This is the Home / Defects page.

WELCOME TO HIGHWAYROBBERY.NET

Info & Advice about California Red Light Camera Tickets - - for Free!

Opened Sept. 23, 2002.  Content updated Jan. 2, 2009.

"Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts.  Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws."
The Appellate Department, in People vs. Goulet

From the Editor of this Website

Photo Enforcement Defects

DEFECT # 1:  DRIVER'S FACE PHOTO

In California, photo enforcement tickets can put a point on your driving record.  So, they have to have a picture of your face.  A picture of your license plate doesn't establish that you did the crime - it only establishes that your car did it, and anyone could have been driving your car.

A bad "face" photo - blurry, or picturing a driver whose name is not on the ticket - is a common reason for dismissal of red light camera tickets.

(If you have not received a ticket with photos on it - all you have received is a "Courtesy Notice" from the Court, or a notice from a collection agency - you will need to phone the issuing police department and ask them for a copy of the ticket.)

Important:  Is It a Fake / Snitch Ticket?

Does your "ticket" have the address of the Court on it?  If it doesn't, or if it says, "Do not contact the court," it's not really a ticket at all.  It's a police trick!  See the section entitled "Police Going Too Far..." on the Your Ticket page.

Is It Someone Else in the Photo?

If your name is on the ticket but it's not your face in the photo, you don't have to identify the person driving.  For more info on how to handle this situation, go to the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.

Photo Blurry?

If it is your face in the photo, but it's blurry, read on...

Vehicle Code Section 210 requires that the photo be "clear."  Unfortunately, a judge evidently has a lot of latitude as to what "clear" means. 

In most cities, on the day of trial (not arraignment), many tickets are dismissed "first thing" at the request of the police, due to poor quality face photos.  ("First thing" meaning right after the judge comes in, or right after the defendant has been called forward for his trial.)  If your photo is very blurry, plead not guilty, come in for a trial - maybe your ticket will be dismissed.  If it's not dismissed "first thing," the ticket still could be dismissed during the trial once the judge gets a look at the photo.  To convict you, the judge needs to be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it is you.  But you need to know that while some judges are likely to reject bad photos, others will readily accept a photo with only a fraction of a blurry face visible behind the rear view mirror and sunglasses.  If the photo is blurry and the judge hasn't noticed that (or if the officer hasn't shown the photo to the judge), bring it to the judge's attention.  Don't say, "It's not me," as that would be perjury if you know it actually is you.  (See FAQ # 21 on the Links page for more information about perjury.)  Simply ask the judge, "Are you sure it's me?" Or you could say, more formally, "I request dismissal of this ticket as there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I was driving the vehicle."  The preceding two phrases are not testimony, so give you the added advantage that if the judge asks you, "Well then, who is it?" you can tell him that you have not agreed to testify.

At trial, some defendants with blurry face photos have successfully raised "reasonable doubt" in the judge's mind by showing him a snapshot of them together with similar-looking family members or friends.

At one trial (Hawthorne, Oct. 19, 2004), the defendant argued that the photo could be any one of a number of his employees who had access to the truck.  The photo wasn't totally blurry - the officer quipped, "Do you have a twin brother?" and the judge said, "I think it is you - I see shades and a nose."  But then the judge (a retired judge brought in temporarily) said, after taking another look at a blow-up of the photo, "If he murdered somebody, I don't see why I should treat a traffic case any differently."  He then dismissed the case.

The burden of proof (the job of convincing the judge it's you) is on the People (the officer and his photos).  (See the discussion of the law in the "It's Not Me!" section of the Your Ticket page.)  You're not required to help the officer convict you - the Fifth Amendment says, "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."  You should (politely) invoke that right if the judge asks questions like,  "Is that you in there?" or "Do you recognize yourself?" (For more info about remaining silent, read the Fourth Step of the "It's Not Me!" section.)
Sometimes, the officer forgets to display the face photo to the judge.  If that happens, wait until he finishes all his testimony and the judge signals you that it is your turn, then make a motion to dismiss for lack of proof that you were driving the car.

The original face photo displayed at your trial will be clearer than the copy you received in the mail or saw on the Internet.  If you are trying to decide whether to fight the ticket based on a blurry photo and would like to see how good the "original" is, call the phone number on the ticket (often in the upper corner on the back) and make an appointment to go to the police department and look at the photos.  At the appointment, ask the officer to blow up the face photo, just like he does at a trial.  (For a preview of what your visit to the police department might be like, read "Contact the Police," which is part of Step One of the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.)
If it's not convenient for you to visit the PD to view the original photos, or the police are unwilling to show them to you, you can use Discovery to get copies of the photos mailed or emailed to you!

