By on August 11, 2009

A California judge last week began throwing out red light camera citations issued in Santa Ana. Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz declared the city’s program void because it had ignored several provisions of state law. Local attorneys Mark D. Sutherland and R. Allen Baylis had challenged the city for its failure to provide the required thirty-day warning period before beginning the program and its use of a prohibited per-ticket “cost neutral” compensation scheme.

“While the court generally agrees with these contentions, it is compelled to declare — on its own motion — that the contract between Santa Ana and Redflex is contrary to terms of a law designed for the protection of the public, which prescribes a penalty for violation, is illegal and void, and that no action may be brought to enforce it,” Schwartz ruled.

The first problem the judge found was that California law requires the city to make an announcement “at least thirty days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program.” A press conference announcing the cameras was held only twenty-four days prior to the program’s commencement on June 19, 2003. Instead of providing notice each time the city added an intersection, Santa Ana only made the single announcement with the intention of moving cameras to new intersections within the city limits whenever a particular location failed to generate sufficient revenue.

Schwartz saw the error in the announcement timing as more than a technicality, citing the false assertion of Police Chief Paul Walters that motorists would be given 4.4 seconds of yellow time at enforced intersections. Records show that seventeen of the city’s eighteen camera intersections had yellow times of 4.0 seconds or less. The vast majority of red light tickets in the city were mailed to vehicle accused of entering an intersection less than half-a-second after the light had turned red.

“A member of the public who did have notice of potential enforcement from the original public announcement would find himself with almost half-a-second less time to make it through the yellow light,” Schwartz wrote. “At 40 MPH, the speed limit at the intersection of all but one of today’s cases set for trial, this would be over 23 feet or about one-and-a-half car lengths of yellow light time which turns red, instead… None of these ten cases would have been before the court if the yellow light duration was of the time stated at the only public announcement on the subject.”

The city attorney’s office insisted that it had complied with the public announcement requirement by holding a meeting on May 19 — exactly thirty days before the commencement of ticketing.

“This was a public meeting of a city council committee, and thus qualified as a legitimate public announcement of the system,” City Attorney Joseph W. Fletcher wrote in an August 5 legal brief.

According to the minutes of the May 19, 2003 committee meeting in question, members discussed the possibility of running “public service announcements” regarding the camera program. No such announcements were ever made. Traffic attorney Baylis believes that the city’s attitude may have provoked the court.

“It really comes down to this: the city of Santa Ana should have taken the extra steps to comply with the law, instead of skirting the edge and trying to get away with the minimum” Baylis told TheNewspaper.

Santa Ana’s plan to move cameras about at will violated a provision of state law requiring a flat-rate of compensation for the private company the operates the camera program.

“The contract contemplates moving a red light camera which is no longer generating sufficient revenue to another signalized intersection — again, without any warning — and a concomitant opportunity to renegotiate the amount of compensation required,” Schwartz wrote. “Giving the words of Vehicle Code 21455.5(g) their usual and ordinary meaning, the contract fails because it potentially violates both the number of citation and percentage of revenue proscriptions of the section.”

The court followed the reasoning of a number of recent Superior Court, Appellate Division rulings striking down red light camera programs. In January, a judge struck down Santa Ana’s failure to provide a warning period at each intersection that used a camera (view ruling). In February, the appellate division found Sacramento County’s camera program had produced unreliable evidence (view ruling). In December, the appellate division ruled “cost neutral” contracts in Fullerton were illegal (view ruling).

“The city of Santa Ana has avoided the problem for some time,” Sutherland told TheNewspaper. “If the state is going to make the rules (Santa Ana) must abide by those rules. The interesting question for the city is what are they going to do?”

Rather than merely dismissing the case, Schwartz found the motorists involved not guilty. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibits the city from appealing the verdict. It is assumed that the court will continue throwing out every photo ticket filed until the city complies with the law. Baylis is now looking to file challenges on behalf of any motorist who has received and paid a ticket in the past.

“As a matter of public policy, I think the public is not in favor of this use of technology,” Baylis said. “I think at some point people are going to become tired of the government intrusion in their lives.”

A copy of the court’s decision is available in a 750k PDF file at the source link below. The motorists who hired Baylis and Sutherland requested anonymity.

