Contesting a Failure to Stop at a Red Light Ticket

It sounds like your local court doesn't care about it's obligation to follow the California Rules of Court which are binding on all courts in the state. I'd write to the Presiding Judge in the court and ask whether he has considered that his court's failure to process a TBD under those rules is something that he agrees with. (Also, send a copy of your letter to the DA so it's not considered Ex Parte communication.) Then, write to the California Commission on Judicial Performance http://cjp.ca.gov/ or file a complaint online.

The failure to process this TBD in accordance with California Law is disgusting and illegal. The TBD is available for this infraction as a matter of law, not opinion, and there is no authority for this local court to add rules or requirements at the local level.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

there is no authority for this local court to add rules or requirements at the local level.

---

They would probably disagree:

Rule 4.210. Traffic court-trial by written declaration

(h) Additional forms and procedures

The clerk may approve and prescribe forms, time limits, and procedures that are not in conflict with or not inconsistent with the statute or this rule.

(j) Local forms

A court may adopt additional forms as may be required to implement this rule and the court's local procedures not inconsistent with this rule.

Nothing in the rules of court nor the cvc governing red light tickets prohibits a court asking a defendant who says they were not the driver, who the driver was. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, absent a law or case law prohibiting something....there is nothing illegal with doing so.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

They would probably disagree:

Rule 4.210. Traffic court-trial by written declaration

(h) Additional forms and procedures

The clerk may approve and prescribe forms, time limits, and procedures that are not in conflict with or not inconsistent with the statute or this rule.

(j) Local forms

A court may adopt additional forms as may be required to implement this rule and the court's local procedures not inconsistent with this rule.

Nothing in the rules of court nor the cvc governing red light tickets prohibits a court asking a defendant who says they were not the driver, who the driver was. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, absent a law or case law prohibiting something....there is nothing illegal with doing so.

---

As I've pointed out before (ad nauseum) there are just some courts that don't follow the rules with regard to TBWD and this is yet another example. There is nothing about the identification of the actual driver that is "required" (that's the word used in the Rules of Court) in order to implement TBWD. The identification of the actual driver is optional in terms of TBWD, and almost every other county is able to accomplish TBWD without such identification required at that stage.

Most defendants if not the actual driver can easily prove innocence with a current photo or a CDL photo. While the defendant will usually know the identity of the driver, they may not, and in that case, their TBD rights will be violated by this nonsense. Requiring the defendant to name an actual perpetrator is not something allowed at any level of the judicial process. Not felony, not misdemeanor, not infraction.

Unless the identification of the actual driver is REQUIRED to process the TBWD, failure to process TBWD in the absence of such identification is a violation of due process and is not allowed by the California Rules of Court.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Unless the identification of the actual driver is REQUIRED to process the TBWD, failure to process TBWD in the absence of such identification is a violation of due process and is not allowed by the California Rules of Court.

---

Did you not see what I posted from the TBWD court rules? It clearly states that local courts may add forms, time limits and procedures that are not in conflict. As the rules say nothing about not allowing to ask who was driving, it would NOT be in conflict. The traffic court rules in Rule 4.210 establish the minimum requirements. Notice that word - minimum? That means not the maximum, so it is not the end-all of the rule.

If you believe it is, post your proof. Post actual case law or statute, not just your own ramblings, that show they are not allowed to ask for that information.

I have no idea whether there is case law on this. If there is, it's proof that at least one defendant and one judge agreed with me on the silliness of the requirement to identify the driver and that before that, all we had to go on the CRC 4.210. In other words, case law isn't required to make a successful argument in court.

"A court may adopt additional forms as may be required to implement this rule and the court's local procedures not inconsistent with this rule." My argument is that the forms and requirements allowed are the ones "required" to implement the rule. There is no way that identification of the actual driver is required to execute TBWD. The court could required that the TBWD be mailed from China as well and that wouldn't conflict with CRC 4.210 but I doubt such a requirement would stand as a basis to deny TBWD and the defendant's Due Process Rights. If CRC 4.210 allowed the court to adopt any requirements or procedures that are not specifically prohibited by the rule, regardless of the necessity of such requirements or procedures, there is no limit to how difficult the process could be made.

Furthermore, the information regarding actual driver identity is totally irrelevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence. It's a matter of police investigation and not a matter the court should be interested in.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

yada yada yada

---

So in other words, you have nothing.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

It's a matter of police investigation and not a matter the court should be interested in.

---

The court should be interested in identifying the true criminal when a crime is committed. Why waste time and money on an investigation when you can ask someone who probably knows?

In terms of case law, I don't know of any. That means the issue has never been pursued, at least in higher level courts, or that I don't know the outcome in that case. You don't have any case law either, apparently. The fact that there may not be case law really doesn't say anything about the merits of the argument.

The court and the LEA are from two different and independent branches of government. They don't work hand in glove as you apparently want them to. Just so I'm sure about your legal theory here, I'm assuming that you'd apply your idea to all levels of criminal offenses? Like felonies too?

Basically, your position (and that of the Sacramento Court) is that a defendant must at least one right under California Law unless they will identify the actual driver.

I'll be the judge for a minute...
"Mr. Defendant, it appears your DNA doesn't quite match but the court has reason to believe that you know who actually killed the victim. Therefore, you're going to identify the killer or you're going to prison for life!" Or how about the following jury instruction: "If you find that the Defendant is not guilty of the crime itself but knows who is, you may enter a guilty verdict."

It is a very dangerous precedent being set by the court here.

Final update.
Rather sending mails, I went to for the arraignment approach. It was fairly simple, I plead not guilty-identity and the judge ask the girl to pull up my citation and the judge saw the image was in fact not me and dismiss the case.
I had to pretend I don't speak English in order to get the law clerk to back off on trying to get me to identify the driver and let me do the arraignment.

For Sacramento area, it is probably useless to do the Trial by Declaration if you are going for the the driver is not me defense.

Thanks for the help guys.

thanks for the update

So the old "I speak only Swahili" trick worked, eh? Interesting.