Did Someone Turn Your Name In?

If the ticket (now in your name) was originally issued in someone else's name, and that person filled-out the affidavit form and supplied your name to the police, their written affidavit identifying of you as the driver cannot be used against you in court.  And I have never seen an officer/prosecutor even try to do so, because it would so clearly be hearsay.  If he was really desperate to convict you, the prosecutor would need to subpoena the person who identified you to come to court and testify in person;  I have never seen that happen, either.  See the "Were You Snitched On?" paragraph on the Your Ticket page.

Did You Turn Your Name In?

If the original "ticket" was actually a fake ticket (Snitch Ticket) issued in your name, and you filled-out the affidavit form and later received a real ticket (Notice to Appear) in the mail, your affidavit identifying yourself as the driver ordinarily could not be used against you in court, due to the Fifth Amendment.  Unless you testify that it wasn't you driving!  See the "Did You Snitch on Yourself?" paragraph on the Your Ticket page.

Face Photo Checklist

Finally, these three things bear repeating:

1.  Make sure it's not a Snitch Ticket!

2.  If it's not you in the photo, you don't have to identify the person driving.
(See the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page)

3.  But if it is you in the photo, don't say, "It's not me," as that would be perjury.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 2:  YELLOW LIGHT TOO SHORT

A tiny change in the length of the yellow can have a huge effect on the quantity of straight-thru and left turn violations.  The economic effect is so significant that some recent red light camera contracts (the one signed by Roseville in June 2008, and possibly - the wording is ambiguous - those in Citrus Heights, Corona, Bell Gardens and San Rafael) provide for a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthen the yellows.

If you were turning right, Defect # 2 won't help you.  Instead, have a look at "Churning Right Turn$" in Defect # 9, below.

Vehicle Code Section 21455.7 says that yellow lights cannot be shorter than those provided in the CalTrans Traffic Manual.  The following table shows how long they need to be for a straight-thru movement.  The minimum yellow light change interval for a left turn or right turn phase is 3.0 seconds, regardless of the speed limit.

The minimum yellow for a left or right turn is 3.0 seconds, regardless of the speed limit.

As of 2008, it is rare for a city to have its yellows set too short.

'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE

If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory.  I use it too!

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 3:
YELLOW LIGHT TOO SHORT, PER 85th PERCENTILE SPEED

On some streets, the posted speed limit has been set much lower than the actual speed of traffic.  And then that too-low speed limit has been used to set a too-short yellow.  And the too-short yellow guarantees that there will be lots of camera tickets for straight-thru violations.  If you suspect that that is what has happened in your town, please read the expanded version of this Defect.

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 3 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 3 - Expanded.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 4:
PHOTO ENFORCEMENT WARNING SIGNS TOO SMALL, ABSENT, ETC.

Vehicle Code (Section 21455.5(a)(1)) says that warning signs must be posted at each camera-equipped intersection and "visible to traffic approaching from all directions," or at all the main entrances to town "including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes."  (In a city with a large airport, I think that the airport should be considered to be a "main entrance.")  Most cities elect to post the intersections rather than the town entrances, and occasionally some forget to post all four directions at the intersection, especially when they have just made a new camera installation.  (There must be four signs even if there is only one camera monitoring one direction of traffic.)

The posting of warning signs is a "foundational" requirement - Defects # 2, # 3, # 6 and # 10 are others.

All signs must comply with CalTrans specifications:  They must be at least 30" wide and 42" inches high, they must be at least 6 feet above the pavement level (to the bottom edge of the sign), and they must be laid-out per this CalTrans design...

Please note that there is no requirement to post signs at right turns, telling you "stop before turning" or something like that.  See Sign Requirements for more details.

Remember...

A city has the option to NOT post signs at their camera-enforced intersections - they can post the entrances to town.

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 4 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 4 - Expanded.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 5:  ACS CAMERA

Defect # 5 is about problems in cities that use ACS-brand cameras.  Tickets issued using ACS cameras may be recognized by the rectangular (0.5 by 1.25 inches) black data box superimposed on the first two photos.  The data box includes the 'cat face' trademark of Gatsometer, the Dutch camera manufacturer.

