Right Turn on Red Camera Ticket - Case Dismissed

I got a right-turn-on-red ticket in the mail from an auto-enforced camera system. They sent pictures of the alleged violation and a web site where I could view a video of the alleged violation. I did a Trial by Written declaration and submitted the arguments below, and my case was dismissed after the month or so it took for them to process it. I was prepared to lose and request a Trial de Novo, lose again, and appeal.

I don't know if it got thrown out on a technicality (other side didn't submit paperwork) or was dismissed on the strength of my argument. But I wanted to post here what I wrote, as I think it's a decent 2-pronged defense, and could help others beat what I think is a criminal (pun intended) $500 fine and traffic school not for running a red light, but for failing to come to a complete stop before a legal right turn on red. If it was $100 or less I would have just paid it. At $500 we all need to rise up and fight this obvious fundraising cash cow that has nothing to do with increasing safety. I hope this argument helps someone else.


Your Honor,

I respectfully plead not guilty.

I request this citation be dismissed under section 1118 of the Penal Code because:
- The only evidence to support it is inadmissible hearsay.
- The Red Light Camera Automated Enforcement System made use of an illegal speed trap to collect evidence as to the speed of the vehicle.

I. INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY

I believe the photo and video evidence presented by the prosecution is inadmissible hearsay, and a violation of my confrontation rights. No police officer was present to witness the alleged traffic violation. As it states on the Notice I received:
“Violation was not committed in my presence. The above is declared on information and belief and is based on photographic evidence.”
In a recently published appellate court judgment (People vs Khaled 5/21/2010, a copy of which is attached for consideration), the Superior Court of California, County of Orange ruled that photographic evidence collected from red light cameras by non-public companies (contractors) is inadmissible hearsay. The alleged vehicle violation code in the Khaled case was identical to mine, VC 21453(a). Below are relevant annotations from that judgment:
“…the photographs contain hearsay evidence concerning the matters depicted in the photograph including the date, time, and other information.”
“Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule are not applicable here.”
Since the only evidence submitted in support of the vehicle code violation is legally inadmissible, I request this citation be dismissed.

II. ILLEGAL SPEED TRAP
I believe that my citation should be dismissed because the Red Light Camera Automated Enforcement System used to collect the evidence submitted makes use of an illegal speed trap, violating section 40801 of the California Vehicle Code.
A speed trap is defined in VC 40802(a)(1) as:
“A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.” [emphasis mine]
The system used to collect all photo and video evidence being presented against me is a REDFLEXred system, made by the Redflex Group. From the REDFLEXred product brochure (a copy of which is attached for consideration):
“The detection system utilising in-road inductive (i.e. loop loop) detection is capable of red light offence determination.”
For a right-turn on red, an offense cannot be alleged by simply comparing the timing of a signal turning red with the position of a car as it crosses a single inductive loop (as could be done for non-turning cars). Rather, the speed of a vehicle must be determined to allege that a violation has occurred. This is because a right turn against a red light is legal if the vehicle stops (achieves a speed of zero) before the turn is made. In fact, the speed of the car before making the right turn is the only factor that could make the turn illegal.
I contest that the REDFLEXred system determines whether a violation has occurred during a right-hand turn on red through the use of two inductive loops in the road. It records the times the vehicle crosses the first and second loop, and then divides the known distance between the two loops by the difference between the two crossing times to determine a vehicle’s speed. This meets the definition of a speed trap in VC 40802(a)(1). If the prosecution can present evidence that the REDFLEXred system computes a vehicle’s speed before turning right without utilizing a time-distance calculation between its installed inductive loops, that would nullify my argument that the REDFLEXred system qualifies as a speed trap.
California law states in VC 40801:
“No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.” [emphasis mine]
The inductive loop speed trap used by the Redflex system was indeed “used in securing evidence as to the speed” of the vehicle during a right-hand turn against a red light, as is forbidden by VC 40801. The video produced by the Redflex system constitutes evidence as to the speed of the vehicle. In fact, the speed of the vehicle in the video is the only relevant factor about the video evidence. If one could not use the video to allege information about the vehicle’s speed, one could not claim a moving violation had occurred, since a right-hand turn on red is legal if the vehicle’s speed is reduced enough (to zero) before the turn is made.
As the automated enforcement system makes use of an illegal speed trap to calculate a vehicle’s speed during right hand turns on red, and since that system secured video evidence as to the speed of the vehicle in question, the court is without jurisdiction to render a conviction in this case pursuant to VC 40805:
"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article."

II. MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

Given the above arguments and persuasive relevant case law (attached), I request the court to find any evidence submitted insufficient and dismiss this case.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Thank you,

Your speed trap argument has been rejected time and again. It makes no sense when you were not cited for your speed, you were cited for running a red light... So no, that's not it. As for your inadmissible evidence argument, People v. Khaled is an Orange county case, and its is not necessarily binding on other counties; but since we don't know which county you were cited in, we don't know if that argument was validated or not.

For all we know your case was dismissed simply because the officer did not submit a declaration or that he submitted one that was quite lacking! And the easy way to find out would be to request a copy of the officer's declaration from the court clerk!

Lastly, and with regards to the fine, your guilt or innocence are not predicated upon the fine amount, either way, not that you know how much the fine is, you'll likely be more careful turning right on red lights...

my ticket was in San Diego County.

did you read my argument? right turn on red is legal if you make a stop first, therefore the speed of the vehicle must be assessed. and i assert the vehicle speed is determined through the use of a speed trap, which is illegal. the speed trap law states: "nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution"

Quote:

---

Quoting matt8268

---

did you read my argument?

---

For starters, it is not "your" argument... its been floating around for quite a while. But it still does not apply!

Second, (I'll explain this in 3 ways) (a) for us to take this discussion beyond this point we would have to agree that a citation charging a violation of 21453 is NOT related nor is it based on the "speed of a vehicle" simply because the only speed that counts is ZERO! Any other speed and regardless of whether is is 1mph or 100 mph, whether you are under the speed limit or over the speed limit, it matters not, you are STILL in violation. (b) In other words, and while I realize that your speed was measured and that is how the system established that you were in violation, your speed was irrelevant. It is the fact that you did not stop that put you in violation. (c) the element of the offense that must be met by the prosecution to establish a violation had occurred is that you DID NOT STOP... Where as the element of the offense for a speeding violation (and one which speed trap laws apply) is that you were travelling at XX speed through a zone marked with YY speed limit. Those are apples and oranges!

Quote:

---

Quoting matt8268

---

my ticket was in San Diego County

---

Well, that makes my job much easier...

1) The Khaled decision (from an Orange County Court) is not binding on a San Diego court...

And here's a citation that supports that People v. Corners, 176 Cal. App. 3d 139 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dist. 1985:

Quote:

---

Quoting People v. Corners

---

... a decision of the Appellate Department of the San Francisco Superior Court is not binding upon the Butte County Superior Court nor upon this court...

---

2) As for your speed trap argument, from the footnote of the case I am citing below:

Quote:

---

Quoting In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1314 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2008

---

The following cases are involved in this coordinated action: Glickman v. ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. GIC767025); C.L. Trustees v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. GIC773619); Cook v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. GIC773950); Buys v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, No. 400669); and Leonte v. City of West Hollywood (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BC256915).

---

meaning a few San Diego cases (along with a few Los Angeles County cases) met their fate via the following decision:


In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1314 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2008

And in that case, the speed trap argument was presented in the same format you did here:

Quote:

---

Quoting In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases

---

Best also contends he produced evidence the City of West Hollywood's automated traffic enforcement systems used speedtraps in violation of Vehicle Code section 40801. That statute provides: "No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code." (Veh. Code, § 40801, italics added.) Vehicle Code section 40802, subdivision (a)(1) defines "speed trap" as a "particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance."

Best submitted evidence that the automated traffic enforcement systems measure the time it takes a vehicle to travel the distance between a pair of electromagnetic sensors in a traffic lane, and a computer system "performs a time and rate of speed calculation that provides information upon which the system relies in documenting alleged [red light] violations." Further, Best established that a "flash camera is mounted in a box on a pole at the intersection, across from the target area so that the camera can photograph the front of the target vehicle as it proceeds through the intersection," and the "camera location is fixed ..., and thus the [automated traffic enforcement system] must use the vehicle's speed to estimate when the vehicle will be in a position for the required photographs to be taken."

---

Respondents answer:

Quote:

---

Quoting In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases

---

The City of West Hollywood, however, established that it did not use evidence of vehicle speed gathered in conjunction with the red light systems to prosecute any speeding charges. Vehicle Code section 40803, subdivision (a) provides that "[n]o evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap." (Italics added.) Similarly, Vehicle Code section 40804, subdivision (a) provides that "[i]n any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, an officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap."

---

The courts opinion (pretty short and to the point):

Quote:

---

Quoting In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases

---

Under their plain language, the speedtrap statutes do not apply to red light enforcement, which the Legislature has authorized through the use of automated systems.

---

Now, I look forward to you posting any case law citation that support the idea that "YOUR" argument that speed trap laws apply to red light cameras!

Don't waste your time with "That Guy". If he had things his way - everyone who went 1mph over the speed limit would be thrown into a giant prison without the possibility of parole.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Don't waste your time with "That Guy". If he had things his way - everyone who went 1mph over the speed limit would be thrown into a giant prison without the possibility of parole.

