West Hollywood Red Light Camera Gridlock Ticket

[SamsonPat]

My question involves a traffic citation from the state of: California

I have a confusing ticket. West Hollywood sent me a gridlock "parking citation" from a red light camera. As I understand it, the best way to fight a red light ticket here is to ignore it, ignore the warnings, ignore the collections calls, and then it goes to Los Angeles Superior Court where they refuse to enforce the ticket and bury it. As long as you don't ever contact them, it goes away. This is different and I can't find any information on a similar instance.

Facts:
The photograph shows the back of my car, no driver
The red light camera warning sign is about 95% obscured by a tree
The car in front of my car is shown, stopped, with brake lights, for no reason. The street continues for a a couple hundred yards, wide open, with my car stuck behind him.

Here's the law on Gridlock. Any advice? I would love to ignore this and move on. I don't have much faith in fighting tickets here. There is no reason to believe my car could not proceed through the intersection.

VC Section 22526 Entering Intersection Rail Crossing or Marked Crosswalk
Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987

22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.

[SamsonPat]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

My question involves a traffic citation from the state of: California

I have a confusing ticket. West Hollywood sent me a gridlock "parking citation" from a red light camera. As I understand it, the best way to fight a red light ticket here is to ignore it, ignore the warnings, ignore the collections calls, and then it goes to Los Angeles Superior Court where they refuse to enforce the ticket and bury it. As long as you don't ever contact them, it goes away. This is different and I can't find any information on a similar instance.

Facts:
The photograph shows the back of my car, no driver
The red light camera warning sign is about 95% obscured by a tree
The car in front of my car is shown, stopped, with brake lights, for no reason. The street continues for a a couple hundred yards, wide open, with my car stuck behind him.

Here's the law on Gridlock. Any advice? I would love to ignore this and move on. I don't have much faith in fighting tickets here. There is no reason to believe my car could not proceed through the intersection.

VC Section 22526 Entering Intersection Rail Crossing or Marked Crosswalk
Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987

22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.

[That Guy]

it goes away

Well, it doesn't really go away.. Fact is, even if it is unenforceable, there are no provisions to just make it go away. Unless they enact a new law that it shall be removed from your record, it'll be on there, longer than you and I will be around!

VC Section 22526 Entering Intersection Rail Crossing or Marked Crosswalk
Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987

Nope! You cannot enforce that via camera...

And with that, this is one that I would actually NOT ignore. I would fight this one!

Here is the code section that authorizes the use of Cameras:

40518. (a) 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 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. Preparation and delivery of a notice to appear pursuant to this section is not an arrest.

There are no other California Vehicle Code provisions that I know of to enforce any other violations via photographic evidence!

And since I cannot find 22526 listed there, that citation is invalid and must be dismissed! (Fact is, it shouldn't even be filed in court - so I suspect this maybe a fishing expedition).

This is pretty simple, basic and should result in a dismissal at the arraignment. And like I said, it would be one I would challenge rather than ignore.

The risk is, if you get a hard headed judge who wants to enforce it, or one who won't dismiss at the arraignment or one who has no clue! So there are risks involved and I don't know if you want to take them.

With that being said, does it say to "contact the court" or does it say "Do Not Contact the Court"???

[SamsonPat]

Thank you! It does not mention contacting court but either City Of West Hollywood or West Los Angeles Service Center (the office for parking violation dispute hearings).

[That Guy]

Thank you! It does not mention contacting court but either City Of West Hollywood or West Los Angeles Service Center (the office for parking violation dispute hearings).

Huh???

This must be a West Hollywood Municipal Ordinance then, and in all honesty, I still think it would be unenforceable...

For one, it is in violation of the vehicle code to enforce moving violations by camera unless they are listed under 40518

Give me some time and I'll look into it. Unless someone else wants to chime in!

Edited to Add: If It is possible if you can cover up all your personal info, and either scan the front and back of the citation or take pictures (like maybe with your cell phone) and then upload them to www.photobucket.com and post the links to the images here, it might make the information hunt much easier.

[SamsonPat]

Much appreciated and, yes, it's fishy.

The front:
http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/...ckCitation.jpg

The back is a Declaration Of Non-Ownership. The other page is a b/w scan of my car at the intersection with close-up of license plate.

[That Guy]

Hope you don't mind, but this way its easier to see:

Much appreciated and, yes, it's fishy.

The front:


The back is a Declaration Of Non-Ownership. The other page is a b/w scan of my car at the intersection with close-up of license plate.

But does the picture show you physically in the intersection (????brake lights on???)? Or are you simply driving through?

More importantly, does it look as if this was a picture taken by parking enforcement? Or is there anyway to tell if it was taken by an automated system?

Also, at approximately what time of day/night did this grid-locking allegedly happen? Any idea?

(Obviously these images might be outdated) I know that West Hollywood still has red light cameras at Fairfax and Santa Monica, as well as La Brea and Santa Monica.... I also get a "red light camera alert" as I drive by Fairfax and Fountain (the blue poles)... But do they have one at La Brea and Fountain as well? (The Google Street Image -Dated March 2011) shows they do but I don't ever remember seeing it).

Now, if it is a picture that was taken by Parking Enforcement, and although this is a moving violation, the vehicle code actually counts it as a parking violation, and it does indeed fit under the provisions where 40202(d) would apply:

40202(d) If, during the issuance of a notice of parking violation, without regard to whether the vehicle was initially attended or unattended, the vehicle is driven away prior to attaching the notice to the vehicle, the issuing officer shall file the notice with the processing agency. The processing agency shall mail, within 15 calendar days of issuance of the notice of parking violation, a copy of the notice of parking violation or transmit an electronic facsimile of the notice to the registered owner.

But I don't think this is what is happening here. I think they have the cameras set up in a way where they are snapping pictures of vehicles that are grid-locking the intersection during rush hour, and pretending these were issued by parking enforcement, when in fact these were issued by "automated enforcement methods" and THAT would be in violation of the provisions allowing automated enforcement, the citation would be invalid and it would then have to be dismissed.

Question is... How to find out one way or the other!!!

I know they have been doing something similar in San Francisco... And I'll look into that and hopefully use it as an off shoot into figuring out what these guys are doing down here.

[SamsonPat]

My car is in the intersection, with brake lights. Does that mean my car is stopped? Who knows? I can clearly see that the car in front has brake lights but with clear space in front. I took another look at the picture they sent and it does seem to be from a lower angle (see below). I found the other page that lists an officer number. If there was an officer, go ahead, come over, and ticket the car. If human, I don't understand why they didn't.

According to the ticket, they shot the picture in the 7pm hour.

The Fountain/La Brea intersection does have red light cameras.

[RedSnapper]

Here is a link that may contain some information that is useful to you, SamsonPat. It discusses tickets that ask you to contact an entity other than the court.

Snitch tickets

[SamsonPat]

Thank you but I don't think it's a snitch ticket.