California Court of Appeal Publishes Red Light Camera Hearsay Decision
California’s second highest court on Wednesday upheld the publication status of a key decision that called into question the legitimacy of red light camera evidence. The state Court of Appeal rejected the request of the cities of Santa Ana and Menlo Park to depublish a May appellate ruling of the Orange County Superior Court ( view the California v. Khaled decision) that found the red light camera photographs presented as evidence in court were inadmissible hearsay.
Although a number of California courts have struck down red light camera citations on various legal grounds, none of them has been published (see the cases of Franco, Murray, Graham, Williams and Bohl). Publication affords a decision the ability to stand within a county as precedent. In court filings, the League of California Cities suggested that allowing such rulings to stand with precedential value would force them to issue refunds or cancel their programs outright, costing millions.
Attorney Frank Iwama, a former deputy attorney general for the state, has beaten nineteen of the $494 tickets for his clients in San Mateo county. He successfully argues that cities in San Mateo are operating under illegal contingent-fee contracts with the private firms American Traffic Solutions and Redflex.
“I believe the Orange County Superior Court Appellate Division’s decision in People v. Khaled, certified for publication, is a wake up call for photo enforcement companies and local cities in California to seriously address evidentiary and constitutional issues with regard to the use of photo/videotape evidence in red light camera cases,” Iwama told TheNewspaper. “Together with the ‘cost neutrality’ contract defense, the Khaled decision presents serious challenges to the use of red light cameras in California.”
The state supreme court is now poised to issue a ruling on the legality of contingent-fee red light camera contracts after issuing a decision yesterday in a related contingent-fee case.
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
More by The Newspaper
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- ToolGuy™ I respect what the seller is doing, but this vehicle is not for me. (Seller doesn't care, has two people lined up already.)
- SCE to AUX How well does the rear camera work in the rain and snow?
- MaintenanceCosts The Truth About Isuzu Troopers!
- Jalop1991 MC's silence in this thread is absolutely deafening.
- MaintenanceCosts Spent some time last summer with a slightly older Expedition Max with about 100k miles on the clock, borrowed from a friend for a Colorado mountain trip.It worked pretty well on the trip we used it for. The EcoBoost in this fairly high state of tune has a freight train feeling and just keeps pulling even way up at 12k ft. There is unending space inside; at one point we had six adults, two children, and several people's worth of luggage inside, with room left over. It was comfortable to ride in and well-equipped.But it is huge. My wife refused to drive it because she couldn't get comfortable with the size. I used to be a professional bus driver and it reminded me quite a bit of driving a bus. It was longer than quite a few parking spots. Fortunately, the trip didn't involve anything more urban than Denver suburbs, so the size didn't cause any real problems, but it reminded me that I don't really want such a behemoth as a daily driver.
Comments
Join the conversation
"In court filings, the League of California Cities suggested that allowing such rulings to stand with precedential value would force them to issue refunds or cancel their programs outright, costing millions." They have it backwards. Allowing these rigged red light collection systems to continue will cost drivers millions.
We've had this debate on TTAC a couple of times now and more people understand the tremendous significance of having a decision published. Blocked attempts to get a decision unpublished or de-published is a huge victory for justice.