Quote Quoting cdwjava
View Post
Where do you get this from? I fail to find this in the Sacramento County Court's rules. Is this on some informational form at the courthouse?

EDIT: Okay ... after a few searches, I found it. http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/traffic/d...eclaration.pdf

I suppose this is one of those things that will stand until challenged. Keep in mind that VC 40902 provides that they "shall, by rule" provide a means for a trial by declaration. I suppose it is an arguable assumption that the court may provide for certain conditions in those rules. At least until this is successfully challenged, it appears that the Sacramento County Superior Court will require people challenging their identity in a red light camera matter to appear in court. I suppose this may be because when they appear the court can direct the defendant to identify the driver ... whether the court does this or not, I can't say as I have never witnessed it, and when I worked there they did not have red light cameras. But, it's a possibility.
On what basis would the court direct the defendant to make such a declaration? The matter relevant in the pending case is whether the defendant can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...not whether the defendant knows who actually was driving. (Not that a court can't act beyond the scope of its legitimate authority...)

Apparently, the Commission of Judicial Performance won't do anything about it so my guess is that an appeal beyond the Appellate Division will be required...or a public outcry.

Regardless of any of this, the policy is totally illegitimate. If there is concern that a defendant would improperly challenge identity at TBD, the local rule could require that the defendant provide a recent photo (as part of the sworn TBD statement) which could be used for identity comparison.

Then again, why let an easy solution get in the way of the money collected.