How to Contest a Red Light Camera Violation Ticket
My question involves traffic court in the State of: California.
Around 12:30pm on April the 28th, I ran the red light at the corner of Indiana Ave. and Van Buren Blvd. Unfortunately, I had no choice. This is a variable-time light, and I happened to catch it at the wrong time.
I was doing 28mph in a 40mph zone, the light turned yellow, and even if I had slammed on my brakes, I would have still ended up in the intersection. I was, ironically, on the way to my mechanic less than a block away *FOR* my brakes. They started acting odd around the McKinley (corona) exit of the 91, so I got off there and took the least-traffic'd route and gave everyone a wide berth. But whatever.
The light turned yellow while I was about a single-car-length from the crosswalk. Out of reflex, I *ATTEMPTED* to apply the brakes, but with diminished braking, that obviously didn't work, so I resumed course. The light was red for (if I'm reading the picture correctly) for less than 1 second at the point I entered the intersection. My speed was still 28mph. The video they claim is available is not. It would show my failed attempt at braking and the duration of the yellow light would just barely be in frame. I believe I just had no time to react.
I have 0 violations in this state. I'm a good driver, believe it or not, with more than half a million miles under my belt. I had a mechanical failure and did my best to make it safely to my destination to have that issue rectified. I have the invoice for the repairs -- same date, about an hour later. Do I have *ANY* defense here at all? I simply cannot afford the outrageous $500 ticket imposed by this ludicrous state.
Is there some kind of law where I have to be presented something like this *IN PERSON* by an officer?
How can I contest this? Sorry if this was a little bloated and not concise; I'm really flustered at the moment. Apologies.
Re: Red Light Camera Violation in Riverside, Ca. How to Contest
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
I was, ironically, on the way to my mechanic less than a block away *FOR* my brakes. They started acting odd around the McKinley (corona) exit of the 91, ... The light turned yellow while I was about a single-car-length from the crosswalk. Out of reflex, I *ATTEMPTED* to apply the brakes, but with diminished braking, that obviously didn't work, so I resumed course. The light was red for (if I'm reading the picture correctly) for less than 1 second at the point I entered the intersection.
So realistically, you couldn't stop, not because of yellow phase timing, not because the light is on a variable timer and you caught it at the wrong time, but simply because you did not have sufficient braking power!
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
The video they claim is available is not.
The video is not a requirement. It is simply icing on the cake. The photos are required by law. Those, I assume are sufficient to identify you as the driver and show your vehicle at the moment the leading edge crossed the limit line, along with a showing that the light was in its red phase.
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
It would show my failed attempt at braking and the duration of the yellow light would just barely be in frame.
VC 41101.
(a) Whenever a traffic sign or traffic control device is placed in a position approximately conforming to the requirements of this code, it shall be presumed to have been placed by the official act or direction of lawful authority, unless the contrary is established by competent evidence.
(b) Any sign or traffic control device placed pursuant to this code and purporting to conform to the lawful requirements pertaining to it shall be presumed to comply with the requirements of this code unless the contrary is established by competent evidence.
That basically says the signal (a traffic control device), was placed by the city, is presumed to be in working order, as required by law, unless you, the defendant, can rebut that presumption by indisputable evidence.
Quote:
Quoting Page 866 of the 2012 CA-MUTCD
The minimum yellow change interval shall be in accordance with Table 4D-102(CA). The posted speed limit, or the prima facie speed limit established by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) shall be used for determination of the minimum yellow change interval for the through traffic movement.
http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/...rvalTiming.jpg
So at 40mph, the yellow phase should be set to 3.9 seconds... Now you can contact the city, request the engineering survey for the intersection and double check what the timing is set to! If it is less that 3.9, you may have an argument, if it is at or higher that 3.9 then you're stuck digging for more.
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
I believe I just had no time to react.
So you're changing your answer then? It had nothing to do with mechanical failure and low, or almost no stopping power... You simply had no time to react?
Why is that?
You haven't really looked into the timing yet, so that is not a sure thing!
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
I have 0 violations in this state. I'm a good driver, believe it or not, with more than half a million miles under my belt.
