CA Appellate Court Invalidates 80% of Red Light Camera Tickets
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento—if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham, 38, of running a red light. “Sometimes you can fight city hall,” said Graham. “Now those bozos will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me for the ticket.”
On March 2, 2008, Graham’s 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead, a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter “R” which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
“Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation, the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the people to meet their burden of proof,” Presiding Judge, Maryanne G. Gilliard, wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham’s case, Officer Holt, said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician had maintained the camera properly and that there were no malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to challenge this claim as hearsay.
“We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the technician did,” Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham’s citation showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic facing a red—not a green—light.
“Given the evidence adduced at appellant’s trial, this panel finds that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant’s entry into the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,” Judge concluded. “Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does not support appellant’s conviction. The conviction is reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint.”
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will have precedential value. California courts have protected red light camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate California law.
More by The Newspaper
Comments
Join the conversation
@menno The bad old days when voting was considered a privilege excluded African Americans and women. I'm sure your world view would be welcomed back in that society. In Franklin's day, prior to the revolution there was exactly one voter in Pennsylvania, and he gave his name to the state. I'm sure you're all for such a voting privilege. In our modern society, I'm glad libertarians like yourself are a tiny fraction of the population and thus completely sidelined. There's nothing wrong with critical thinking and analysis, which is about the only thing I want an education to impart. Learning facts by rote assumes that authority is correct, like when I was taught there are exactly 9 planets - no more and no less. That this is *wrong* is what is wrong with modern education and *that* needs fixing, not whether it should be a state education or what the standard curriculum should be. Learning about the subject and making your own mind up is vital for a modern democracy. If you check out EU news sources, or even (aghast!) checked out a wide variety of Arab and Israeli sources and made up your own mind, you'd realize just how little actual "news" filters down to the average American. Being ill informed does not make you pro-Jewish / pro-Israeli, it keeps you ignorant and unable to form a valid opinion. I have my own opinion of what is going on in that region, but I want *you* to do the research to figure it out for yourself. For the record, I have Jewish family and work with an Israeli, so please don't accuse me of being anti-semitic, for I'm not - about as far as you can get from it, in fact. There's a huge difference between being anti-Israeli government and anti-semitic. Education is a basic human right for all. The more educated folks are, the better care they take of themselves, they live longer, they are wealthier, they are generally more tolerant and less religious (which is a good thing), far less likely to smoke, and women take control of their family sizes, which improves the equality outcomes for women and their general health. There are no downsides to a state education. Everyone, no matter what means, should be eligible for an education supported by the state. This should not be from property taxes, but from general revenue as it is so vital. Without taxes, we wouldn't have roads, and all the necessary infrastructure required to maintain a civil society. Yes, there's pork and waste, like a huge military that can fight most of the planet at once and "win", but what's "waste" to me, is not "waste" to others. If you want less government, there's plenty of failed states with governments that would suit your tastes, like Democratic Republic of Congo or Somalia or Zimbabwe. The average life span in one of these hell holes is 39, as long you're not killed in a genocide or get HIV and can't be treated as they have no civil society and thus no health care at any price. Good luck with your "liberties" there! At least you will not be paying much "tax" to support wasteful things like roads, health care, or your local library. That's why in a republic, you choose your representative, who represents you. If you don't like how that person worked out, every four years you get a vote to choose someone else.
I have just gotten one of these automated red light tickets here in Los Angeles; the very first traffic citation I've ever received in my 23-year driving history. I'd been driving within the speed limit, but it came down to a split-second decision to brake hard or accelerate through the intersection. I chose the latter. I'd been anticipating the ticket in the mail since I'd seen the flashing light go off as I crossed into the intersection. Imagine my surprise when I opened the summons & discovered that the fine is $435! Embarrassed as I am to admit it, $435 is more than I earn in one week. Not only that, but if I want to maintain a spotless driving record in order to preserve my insurance rate, I'll have to pay an additional $100 or so to attend an online driving school. Running red lights is dangerous and I admit I made a mistake; I should pay a fine. Four hundred thirty-five dollars however is unconscionable. What makes it all the more bitter to swallow is that I'm reading online that a large chunk of my $435 will be pocketed by the entrepreneurial camera company--who've negotiated a deal with the city of Los Angeles to keep the 'yellow' light as short as possible in order to protect their investment/ensure their profit--and not to building parks, beefing up the police force, maintaining roads, etc. How disingenuous is it that this is driven by financial greed & not safety? For those of you who will read this and say, "If you don't want to pay fines then don't run red lights," I agree with you. However, I should not be docked a week-and-a-half of my salary for being 0.4 seconds late on a red light! The punishment here does not fit the crime.