---

And you post this in a thread where the previous post makes it clear that "speed" isn't relevant to this topic...

You know... I'm betting your parents tell everybody you're adopted, don't they!

So, someone wins a case, and you get mad. Just look at how ridiculous you are. Wanting to argue semantics, only because it personally annoys you that someone won in the skewed traffic courts of CA!

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

So, someone wins a case, and you get mad. Just look at how ridiculous you are. Wanting to argue semantics, only because it personally annoys you that someone won in the skewed traffic courts of CA!

---

You really should stop posting simply because every time you do you dig yourself deeper into the hole of stupidity that is your existence!

I've said this before numerous times, but since you still do not understand it, I will repeat it one more time:

I could care less if someone wins or loses.

OP, and although he won't admit it, posted about what THINKS are the reason(s) why he won his TBD. Pure speculation...

While there is one way he can at least get closer to what may possibly be a correct guess -(requesting the officer's declaration and if there isn't one, we know his theory is wrong)- he hasn't done so!

So, while one would expect that most people would take a thread like this one for face value and assume it may or may not represent actual facts, there are idiots like yourself who will view this as gospel.

Since I am an active member on this forum and since I make an effort to provide factual, realistic and hopefully beneficial information to everyone who may come across a thread like this (something you fail at doing each and every time you post), I posted what I believed to be valid, applicable and pertinent information (something else you have no clue how to accomplish).

The way I see it, I can either post this info now, or I can wait until someone refers to this thread and post it later.

Now, I realize that NONE of what I just said makes any sense to you, and that you will continue to criticize and nitpick at every thing I post, there will come a time where you will either begin to understand (highly doubtful) or you will get bored and go away (simply because you don't understand).

Either way, I win!

You want him to think he didn't make any intelligent arguments and that there was some filing error in processing the officer's end of the TBWD (or a slight variant of that). He only won, because the court made a filing error! Even a dummy can win that way! But he really deserved to lose! Why not just tell him up front!

Typing like you! In a sassy sensationalist manner!

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

You want him to think he didn't make any intelligent arguments and that there was some filing error in processing the officer's end of the TBWD. He only won, because the court made a filing error! Even a dummy can do that! But he really deserved to lose! Why not just tell him up front!

Typing like you! In a sassy sensationalist manner!

---

You really are an idiot... No matter how many times I say it, it still isn't enough!

1) I could care less what he thinks.

2) Fact is, the main argument he is claiming as "his", really isn't his but even if it were, it is far from being intelligent simply because it makes no sense. I've explained that part above but obviously it is above and beyond your level of comprehension!

3) Nobody made a filing error, nobody suggested there was a filing error, only a dummy like you would conclude that there was a filing error or that I suggested there was a filing error simply because this is all -again- above and beyond your level of comprehension!

4) Who the F*** are you that you feel you have to defend everyone and keep them from harm when in reality, you're making a mockery of them and the reason why they posted on here?

5) You obviously have no shame or even an iota of self respect... You don't even have any common sense because if you did, you would have stopped challenging me on each and every thing I post. At first, it was fun to make you look like a fool, and to give you your figurative online spanking day after day... Now its becoming part of what I have to do on this forum. Sort of like clicking on "Submit Reply" after typing a post... So keep it up, keep it coming!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Your speed trap argument has been rejected time and again. It makes no sense when you were not cited for your speed, you were cited for running a red light... So no, that's not it. As for your inadmissible evidence argument, People v. Khaled is an Orange county case, and its is not necessarily binding on other counties; but since we don't know which county you were cited in, we don't know if that argument was validated or not.

For all we know your case was dismissed simply because the officer did not submit a declaration or that he submitted one that was quite lacking! And the easy way to find out would be to request a copy of the officer's declaration from the court clerk!

Lastly, and with regards to the fine, your guilt or innocence are not predicated upon the fine amount, either way, not that you know how much the fine is, you'll likely be more careful turning right on red lights...

---

Even if it's not his direct argument...no need to rain on everyone's parade. You're implying there never was a TBWD sent on the officer's end, or a "weak" one was written - but a strong one would have guaranteed victory on the state's behalf. You resort to this lack of comprehension everytime I point out your idiotic bias against anyone who challenges a ticket. I could sit here on autopilot and make you look ridiculous.

Should also mention, the other possibility, it was sent and got lost in the mail. This seems to fit under the umbrella of "error".

You even argue that the Orange County case may not be binding in another CA county. You don't know for a fact if it is, or not. You are hoping it was not, so he can't make this argument. Now courts ignore rulings in other counties, of the same state!

He only won...from pure luck!