A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento—if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham, 38, of running a red light. “Sometimes you can fight city hall,” said Graham. “Now those bozos will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me for the ticket.”
On March 2, 2008, Graham’s 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead, a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter “R” which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
“Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation, the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the people to meet their burden of proof,” Presiding Judge, Maryanne G. Gilliard, wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham’s case, Officer Holt, said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician had maintained the camera properly and that there were no malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to challenge this claim as hearsay.
“We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the technician did,” Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham’s citation showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic facing a red—not a green—light.
“Given the evidence adduced at appellant’s trial, this panel finds that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant’s entry into the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,” Judge concluded. “Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does not support appellant’s conviction. The conviction is reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint.”
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will have precedential value. California courts have protected red light camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate California law.
As this intersection is somewhat near my home, I shall test this theory out. Or not.
I am not against intersection camcorders. But do them properly at least. I.e. four camcorders in total; one on each branch, shooting videos instead of still images. Oh, use HD camcorders.
I think TTAC should put up its own “red light” camera and issue tickets. Then they could forget about how to “get traction in a monetized channel.”
A T T E N T I O N
There is a major take-away here you may not spot: Notice the defendant demanded the court ruling be PUBLISHED:
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will have precedential value. California courts have protected red light camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished…
In the United States of America, the loosing party can demand the court ruling against them be buried (unpublished) so that it cannot be used against them again. This allows them to continue business as usual the same as if they were not found guilty. This is a horrible miscarriage of justice some courts feel free to dispense.
Kiss the ground that David Graham walks on that he is aware of this practice and has stepped up to block this travesty from happening.
If YOU are ever in a battle against pure evil and win, be aware that you likely also need to fight evil attempting to hide its loss.
Incredible that we have a “justice system” that allows such a travesty as “not publishing findings” if what you describe is accorate, CarPerson.
I’d say that reading that, it simply confirms what many of us already are thinking, and increasingly, saying out loud.
Time for another revolution.
We need to start from the foundation again.
Perhaps this time, we the people should add a few relevant lessons to the Constitution.
Here are a few of my ideas:
Election campaigns in the REPUBLIC are to be started six weeks ahead of the election date; no earlier.
Go back to the basis of having only responsible people vote; the right to vote is not given simply with an age of majority. People must have served for at least a year in service of the state in which they live (with good pay), such as working in temporary “quasi government” positions, perhaps just out of high school. No mandate to do so, but no voting rights without it.
Go back to parents having responsibility for the schooling, teaching and cultural teaching of their children. If they choose to hire a private school, fine. As things are now, “state” schools (actually, “federal” schools) are nothing but places to brain-wash children to the “PC mindset” and one certain worldview. Certainly increasingly and anti-American, and anti-Christian/anti-Semitic worldview. (Look at the comments on main stream TV news re: Israel, or about how religion is portrayed on TV shows). With parents paying for education, this means no property taxes are necessary.
Besides which, if you or I don’t pay property taxes, what happens to your property? It’s taken by the “government”. So, whose property is it, ultimately, then? The “government” of course.
It’s all so much a bunch of lies; “they” want us to think we’re powerless against them, yet the US Constitution declares that WE THE PEOPLE are the government, and policitians are our servants, hired to do a job on our behalf (that is what a Republic does – the United States is not supposed to be, nor was it ever supposed to be, a “democracy”).
“I pledge allegiance to the United States and to the REPUBLIC….” remember that from school, folks?
clam down guys. In Ohio unpublished decisions are available in data bases and can be searched and used. I don’t know CA, but I would be surprised if it were very different.
This is the appellate division of the lowest court, its decisions in my state are rarely published. All appellate court decisions and supreme court decisions are published.
Also, I read the ruling and I disagree that this will affect that many cases. Unlike most case where someone runs a new red light (red before crossing line, red while in intersection), in this case, the guy jumped a stale red so that it was green when in the intersection. I bet most cases are the first type.
@ mjposner
Incorrect. 82% of camera tickets in Sacramento happen well within the all red period, just like Graham’s ticket.
@ Robert Schwartz
Unpublished decisions in California may not be cited our used in any court proceeding.
I have a personal interest in this. My wife just got a red light camera citation for $436. I’m an attorney licensed in California, and will fight the ticket. But from what I’ve heard, it’s hard going. Safety is not the issue. There’s a lot of revenue at stake.
But I don’t think this case will help. The opinion is quite limited. Two pictures were put into evidence. Neither showed what the light was when the car entered the intersection. The court did not accept the police argument that the system showing an “R” proved that the car entered the intersection against a red light.
That’s not enough to invalidate 80% of all red light camera tickets. In fact, it’s not surprising that the court did not publish its decision. It turns on the facts of that particular case, and has little use elsewhere.
Unpublished decisions in California may not be cited or used in any court proceeding.
Give this man a cigar. This is in fact a fact. If unpublished, the prior ruling does not exist in the eyes of the court. You start from ground zero even though the other party has already been proven wrong in a court of law.
In a situation I’m too familiar with, women were picking men’s names out of a phone book as the biological father when signing up for welfare. This was approved by the prosecutor. After the time to appeal was exhausted, the guy was notified he had been identified as a child’s father, hauled off to jail, and forced to sign garnishment papers for 18 years of child support (“ATM” Dad). The State wanted their welfare money back from any man they could get it out of.
Thousands of trials and huge amounts in legal fees were spent to right this injustice, all to no avail. Judges kept ruling the appeal was not timely and that was that. The fact that the appeal was late because the prosecutor made sure time had expired before making his move was never addressed. The estimates were in LA County well over 80,000 men were so entrapped.