Your previous driving record is not even a valid start for a defense. If everyone who starts out with a clean driving record gets to keep their clean driving record by arguing that they have a clean driving record, then ALL of us will ALWAYS have a clean driving record because we all start with a clean driving record!
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
I had a mechanical failure and did my best to make it safely to my destination to have that issue rectified.
Don't go there either as this is the response I expect you'd get from the court: "What if that was a child that ran out in the middle of the roadway? Would trying your best be good enough? NO!"
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
Do I have *ANY* defense here at all?
I'm not seeing one at all!
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
I simply cannot afford the outrageous $500 ticket imposed by this ludicrous state.
That's the same fine that applies to everyone! I don't know if Riverside offers community service but that is one route you can go, you can make payments, you can request an extension and start saving... You may see a slight reduction at the arraignment but I can't assure you of anything. Alternatively, you can get greedy and hope the officer won't show... At that point ion time you lost out on any possible reduction simply because the judge now has little say so, he must impose the full statutory fine per VC 42001.15 for a conviction (different than that for a guilty plea)!
Quote:
Quoting
endybajr
Is there some kind of law where I have to be presented something like this *IN PERSON* by an officer?
Nope... Service is presumed complete if notice is mailed to the registered owner's address on record with the DMV at the time the citation is issued!
Re: Red Light Camera Violation in Riverside, Ca. How to Contest
I do not see an Answer to the basic question posed by the OP
Quote : " How to Contest a Red Light Camera Violation Ticket "
Short answer ...
the Remedy lies in the 6th Amendment
CONFRONTATION
''The primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions of ex parte affidavits . . . being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross- examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief'' 145 The right of confrontation is ''[o]ne of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty . . . long deemed so essential for the due protection of life and liberty that it is guarded against legislative and judicial action by provisions in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of most if not of all the States composing the Union.'' 146 Before 1965, when the Court held the right to be protected against state abridgment, 147 it had little need to clarify the relationship between the right of confrontation and the hearsay rule, 148 inasmuch as its supervisory powers over the inferior federal courts permitted it to control the admission of hearsay on this basis. 149 Thus, on the basis of the Confrontation Clause, it had concluded that evidence given at a preliminary hearing could not be used at the trial if the absence of the witness was attributable to the negligence of the prosecution, 150 but that if a witness' absence had been procured by the defendant, testimony given at a previous trial on a different indictment could be used at the subsequent trial. 151 It had also recognized the admissibility of dying declarations 152 and of testimony given at a former trial by a witness since deceased. 153 The prosecution was not permitted to use a judgment of conviction against other defendants on charges of theft in order to prove that the property found in the possession of defendant now on trial was stolen.
in other words---
the "Ticket " is uncorroborated , un Verified ....Hearsay
and is not admissible in a real Court
Re: Red Light Camera Violation in Riverside, Ca. How to Contest
Quote:
Quoting
J. Alfred Braun
I do not see an Answer to the basic question posed by the OP
Quote : " How to Contest a Red Light Camera Violation Ticket "
Short answer ...
the Remedy lies in the 6th Amendment
CONFRONTATION
''The primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions of ex parte affidavits . . . being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross- examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief'' 145 The right of confrontation is ''[o]ne of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty . . . long deemed so essential for the due protection of life and liberty that it is guarded against legislative and judicial action by provisions in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of most if not of all the States composing the Union.'' 146 Before 1965, when the Court held the right to be protected against state abridgment, 147 it had little need to clarify the relationship between the right of confrontation and the hearsay rule, 148 inasmuch as its supervisory powers over the inferior federal courts permitted it to control the admission of hearsay on this basis. 149 Thus, on the basis of the Confrontation Clause, it had concluded that evidence given at a preliminary hearing could not be used at the trial if the absence of the witness was attributable to the negligence of the prosecution, 150 but that if a witness' absence had been procured by the defendant, testimony given at a previous trial on a different indictment could be used at the subsequent trial. 151 It had also recognized the admissibility of dying declarations 152 and of testimony given at a former trial by a witness since deceased. 153 The prosecution was not permitted to use a judgment of conviction against other defendants on charges of theft in order to prove that the property found in the possession of defendant now on trial was stolen.
in other words---
the "Ticket " is uncorroborated , un Verified ....Hearsay
and is not admissible in a real Court
Sadly, you're confusing the "ticket" which gets "filed" in court with "evidence" which is "admitted" with the court.
