of someone who was not you and it is also relatively easy to do so without snitching on the person who was driving. This has been done many times and there is extensive info on highwayrobbery about it.

No court in CA will even consider perjury in traffic court if you respond as I wrote.