A very brave group of appellate judges broke from past adjudications and overruled the lower court. The State of California showed absolutely no concern that the guy was picked a random from a phone book (that was handled by not allowing any DNA testing) for wrongly being held accountable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support but was horrified at the potential loss of the reimbursements to the state.
The prosecutor sued to block publishing the ruling. As the suit was being reviewed, the prosecutor went to the legislature to get something passed to block the appellate court from publishing the decision. He was frighteningly close to succeeding when the forces of Good prevailed at the 11th hour against some mightly long odds. See Los Angeles v. Navarro (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 246.
It was not just the win in court but the fact that it was published that put an end to “Phone Book” Dads in the State of California.
That’s how I learned about Published and Unpublished court rulings…
All appellate court decisions and supreme court decisions are published.
No. Not true. Exactly backwards. It’s the appellate and supreme court decisions where the battle to keep unfavorable rulings unpublished occurs.
You are correct, however, that Supeior Court decisions are rarely published.
The spam filter zapped the response and edited response giving the court case for the Los Angeles-Navarro (2004) case for the above.
It also trapped the explanation that ”Published” and ”Unpublished” have a special meaning when referring to court rulings.
It isn’t whether or not the case appears in court records or databases. It’s more like an “Official” and “Unofficial” classification.
Leave it to a lawyer to figure out how to make an official court ruling unofficial by classifying it as “unpublished”.
This has a lot in common when a company is sued for something, looses, then has the court seal the records to conceal their guilt and prevent anyone from seeing the information. If you ever win against a party that wants the records sealed, add a 50% premium to the settlement. Secrecy has a value and a price.
@menno
The bad old days when voting was considered a privilege excluded African Americans and women. I’m sure your world view would be welcomed back in that society. In Franklin’s day, prior to the revolution there was exactly one voter in Pennsylvania, and he gave his name to the state. I’m sure you’re all for such a voting privilege.
In our modern society, I’m glad libertarians like yourself are a tiny fraction of the population and thus completely sidelined.
There’s nothing wrong with critical thinking and analysis, which is about the only thing I want an education to impart. Learning facts by rote assumes that authority is correct, like when I was taught there are exactly 9 planets – no more and no less. That this is *wrong* is what is wrong with modern education and *that* needs fixing, not whether it should be a state education or what the standard curriculum should be. Learning about the subject and making your own mind up is vital for a modern democracy.
If you check out EU news sources, or even (aghast!) checked out a wide variety of Arab and Israeli sources and made up your own mind, you’d realize just how little actual “news” filters down to the average American. Being ill informed does not make you pro-Jewish / pro-Israeli, it keeps you ignorant and unable to form a valid opinion.
I have my own opinion of what is going on in that region, but I want *you* to do the research to figure it out for yourself. For the record, I have Jewish family and work with an Israeli, so please don’t accuse me of being anti-semitic, for I’m not – about as far as you can get from it, in fact. There’s a huge difference between being anti-Israeli government and anti-semitic.
Education is a basic human right for all. The more educated folks are, the better care they take of themselves, they live longer, they are wealthier, they are generally more tolerant and less religious (which is a good thing), far less likely to smoke, and women take control of their family sizes, which improves the equality outcomes for women and their general health. There are no downsides to a state education.
Everyone, no matter what means, should be eligible for an education supported by the state. This should not be from property taxes, but from general revenue as it is so vital.
Without taxes, we wouldn’t have roads, and all the necessary infrastructure required to maintain a civil society. Yes, there’s pork and waste, like a huge military that can fight most of the planet at once and “win”, but what’s “waste” to me, is not “waste” to others. If you want less government, there’s plenty of failed states with governments that would suit your tastes, like Democratic Republic of Congo or Somalia or Zimbabwe. The average life span in one of these hell holes is 39, as long you’re not killed in a genocide or get HIV and can’t be treated as they have no civil society and thus no health care at any price. Good luck with your “liberties” there! At least you will not be paying much “tax” to support wasteful things like roads, health care, or your local library.
That’s why in a republic, you choose your representative, who represents you. If you don’t like how that person worked out, every four years you get a vote to choose someone else.
I have just gotten one of these automated red light tickets here in Los Angeles; the very first traffic citation I’ve ever received in my 23-year driving history. I’d been driving within the speed limit, but it came down to a split-second decision to brake hard or accelerate through the intersection. I chose the latter.
I’d been anticipating the ticket in the mail since I’d seen the flashing light go off as I crossed into the intersection. Imagine my surprise when I opened the summons & discovered that the fine is $435! Embarrassed as I am to admit it, $435 is more than I earn in one week. Not only that, but if I want to maintain a spotless driving record in order to preserve my insurance rate, I’ll have to pay an additional $100 or so to attend an online driving school.
Running red lights is dangerous and I admit I made a mistake; I should pay a fine. Four hundred thirty-five dollars however is unconscionable. What makes it all the more bitter to swallow is that I’m reading online that a large chunk of my $435 will be pocketed by the entrepreneurial camera company–who’ve negotiated a deal with the city of Los Angeles to keep the ‘yellow’ light as short as possible in order to protect their investment/ensure their profit–and not to building parks, beefing up the police force, maintaining roads, etc. How disingenuous is it that this is driven by financial greed & not safety?
For those of you who will read this and say, “If you don’t want to pay fines then don’t run red lights,” I agree with you. However, I should not be docked a week-and-a-half of my salary for being 0.4 seconds late on a red light! The punishment here does not fit the crime.