The "ticket" is not "evidence" so how can it be "hearsay"?
The ticket is merely the charging document... The evidence, well that comes later!
But what you've posted here makes little sense and obviously, falls short of answering anything remotely close to "how to Contest a Red Light Camera Violation Ticket?"
Little details but until you get them right, you're bound to get yourself -or anyone who follows your advice- into deeper trouble!
Re: Red Light Camera Violation in Riverside, Ca. How to Contest
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Sadly, you're confusing the "ticket" which gets "filed" in court with "evidence" which is "admitted" with the court.
The ticket is merely the charging document... The evidence, well that comes later!
But what you've posted here makes little sense and obviously, falls short of answering anything remotely close to "how to Contest a Red Light Camera Violation Ticket?"
!
I hope my keyboard is still good, after I just spilled coffee all over...
because I was laughing so hard ...:D
You ... are stating that there is " evidence " to enter in this Case.?? bwaaaahahaha ...:rolleyes:
as well as a Charging Instrument, Verification, Information ..???
that " ticket " meets NONE of those descriptions ..
You know it
I know it
Re: Red Light Camera Violation in Riverside, Ca. How to Contest
Quote:
Quoting
J. Alfred Braun
I hope my keyboard is still good, after I just spilled coffee all over...
because I was laughing so hard ...:D
You ... are stating that there is " evidence " to enter in this Case.?? bwaaaahahaha ...:rolleyes:
as well as a Charging Instrument, Verification, Information ..???
that " ticket " meets NONE of those descriptions ..
You know it
I know it
Oh, the keyboard still works... It does seem however that there is a defective brain behind it!
Ignorance is bliss.... And you must be laughing at the silliness you're posting.
For one, I did not refer to it as a "charging instrument" nor did I discuss "verification" or "information"... But I do understand that you and your type don't understand what's going on and the only way you can get a word in edge wise is if you memorize this crap and recite it as a script!
I will simply post this one vehicle code section, which should prove you have no clue what you're talking about...
Anything else that you post from here on is meaningless, but still knock yourself out:
California Vehicle Code Section 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.
I realize its difficult for you to understand these code sections so this is what this one says: The "ticket" ---> also known as ----> Notice to Appear ----> and if/when it is completed as described above ---> and when filed in court ----> constitutes a "complaint"!
To summarize, "a ticket" is a "complaint"!
Now, if that is difficult for you to understand, you're on your own! I cannot simplify it any more for you!
Re: Red Light Camera Violation in Riverside, Ca. How to Contest
Quote " That Guy "
California Vehicle Code Section 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.
Seemingly, You, Sir... have the Cogniitive Dissonance problem
this "Citation", Ticket".. whatever title you wish to give it ..
is NOT from a "Peace Officer", or " qualified Employee"
it is from a Third Party, un sworn, and not a Cause of Action
- - - Updated - - -
P.S.
You ...
have 5000 + Posts, but cannot read a Statute ..??
Please desist from Mis-Informing people
- - - Updated - - -
latimes.com
YOU ARE HERE: LAT Home→Collections→Fines
(Page 2 of 2)
Who knew L.A.'s red-light camera fines were 'voluntary'?
Drivers who paid the tickets, some of which are $476, fume at the disclosure that authorities cannot force violators to pay up. But don't expect to get a refund.
July 27, 2011|By Ari Bloomekatz, Abby Sewell and Kate Mather, Los Angeles Times
Comments
0
Morgan Harvey, who was hit with a ticket in May for making an illegal right turn at Pico Boulevard and Bundy Drive, said she had been putting off paying the fine, but now plans not to.
"If it's not going to affect my credit or if I don't have to go to court or have a boot on my car, then I won't," said Harvey, who works in marketing.
Some motorists are angry the Los Angeles city program could be axed after they paid up.
"I'm pissed off," said Abigail Stone, a Los Angeles writer who paid a ticket three months ago. "I really could have used the money for a lot of other things. And it's like, if they're going to phase it out, why couldn't they have figured it out?.… It's just really annoying."
The city Police Commission, in part citing the difficulty collecting fines, voted last month to shut down the program. The issue has been debated in City Council meetings and committee hearings several times since.
After a three-hour hearing Monday, one committee voted unanimously to recommend the program be phased out. A second committee made roughly the same recommendation Tuesday afternoon.
The possibility of ending the program in the nation's second-largest city has thrust Los Angeles into the forefront of the debate over the effectiveness of the red-light cameras. Some experts and LAPD officials have said the cameras have reduced collisions, but other studies found that the cameras increase rear-end collisions.
A Times investigation also found that most of Los Angeles' red-light camera tickets were for rolling right turns, which some experts consider less dangerous violations.
Some cities, such as Anaheim, passed ballot measures banning red-light camera programs. In El Monte, which ended its program in 2008, a study found no difference in the accident rate at intersections with and without cameras.
But a number of other cities in Los Angeles County that have the programs in place said, despite the lack of teeth in court enforcement, they are pleased with their programs and haven't had problems collecting on red-light tickets.
In Santa Clarita, a program launched in 2004 generates net revenues of $600,000 to $700,000 a year from cameras at seven intersections, said city spokeswoman Gail Ortiz.
At camera-equipped intersections, broadside collisions have decreased 64% and red-light violations have dropped 71%, she said.
"If anything, we would contemplate adding new [cameras], but at this point, we're going to leave it as it is," Ortiz said.
And other counties, such as San Diego and Ventura, do enforce a policy of notifying the DMV when people fail to appear or pay citations.
Although refunds may not yet be available to those like Brickman who paid their tickets, Sherman Ellison, an attorney who has dealt with "hundreds" of such traffic cases, said some class-action lawyers are watching the Los Angeles County situation closely and determining whether there would be grounds for a lawsuit to recover red-light camera penalties.
ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com
- - - Updated - - -
What is “Constitutional Due Process” in Photo Enforcement Tickets?
A basic premise of the United States Justice System is that a person must have fair notice of a claim or accusation against them before a court may take their property or freedom. A defendant in a court action must have notice of the action so that they can present a defense if they have one.
In criminal and traffic court cases, everyone is presumed innocent from the start – even if there is a photo as evidence. The United States Constitution requires this presumption of innocence.
There is no such thing as automatically guilty. Photos generated by machines and
computers are merely evidence, not a guilty verdict. Actually, they are hearsay
evidence, which is less reliable than real evidence.
There is a required process that must happen before a guilty verdict can be entered in any traffic court or criminal case. Photos must be presented in court, verified and challenged by the defendant before a court can admit them into evidence and use them in a trial. And only after they have been admitted as legal evidence can they be used to determine guilt.
Notions of Fundamental Fairness in the 5th, and 14th Amendments to the US
Constitution require this “Due Process” in any case where a State Government, such as a court, tries to take your freedom or money without your consent.
What Are the Specific Due Process Problems that Prevent Enforcement of Red Light Photo Tickets?
1) The Defendant Does Not Sign a Promise to Appear with a Photo Red Light Ticket.
When a real, live police officer writes up a traffic ticket on the side of the road he or she must have the driver sign the citation. The driver’s signature on the citation gives the court personal jurisdiction over the driver, and creates a legal commitment to appear in court. By signing the ticket (also known as a “Promise to Appear”) the driver is promising to appear in court by the deadline listed on the citation.
In exchange for this promise, the driver avoids an instant trip to court and/or jail in the back of the CHP cruiser for instant arraignment in court.
When a photo enforcement ticket is issued, the person who committed the offense does not know they have been cited. A police officer does not stop them; they do not sign a Judicial Council Approved Traffic Ticket Form. In short, the true Defendant has no verifiable actual notice of the alleged violation.
2) Photo Ticket Defendants are Presumed Innocent, and Cannot be Found Guilty In Absentia.
Simply put, if a Red Light Ticket Defendant does not appear in court or pay voluntarily, there is no legal mechanism to overcome the presumption of innocence. There is no way to find the Defendant guilty if he/she does not appear in court at all.
When there is a Promise to Appear Citation signed by the Defendant, and the defendant does not appear in court on time, there is a law that allows a California Traffic Court to consider the missed court date a Request for Trial By Declaration without the Defendant’s Presence. (See California Vehicle Code 40903).
This statute (Law) gives the court the power to have a trial without the Defendant. It is called a Trial in Absentia, and many courts use the process to deal with failure to appear on signed citations.
The reason why is it Constitutional and legal is because since there is a signed promise to appear, the court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and proof that the Defendant had actual written notice of the court date.
But without a signed promise to appear, the “Trial in Absentia” provision of Vehicle Code section 40503 does not apply. Further, there is no personal jurisdiction and proof of actual notice of the case. Without those elements, Constitutional Due Process Requirements cannot be met for a trial.
3) Photos Are Not Proof of the Driver’s Identity, and Vehicle Ownership is Not Sufficient for Guilt.
Even if a photo ticket is clear enough to make out a person’s face, there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who was actually driving the car in a photo ticket case.
And there is no law that says the registered driver is responsible for moving violations committed in the car if they are not driving. You have to drive to commit a moving violation. Owning a vehicle is not a sufficient act to violate the red light law.
4)If the Defendant fails to appear in court or pay, the court cannot charge the defendant with a failure to appear crime.
The failure to appear law for traffic citation missed court dates requires that the defendant missed a date after signing a “Promise to Appear”. (Vehicle Code section 40508(a)). Without that signature on a promise to appear as evidence, any defendant charged with a VC 40508(a) violation for a missed court date is innocent.
5) Without a Signed Promise to Appear, The Court Cannot Suspend the Drivers License of the Car’s Owner.
Usually, if you miss a court date on a signed traffic ticket, the court can suspend your driver’s license. The way it works is this:
With traffic tickets received from a police officer, if the Defendant fails to appear on the date and time listed on the citation, the court can use Vehicle Code section 40509.5 to notify DMV of the missed court date. DMV will then use that law to suspend the Defendant’s drivers license until the problem is corrected. But Vehicle Code 40509.5 does not apply if there is no signed promise to appear, and no personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
Section 40509.5 states:
“A person has violated his or her written promise to appear . . . or violated an order to appear in court, . . . the court may give notice of the failure to appear to the [DMV].”
6) The Court Cannot Issue a Bench or Arrest Warrant for Failure to Appear on a Photo Enforcement Ticket.
Another side effect of the lack of personal jurisdiction created by the absence of a signed promise to appear is that the court has not power to issue arrest or bench warrants in the case. No power, no mojo, natta.
The end result of these Due Process problems was that the court had no ammo to shot at defendants who just ignored the photo tickets and who refused to show in court. No drivers license suspension, no warrant, no failure to appear charge could be applied, no trial without the defendant, no guilty verdict or plea, nothing.
All the court really has with a Photo Enforcement ticket is an unproven allegation with a defendant who is presumed innocent.
Of course, the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and other CA traffic courts, tried to collect the fines from the registered owners anyway.
But they used an outside, for profit company to do it. In Los Angeles, that company is a Collection Agency called “GC Services” (which is a trademark owned by GC Services, LP, I am told).
How Has the Court Tried to Collect These Red Light Photo Fines?
The court is prohibited by law from simply telling Defendants they are guilty without a trial, and then garnishing their wages without a trial.
These constitutional protections require the court to tell you that you have the right to a trial, that you are presumed innocent, that you have the right to subpoena witnesses, (Such as the camera’s operator), and that you have the right to have an Attorney defend you in court on the accusation. California Vehicle Code section 40901(c) is the State law that requires these constitutional rights disclosures.
