Contesting a Failure to Stop at a Red Light Ticket

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

I got a "Failure to Stop at Red Light" violation. It was a right turn and the photo show the car break light was on. So I'm guessing he didn't stop for 3 second rule or something.

I was not the driver so I did some googling and got to this site and read through highwayrobbery.net.
I went and requested a trail by declaration hoping to give a picture of my driver license along with the photo that was caught on camera. I'm female and driver was male so easily distinguishable .

So I got the package send from the court and I'm not that good with English so I got confuse on some parts of it. Hoping someone here can help me clarify a few things.

http://i.imgur.com/7t8hmNb.jpg

I'm trying to prove I am not the driver and it said "you are contesting that you were the driver, a trial by declaration is not available".
Does that mean I can't do a trial by declaration?
Also it said to get trial by declaration, I need to complete Red Light Camera Statement Regarding Identification which is shown on the second image.

http://i.imgur.com/HTmLb3f.jpg
I AM contesting the allegation that I was the driver. So I shouldn't sign this right? But in order to get trial by declaration, the other message said I have to sign this. So I don't understand.

I want to prove I am not the driver so I am contesting the allegation that I was the driver. Is that right? My English is not that good so I'm confuse.

Thanks for the help.

The document indicates that you can admit to being the driver using the enclosed form, or appear in person at a hearing and deny being the driver.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The document indicates that you can admit to being the driver using the enclosed form, or appear in person at a hearing and deny being the driver.

---

The part you underlined in red seems like misinformation, indicating that you might be required to identify the driver to get TBD? If that's true, did the documentation say what statute requires you to name or identify the driver in order to use TBD? I've never heard of that before. Well, I've heard of various threats and tactics in order to get you to identify a driver, just not valid legal requirements for you to do so.

Did you receive a Notice to Appear or was it something else. If it's a Notice to Appear, it will have a time and place on it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The document indicates that you can admit to being the driver using the enclosed form, or appear in person at a hearing and deny being the driver.

---

Yeah that was what I got from it but base on what I read from online, it was possible to fight the violation with trial by declaration but the document state otherwise. So I only have the court option?

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

The part you underlined in red seems like misinformation, indicating that you might be required to identify the driver to get TBD? If that's true, did the documentation say what statute requires you to name or identify the driver in order to use TBD? I've never heard of that before. Well, I've heard of various threats and tactics in order to get you to identify a driver, just not valid legal requirements for you to do so.

Did you receive a Notice to Appear or was it something else. If it's a Notice to Appear, it will have a time and place on it.

---

I received a notice to appear but then I send a request for TBD and got this packet. Now I have a due date to send the bail along with completion of the TBD. I got the TBD along with those 2 pages. I don't think there was any statute.

I can do the TBD but the 1st page clearly state I have to admit that I'm the driver but then that defeat the purpose of me doing TBD. I'm trying to prove I'm not the driver. So I guess I only have the court option?

Quote:

---

Quoting Arturia

---

Yeah that was what I got from it but base on what I read from online, it was possible to fight the violation with trial by declaration but the document state otherwise. So I only have the court option?



I received a notice to appear but then I send a request for TBD and got this packet. Now I have a due date to send the bail along with completion of the TBD. I got the TBD along with those 2 pages. I don't think there was any statute.

I can do the TBD but the 1st page clearly state I have to admit that I'm the driver but then that defeat the purpose of me doing TBD. I'm trying to prove I'm not the driver. So I guess I only have the court option?

---

What the first page says about your options doesn't mean anything. What means something is the statute. What means something is the California Rules of Court 4.210. I think if you read that and CVC 21455.5, you'll find that there is no requirement for you to identify the driver. If you do find such a requirement, let me know. Whoever alleged that you were the driver, if they signed a statement based on information and belief, probably committed perjury in doing so, especially if your name is commonly a female name and the driver pictured in male. In other words, there is no information to lead a person to reasonably believe that you were the driver and the person signing the statement of affirmation did not examine the DMV photo on file to determine that there was any resemblance between your photo and that of the driver. Unfortunately, this nonsense goes on because of the laziness of public employees and because it's not correctly challenged in court.

For the court to impose an additional identification requirement in photo red light cases is a violation of the rules of court, which are applicable in all California Courts. Therefore, you should write to the Presiding Judge asking whether this requirement is legally correct. If you do this, DON'T miss any time deadlines for TBD while waiting for a response. File you TBD on time or make sure you get an extension at least 5 days in advance of your due date. If the court sticks to the identification requirement or convicts because of that, then request TDN and file a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

As you indicate, an admission that you're the driver pretty much messes up the TBD, unless you have technical defenses after that. That too, is a requirement beyond CRC 4.210. Furthermore, it would be admissible at TDN, if you went to court after that. Keep in mind, even if you get convicted at TBD, you can still go into court after that for TDN. Have you timed the yellow light interval and determined whether your city's contract is illegal? Those are a couple of easy things to do up front and either would be part of a defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

For the court to impose an additional identification requirement in photo red light cases is a violation of the rules of court, which are applicable in all California Courts. Therefore, you should write to the Presiding Judge asking whether this requirement is legally correct. If you do this, DON'T miss any time deadlines for TBD while waiting for a response. File you TBD on time or make sure you get an extension at least 5 days in advance of your due date. If the court sticks to the identification requirement or convicts because of that, then request TDN and file a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

---

Thanks for the great reply!
I'll write to the judge. So it should be send as
His name
Sacramento Superior Court
Address of the court.??

Once again thanks for the help. I'll keep this updated.