Source: PDF File California v. Murray (Orange County, California Superior Court, 8/11/2009)

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

12 Comments on “California Judge Declares Red Light Camera Program Illegal and Void...”

  • avatar

    Wow! I like this guy!

    Pity it doesn’t apply to any other state.

  • avatar

    Wow, that is really sensible. There are rules, and the city simply didn’t bother to follow them, so they’re denied a revenue grab — I like this.

  • avatar


    Let’s hope this is a precedent that spreads like a wildfire…:)

  • avatar

    Santa Ana lost on the technicalities, but the cameras may be back. One thing that might stop them is the lack of profit. If the cameras are revenue neutral our friends at Redflex have no interest in participating.

    Moving the cameras around for revenue reeks. Lately our government has become less like a servant and more like a master. It seems they are above us all and treat the commoners like animals in the zoo to be fed and watered occasionally. Maybe we all need to remind these public servants who they work for in the next few elections and see if we can take back our government, starting with local elections that throw out people like these Santa Ana bums. The job market really sucks right now, it’s a bad time to lose an election.

  • avatar

    “The constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibits the city from appealing the verdict.”

    This is an erroneous statement. The 5th Amendment’s double jeopardy provision does not prohibit an appeal. An appeal from a final decision is not considered a new trial. The 5th Amendment only prevents people from being tried twice for the same offense.

  • avatar

    The bottomline here is that the county was caught red-handed trying to create an automatic money-extortion machine for its tax-paying citizens. Finally a judge that has integrity! I hope this sets a precedent that will spread to the rest of the country but I am not holding my breath. The south in particular always seems intent in doing the exact opposite of california.

  • avatar

    Use of this technology is, at least in the areas I’m familiar with, government responding to their constituants complaints about having to wait 5 seconds every time the light turns green for all the red light runners to clear the intersection, almost being run down in a crosswalk with a walk signal, in addition to internal stats on increased traffic accidents and engineers trying to move traffic through busy intersections. Costs of a camera dwarf that of one cruiser and officer siting on an intersection full time. Seems like a better use of limited resourses, unless your running red lights.

  • avatar
    Chicago Dude


    If red light cameras were set up such that the yellow time at the intersection always exceeded the minimum safety recommendations and the cameras were clearly marked according to the same standards that are required for speed limit signs, I would be very happy to have every single intersection in my city equipped with red light cameras.

    That day will never come, so keep the cameras away.

  • avatar


    This is not the first time that traffic authorities used a legitimate complaint to create a revenue stream. If the county was really interested in safety they would have:
    1. Given the 30 day warning
    2. Put some form of advert to increase awareness about the problem
    3. Clearly mark cameras
    4. Enforce the law correctly
    5. Give reasonable fines

    But instead they gave no warning, told nobody and started hiding cameras to extort money by timing it such that you got a ticket even if you didn’t violate the law.

    By the way, it is the same thing with speeding tickets and the so-called speed traps: lets create some ridiculous speed limit changes so that police officers are entitled to take money away from you whenever they choose to. It has nothing to do with safety, only revenue generation so they can afford their crispy creme doghnuts.

  • avatar
    Its not about the saftey

    What can you say more about this quote from the article?
    Santa Ana only made the single announcement with the intention of moving cameras to new intersections within the city limits whenever a particular location failed to generate sufficient revenue.

  • avatar

    GS650G :
    August 11th, 2009 at 9:35 am

    Lately our government has become less like a servant and more like a master. It seems they are above us all and treat the commoners like animals in the zoo to be fed and watered occasionally.


    That happens when certain groups begs the government for dog food at the cost of everyone else.

    We not only lose money, we also lose liberty. We not only need to fight the government, but also the dogs.

  • avatar

    I got a ticket on free right from one of these cameras. Here is a site where you can put in your comments

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • nrd515: I actually like the looks of this thing, but no Ecoboost ever for me, unless I lost my mind and leased one....
  • nrd515: This thing gets a hard pass for ugliness and price. Like several other vehicles lately, the price is just...
  • nrd515: No, it’s “Gray Primer Clearcoat”, and IMO, one of the worst colors to ever be put on a car....
  • nrd515: I was behind a red one last week. I just don’t like the looks of it. Like most “modern”...
  • namesakeone: And the advertised car does not have alloy wheels; those are wheel covers.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber