Statute of Limitations on Issuing Red Light Camera Citation

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

What is the statute of limitations on issuing a citation for a red light camera violation? They may not issue it to me right away as the car is registered to someone else. I tried searching online, and came up with answers ranging from 15 days to a year-plus after the date of the infraction.

Thanks.

Probably none, although someone should clarify.

The answer is one year, in accordance with Penal Code 802 subdivision a.

However, your case is a bit more complicated. If a ticket was issued, it will go to the registered owner. If you don't look like the owner, the owner can tell the court that they weren't driving the car. They're not required to tell the court that you were driving. I would read the "It's Not Me" section of highwayrobbery, and talk to the person whose car you were driving. They're going to have to go to court and not give you up.

The typical SOL for vehicle code infractions would be one year. I do not believe there is a separate SOL for traffic light camera citations.

Thanks for the replies. I definitely don't look like the owner (different sex), and they assured me they won't talk. I guess all I can do is wait and see if they even send a citation to either one of us. If the owner gets it, I'll spring for their lawyer to get it addressed.

Quote:

---

Quoting holstein

---

Thanks for the replies. I definitely don't look like the owner (different sex), and they assured me they won't talk. I guess all I can do is wait and see if they even send a citation to either one of us. If the owner gets it, I'll spring for their lawyer to get it addressed.

---

Its not a matter of whether you look like the registered owner. I think TMN was typing faster than he was thinking... The burden of proof requires that the picture on the citation matches the named person on the citation.

Your question is in reference to the 15 day period (under VC 401518) that the RLC citation must be delivered by mail within... But that does not apply to a notice to appear that is issued as a result of the registered owner identifying the driver or if the law enforcement agency issuing the citation has it issued to someone other that the registered owner.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Your question is in reference to the 15 day period (under VC 401518) that the RLC citation must be delivered by mail within... But that does not apply to a notice to appear that is issued as a result of the registered owner identifying the driver or if the law enforcement agency issuing the citation has it issued to someone other that the registered owner.

---

Thank you. That makes sense: I'd imagine the police would lose out on a lot of revenue if the 15-day rule applied to issuing the citation period, regardless of to who.

But in regards to me...in order to meet the statute of limitations, they would still have to issue me the citation within one year of the violation--is that correct? Or does the statute of limitations go out the window too because I'm not the owner?

Quote:

---

Quoting holstein

---

Thank you. That makes sense: I'd imagine the police would lose out on a lot of revenue if the 15-day rule applied to issuing the citation period, regardless of to who.

---

The revenue does not go to the police, for the most part. The state and the courts might miss out on revenue, but most of it does NOT go to the local agency or government entity.

Quote:

---

But in regards to me...in order to meet the statute of limitations, they would still have to issue me the citation within one year of the violation--is that correct? Or does the statute of limitations go out the window too because I'm not the owner?

---

The court proceedings have to be initiated within one year. I am not certain whether citing your friend would count against the one year to file against you or not. But, I would think the matter would be resolved LOOOONG before that.

I really wish people would take a minute or two to think before they start singing the revenue song.

We live in an age where COSTS (in addition to some DUMB-AXX Federal judge) are the reason why felons are getting released out of prison early...
Where COST is the criteria of whether a misdemeanor case gets tried or tossed...
COST are the reason why are the reason why inmates are only serving 10% of their sentence...

And here you are thinking the state is making bank over your traffic citation and that they're going to spend over a year trying to figure out a way to try and convict you! Will they make an effort? Sure they will! In fact, if a traffic infraction is, by law, a crime (and IT IS), we ALL hope they will try to prosecute ALL those who break the law!

If you were to take the time to look into how much each municipality is netting out of the $495 citation, you might find that most will net about 20%... Yeah, some actually get up to 75%.... others as low as 7%. And this would apply for all traffic infraction matters. What most people forget is that the same municipality is also under contract with the RLC operator and since the law prohibits that contract from being based on the number of citations, it has to get paid whether they issue 1 citation or 12693 citations every month.

But guess what, while the city and the operator can actually control how many citations are issued, they cannot control how many violations are committed!

Who is in control of how much revenue is generated for traffic citations? Think about it...

You are the source of that revenue stream. You control whether you contribute or not! So why do people take pot shots at the city for legally operating a system for traffic control? A system that penalizes those who are convicted in a court of law?

Oh, and that "net" from the $495 citation is only a percentage of the BASE FINE which is typically about $35 for most offenses.

That's very interesting--I honestly didn't know how the financial end of this worked. Usually all the PR you hear about red light cameras is how cities seem to be using them more to generate revenue than anything else, so I just figured the worst.

And if they do end up citing me, fair enough: they are correct to try to prosecute those who break the law and I don't fault them for that. Doesn't mean I won't legally try to fight it though.

