Suing over Los Angeles Red Light Camera Tickets

[bluehazard]

Hi All,

Has anyone received a ticket from LAPD while running a red light?

If so, please PM me. I need a ticket to file with my pleading to have evidence. I've never ran a red through LA. I can keep your information anonymous. I mostly need it to show that LA coerces you to "snitch" on the other person.

Paul

[That Guy]

Hi All,

Has anyone received a ticket from LAPD while running a red light?

If so, please PM me. I need a ticket to file with my pleading to have evidence. I've never ran a red through LA. I can keep your information anonymous. I mostly need it to show that LA coerces you to "snitch" on the other person.

Paul

What do you mean "a ticket to file with my pleading"???

And you never ran a red through LA... What vehicle (license plate and description) does the citation show???

[bluehazard]

Hi That Guy,

I'm suing the City of Los Angeles relatively shortly for their use of Red Light Cameras. I'm doing it Pro Bono, meaning free. I will NOT MAKE ANY MONEY on this. I will, however, be requesting that the judge take down these red lights.

However, I need to file a complaint or pleading to start. Thus, if anyone has a red light camera ticket they can share with me (I can black out the name), I will be most grateful.

[That Guy]

Hi That Guy,

I'm suing the City of Los Angeles relatively shortly for their use of Red Light Cameras. I'm doing it Pro Bono, meaning free. I will NOT MAKE ANY MONEY on this. I will, however, be requesting that the judge take down these red lights.

However, I need to file a complaint or pleading to start. Thus, if anyone has a red light camera ticket they can share with me (I can black out the name), I will be most grateful.

LOL... OK... I'd wish you luck but I don't think that would help you much!

Carry on...

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you haven't been issued a ticket, you don't have standing to sue. Attaching somebody else's ticket to your complaint doesn't give you standing.

[bluehazard]

Mr. Knowitall, I don't want to get very upset over your comment. So, with all due respect, that's wrong.

Under taxpayer standing, a citizen can sue a city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpaye...payer_standing I have checked with my Civ Pro professors at law school. I can do so.

I have also been given sponsorship and money to do this project by an organization. I'm not sure if I can announce it yet, but will ask. They will pay for all court costs.

So, if you have a ticket for me, or anyone does, please help me in my fight!

Viva la revolution.

[blewis]

I, for one, don't understand. Taxpayer Standing allow a "taxpayer" to sue a municipality for improper allocation or use of tax funds. Even according to the Wiki article you linked to, you cannot use taxpayer standing to sue the federal or state governments. So, why would you need someone's ticket? Seems to me that you're trying to show that expenditure of funds to purchase, install, and operate "red light" cameras is, somehow, "improper" or unconstitutional. What's a ticket have to do with that?

On the other hand, I would think that you must first show that ALL funding for the red light cameras comes from municipal tax revenues -- something I would think should prove difficult -- since federal or state funding would obviate your taxpayer standing. Secondly, you'll have to show that such use is, at least, contrary to doctrine, law, the constitution or, at least, against the public interest (and since MANY studies have shown that red light cameras GREATLY decrease accidents at the intersections where they are installed, I think you'll find that difficult, as well).

But, I'm no lawyer, nor a law student, so what do I know?

Barry

[bluehazard]

Barry,

I'm going to answer your questions.

1) It doesn't increase safety: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...ca-laaudit.pdf
This is the official independent audit.

2) My taxpayer standing is AGAINST A CITY, not state or federal government. City of LA. See all above replies and posts.

3) The ticket is required to show that the City engages in illegal practices when it says: "If you were not the drive, you MUST tell us who was." THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY for them to do so. If you find that legal authority in the Const., Statute, or Local Ordinance please tell me. In any event, even if you found it, I think there'd be some problems in light of the constitution.

Blue

[blewis]

I'm going to answer your questions.

Gee, I feel so honored.

1) It doesn't increase safety: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...ca-laaudit.pdf
This is the official independent audit.

Yet, there are other studies that show a significant reduction in fatal accidents.

2) My taxpayer standing is AGAINST A CITY, not state or federal government. City of LA. See all above replies and posts.

I will say this one more time -- taxpayer standing allows you to sue a municipality for misuse or inappropriate spending of ITS tax revenues. If the CITY OF LOS ANGELES uses FEDERAL or STATE tax funds, you CANNOT sue them.

3) The ticket is required to show that the City engages in illegal practices when it says: "If you were not the drive, you MUST tell us who was." THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY for them to do so. If you find that legal authority in the Const., Statute, or Local Ordinance please tell me. In any event, even if you found it, I think there'd be some problems in light of the constitution.

What does that have to do with inappropriate use of tax funds. Mr. Knowitall was right, you have no standing, nor will someone else's ticket give you "taxpayer standing". The "illegal practices" can ONLY refer to the use of tax funds, if you are claiming taxpayer standing -- NOT forcing you to snitch on someone. Since that has NOTHING to do with tax funds, I don't believe you have standing.

So, to summarize: You ONLY have taxpayer standing to sue a municipality for inappropriate use of taxpayer funds. If you wish to sue the city for the "illegal practice" of having you testify as to who was driving the vehicle, you cannot claim "taxpayer standing".

But, you obviously know so much more about it than I do. So, good luck to you.

Barry

[That Guy]

1) It doesn't increase safety: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...ca-laaudit.pdf
This is the official independent audit.

You probably should read the document that you cited... Here's a paragraph from page 14 of the same report:

NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
LAPD reports no fatalities at monitored intersections since the implementation of
the current contract in April 2006, compared to five red light related fatalities in
the prior two-year period for the intersections selected for automated
enforcement.

And BTW, here is LAPD Chief Beck's response to the audit that you cited: Red-light cameras backed by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck despite shortcomings, and I quote:

Beck notes in the report that from 2004 to 2009, red-light traffic collisions have declined 63%. There were five red-light fatalities from 2004 to 2006 and none since the program began, Beck said.

Beck also cites research published in May in the Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers that found that red-light cameras reduce crashes. He noted a top National Highway Traffic Safety Administration official testified before Congress last June that about 1,000 people die annually in red-light traffic collisions.