They cannot hide those rights from you even if you fail to show up by the deadline listed on a photo ticket that is mailed to you.
But these protections don’t apply to a private, for profit Collection Agency’s attempt to get a person to pay.
Nearly all California Traffic courts tried to get around the presumed innocent / lack of a promise to appear problem by sending the fines on these tickets as “collections” accounts to a private, for profit collection agency.
Los Angeles County Superior Courts used GC Services collections (Trademark owned by GC Services, LP I’m told) to collect what they considered to be over due fines. Other courts use a different collection agency such as Alliance One or others.
The collection agencies then allegedly used threatening letters, and/or phone calls threatening to garnish wages, damage credit, etc unless the registered owner of a photographed vehicle paid the fine, regardless of who was driving. The claimed collection amounts included additional late or collections fees. Letters sent by GC Services to registered owners also state that the CA DMV was “helping” GC Services find people – which implies that California Department of Motor Vehicles is taking an active role in the collections process, when in reality they were not.
The GC Services collections letters did not mention that the Defendant was presumed innocent, or had a right to trial. It did not mention that registered owners were not liable for red light violations by other drivers. Instead, they implied the case was over, and the claimed debt unchallengeable.
In the opinion of many, (including me) the collection activities violated numerous laws, and gave a false impression about the true status of the Claimed Debt that was – in reality – unproven and unenforceable.
Then came Attorney Ron K. Bochner who recognized an injustice. He was retained by a victim of identity theft. According to the complaint in his lawsuit, Mr. Bochner’s client (allegedly) was the focus of threatening and misleading collection efforts by GC Services in relation to a Red Light Photo citation in LA, which had nothing to do with him at all. He was innocent, a victim of identity theft and a false vehicle registration. Nonetheless, GC Services sent him a letter stating that his wages were going to be garnished, and that “DMV was “Helping” GC Services find him to recover the photo citation fees.
Attorney Bochner filed a class action lawsuit against GC Service for multiple violations of law under several causes of action, including Unfair Business Practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200.
The case is currently pending in Contra Costa County Superior Court – and the alleged class may cover tens of thousands of people in Los Angeles alone who have been contacted by GC Services, LP about unproven red light photo citations.
If you feel you are one of the individuals who received misleading / threatening letters from GC Services about a Red Light Camera Photo Ticket in LA, you should contact him for free review: robolawticket(at)yahoo.com Phone: 805.413.1044
At least one trial Attorney is of the opinion that the California Superior Courts have a direct financial interest in GC Service’s Collection efforts, and for that reason there maybe federal court litigation coming in the near future.
How To Handle Red Light Photo Tickets Now?
I hate to tell anyone to ignore a legal problem. Sometimes it’s a good idea, I guess. But I am not going to tell you that here. Dont quote me boy, cause I aint said . . .
From my experience – here is my opinion.
Do not assume that just because you get a letter from a collection agency on a Red Light Camera Photo Ticket that the court has found you guilty already. You have a right to trial, even if you are late. You are presumed innocent until there is a trial.
The courts cannot issue arrest or bench warrants for a missed deadline on a red light photo ticket that comes only through the mail. If a collection agency tells you there will be a warrant for a failure to appear on a red light citation ticket, they are probably not telling your the truth.
As of now, the CA courts cannot suspend the driver’s license of a car owner just
because the car was photo ticketed and no one showed up in court.
Expect the collection agency to misled you about the status of the claimed “Debt”. The truth is that with red light photo citations in LA, there is no legal judgement, there is no legal conviction, and you are presumed innocent by the law.
You can ignore those collection letters from the court’s collection agency GC Services. I recommend that you send them written notice that you dispute their claimed debt (on the grounds listed above) and ask them for a certified copy of the judgment or verdict (which they cannot produce).
You have the right to a trial if you want one. Go to the court clerk’s office at the courthouse in person to schedule a trial.
Additional tips that may or may not help:
If you sign a citation, make sure you show up on time;
Re: Red Light Camera Violation in Riverside, Ca. How to Contest
I see there is no interest in this Thread anymore ...
bwaaaaahahaha