Quote:

---

Quoting holstein

---

That's very interesting--I honestly didn't know how the financial end of this worked. Usually all the PR you hear about red light cameras is how cities seem to be using them more to generate revenue than anything else, so I just figured the worst.

---

Sort of undermines the credibility of ANY part of ANY claim of ANY of the groups who are opposed to RLCs, does it not...

Case in point, before the city of Los Angeles decided to shut down its program, the city council authorized an audit by City Controller to examine the cost-benefit relationship of the city's program... Turned out that the revenue was somewhere near $3 million... Costs were somewhere around $4.5 million... So while some groups were crying about constitutionality, effectiveness, legality of the associated contracts and whatever issues different groups had with RLCs, while some are still to this day boasting about how "they shut down the program" the city council voted to not renew its contract with the operator based upon one basic mathematical equation:

Revenue - Cost = Gain/(Loss)
$3,000,000 - $4,500,000 = - ($1,500,000)

While I will not deny that fine amounts in this state are of the highest in the nation, we have to also keep in mind that we are the ONLY state where speed enforcement and the related rules, laws and regulation were enacted in such a way to not only discourage making financial gain as part of the motivation behind enforcing one major category of traffic violations, speeding, but to prohibit the issuing of citations and/or cause the dismissal of any that are issued under "questionable methods".

Yes, it is the same state legislature that enacted, outlawed and still maintains speed trap laws, that subsequently enacted and still maintains the laws governing traffic signals and the manner those systems are established, controlled, maintained, enforced and any resulting violations prosecuted.
If this state's legislature intended on making revenue a goal for the manner with which our traffic laws are enforced, then we would not be living in the one -and only- state (as far as I know) that prohibits speed enforcement in ways that might promote a little more revenue for local authorities. There is not a state in the union that (in theory) puts municipalities and the citing authorities through a set of specific requirements that are simply unheard of in other states (or in other countries for that matter). So does it make sense for the legislature to continue to express its abhorrence for revenue generation by way of speed enforcement only to turn around and allow it by way of RLC violations? I don't see how that would work!

Quote:

---

Quoting holstein

---

Doesn't mean I won't legally try to fight it though.

---

Right, you did mention up top that you would hire an attorney to handle it for you... This time I am going to bring up generating revenue, if you don't mind... Simply because you would not mind and voluntarily would hand out money to an attorney But not for the state/county/city...

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Right, you did mention up top that you would hire an attorney to handle it for you... This time I am going to bring up generating revenue, if you don't mind... Simply because you would not mind and voluntarily would hand out money to an attorney But not for the state/county/city...

---

Hey, you're entitled to your POV so it doesn't bother me.

You're not far off the mark though: it seems like in general that a lot of people balk at handing that money to the state, etc. for tickets, but are willing to pay legal fees that could easily exceed the fine. Myself included, apparently.

Quote:

---

Quoting holstein

---

Hey, you're entitled to your POV so it doesn't bother me.

---

You are free to read it however which way you want but I did not post my POV, in fact, my guess is you wouldn't want to read my point of view. Most of what I posted here are FACTS!

Quote:

---

Quoting holstein

---

You're not far off the mark though: it seems like in general that a lot of people balk at handing that money to the state, etc. for tickets, but are willing to pay legal fees that could easily exceed the fine. Myself included, apparently.

---

Your money, your case (if you do end up getting cited) and ultimately, your decision as to how to handle it. But to that effect, here is one point of view; I truly believe that one's guilt or innocence is not predicated upon whether they have an attorney or not. It is based upon the evidence against him/her and in this case, a picture would be worth a thousand word, where every word is worth approximately 49.5 cents... For a total of approximately $495 that you might have to end up paying the state in addition to multiples of that which you would have to pay the attorney.

And for one last set of FACTS, you should also understand that the base fine for a violation of VC 21453(a) is $100, and after adding the statutory penalties and assessments, it adds up to $495. While there are no guarantees, you might see a slight fine reduction if you were to choose to plead guilty at the arraignment. Your indication that you will be hiring an attorney is part of what will obviously be a not guilty plea and a request for trial. And with what will likely be clear and convincing evidence against you, there really isn't much that an attorney can do for you. But in addition to forking over at minimum, 3 times that full fine amount to an attorney who cannot guarantee you an outcome one way or the other, you no longer qualify for a fine reduction simply because by law, the court can no longer reduce the fine amount, VC section 42001.15 sets a statutory fine after a conviction at $100. It cannot be reduced no matter who is standing beside you.

42001.15.

Every person convicted of an infraction for a violation of subdivision (a) or (c) of Section 21453, subdivision (c) of Section 21454, or subdivision (a) of Section 21457 shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100).

Good luck to you either way!