Get the name of the Presiding Judge online. Should be:

Hon. Judge Tom Legal Beagle
Name of Court
Address

(or whatever the correct name is). Hon. is short for Honorable and the judge should always be addressed as Honorable or Your Honor. Sometimes during trial, the judge is referred to as "the court."

Update
I have not received a response from anyone from Court. I left my name, number and email on the letter. All I know is it was deliver and received on March 10. Don't know if he had read it or not.

I'm thinking of doing the TBD ignoring those 2 pages and let them decide if that TBD is valid or not. If it's invalid, they'll surely send me something back saying I have to redo it or something right?

Quote:

---

Quoting Arturia

---

Update
I have not received a response from anyone from Court. I left my name, number and email on the letter. All I know is it was deliver and received on March 10. Don't know if he had read it or not.

I'm thinking of doing the TBD ignoring those 2 pages and let them decide if that TBD is valid or not. If it's invalid, they'll surely send me something back saying I have to redo it or something right?

---

Keep in mind that whatever you write to the judge, your time frames regarding the actual violation don't change. You need to make sure you get extensions or that you respond properly requesting TBD, etc. while all the other mumbo jumbo is going on.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Keep in mind that whatever you write to the judge, your time frames regarding the actual violation don't change. You need to make sure you get extensions or that you respond properly requesting TBD, etc. while all the other mumbo jumbo is going on.

---

So they send me back my TBD because I wrote in my statement that I am not the driver so they send a form for me to identify the driver.

What now?

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting Arturia

---

Final update.
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 future reference, no one can deny you arraignment, least of all a clerk. You just need to stand up for yourself.
And if you tell the judge it wasn't you, and there is no cop to testify otherwise, he must look at the picture. If it does not fit, he must acquit. This is not contingent on your willingness to snitch on someone else.

Quote:

---

Quoting kokobill

---

For future reference, no one can deny you arraignment, least of all a clerk. You just need to stand up for yourself.
And if you tell the judge it wasn't you, and there is no cop to testify otherwise, he must look at the picture. If it does not fit, he must acquit. This is not contingent on your willingness to snitch on someone else.

---

This is not entirely true ... The JUDGE can ask the defendant who it was in the car, and the defendant had best consider his reply carefully lest he or she be found in contempt of court. While it is likely that a defendant registered owner of a car may get acquitted if the picture is clearly not his, the court can also demand that the defendant identify the person in the photo. What consequences there might be for declining to answer is the big question.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

This is not entirely true ... The JUDGE can ask the defendant who it was in the car, and the defendant had best consider his reply carefully lest he or she be found in contempt of court. While it is likely that a defendant registered owner of a car may get acquitted if the picture is clearly not his, the court can also demand that the defendant identify the person in the photo. What consequences there might be for declining to answer is the big question.

---

It would be highly inappropriate for the judge to ask that in this circumstance. I happen to have observed quite a few of these, and it has never happened. In fact, some judges will dismiss these off hand saying words to the effect of "I don't find the picture to be proof beyond reasonable doubt."

If the judge did ask, though, the safe answer exists, and it is "I don't know."

Quote:

---

Quoting kokobill

---

It would be highly inappropriate for the judge to ask that in this circumstance. I happen to have observed quite a few of these, and it has never happened. In fact, some judges will dismiss these off hand saying words to the effect of "I don't find the picture to be proof beyond reasonable doubt."

---

Just because you have never seen something does not mean that it either a. cannot happen or b. has not happened.

Quote:

---

Quoting kokobill

---

If the judge did ask, though, the safe answer exists, and it is "I don't know."

---

And if you do know, that is perjury if you are under oath.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Just because you have never seen something does not mean that it either a. cannot happen or b. has not happened.



And if you do know, that is perjury if you are under oath.

---

No one can prove that. And no one will bother trying.

Again, you are a peculiar one.

Quote:

---

Quoting kokobill

---

No one can prove that. And no one will bother trying.

Again, you are a peculiar one.

---

I'm sorry. Forgive me for not recommending that someone commit a crime by lying under oath, regardless of whether it can be proven or not. We don't do that here.

Quote:

---

Quoting kokobill

---

It would be highly inappropriate for the judge to ask that in this circumstance. I happen to have observed quite a few of these, and it has never happened. In fact, some judges will dismiss these off hand saying words to the effect of "I don't find the picture to be proof beyond reasonable doubt."

---

Sure, it happens. I've even seen it! You may think it inappropriate

Quote:

---

If the judge did ask, though, the safe answer exists, and it is "I don't know."

---

Great advice ... change an infraction punishable by a fine to a misdemeanor punishable with jail time. You really think that a judge is simply going to accept that answer? I can foresee the follow-up being, "So, when was the car stolen?"

A better course of action might be to politely decline to answer and see if the judge will push the issue or not.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Sure, it happens. I've even seen it! You may think it inappropriate


Great advice ... change an infraction punishable by a fine to a misdemeanor punishable with jail time. You really think that a judge is simply going to accept that answer? I can foresee the follow-up being, "So, when was the car stolen?"

A better course of action might be to politely decline to answer and see if the judge will push the issue or not.

---

Like I said, perjury cannot be proven. More than one member of the household may be allowed to drive your car, and the picture may not be very good. And I hope you are not going to moralize about that. This hypothetical judge is trying to make you give up a family member to an arbitrary infraction of rolling thru the right turn on a red light that harmed no one. Being held in contempt for declining to answer or prosecuted for perjury if answering "I don't know?" It will never happen.

But you are probably right that declining to answer is the better way. That's what I would do.