(ACS photo from Beverly Hills, with added arrows)

I.

One ACS problem has been proven publicly only one time so far, in May 2003 at Whittier / Atlantic in East LA.  Nearly 3000 tickets issued at that intersection were reversed by the court.  This problem could occur with an ACS camera anywhere in the world.  (More info about the Whittier / Atlantic reversals is in the East LA section on the Camera Towns page.)

An ACS camera in your town could have this problem if either (A) or (B) exists.

(A)  The "1Y..." or "2Y..." imprint (see arrow, above) on your top photo (assuming it is more legible than the typical example above) is followed by:

(1)   " 2⁹ " or less in a 25 mph zone or for a left or right turn violation,
(2)   " 3¹ " or less in a 30 mph zone,
(3)   " 3⁵ " or less in a 35 mph zone,
    (4)   " 3⁸ " or less in a 40 mph zone, or
(5)   " 4² " or less in a 45 mph zone.

(B)  The camera has been aimed, as in the photo above, so that the signal head (see arrow, above) is visible, and the visible light you see is yellow, not red.  It's best to check a ticket with small "red time" - 1/10th or 2/10ths of a second - " R00¹ " or " R00² " in the top photo on the ticket.  See also Defect # 7, below.

If your ticket is not in color, or isn't clear enough so that you can't perform the checks above, you can call the police department and ask them what the numbers are, or go in and look at their copy of the ticket.  Their phone number should be on the back of the ticket.  (Before you go visit the police, read II., below.)

II.

Following the May 2003 ticket reversals in East LA, some cities with ACS installations added an extra camera aimed in the same direction that the driver is looking, to take an extra "forward-facing" photo, of the actual signal heads that the cited driver is facing.  But some California cities did not.  Some appeals court decisions ( Bohl and Moore) have addressed that issue.

If you go to cite-web.com to look at your ACS photos, the forward-facing photo probably will not be there - assuming one was taken.  If you really want to know, for sure, if a forward-facing photo exists for your citation, I suggest asking for Discovery.

For more information on how to read the "Late Time" or "Red Time" printed on your ticket, see the How to Read Your Late Time box in Defect # 7, below.

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 5 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 5 - Expanded.

DEFECT # 6:  CITY DIDN'T ISSUE WARNING TICKETS FOR 30 DAYS

Defect # 6 applies whenever the installation of "your" camera was not followed by a 30-day period during which only warning tickets were issued by that camera.  That might happen in a city that had operated its original camera system for some time, and then began to add some new cameras.

Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 says, in part:

Section 21455.5 doesn't make it clear whether a city having a pre-existing system is required to issue warning tickets when it adds a new camera.  As a result, while all cities issued warning tickets at the time they installed their first camera, many cities have not issued warning tickets from the cameras they added weeks or months later.   Hawthorne, Inglewood, Santa Ana and Stockton are examples of cities that issued warning tickets at their first camera location only - but there are many more.

In 2005, and again in 2008, an appellate court clarified the law - it ruled that a city erred when it failed to provide warning tickets when it added a new camera to its system.

If "your" city installed "your" camera and did not issue warning tickets for 30 days after that installation, this issue can be raised in court.  If you wish to do a Trial by Declaration, there is a TBD specifically written for this warning ticket issue, at the bottom of the Your Ticket page.

Issuing warning tickets is a "foundational" requirement - Defects #'s 2 - 4 and 10 are others.

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 6 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 6 - Expanded.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 7:  SIGNAL LIGHT BULBS TAKE A WHILE TO COME ON
...and So Do LEDs
AKA:  The "Filament" Defense

This defect is applicable only to tickets with small "Late Times" - 0.25 (one-quarter of a second, or 250 milliseconds) or less.  If you can't find your Late Time, or can't read it, see the big purple-ish box, below.

California Vehicle Code Section 21453, which is the law you have been charged with violating, says: 
"A driver facing a steady red... shall stop...."  (Emphasis added.)

The defect is that LEDs (light-emitting diodes), the fastest-acting light source used in signals, can take slightly more than  0.1 second to light-up (turn-on) after the power has been applied.  If you have a ticket with a 0.1 Late Time, that turn-on delay is about the same, or longer, than the Late Time you were cited for.  And the old-fashioned, but occasionally still-in-use incandescent bulbs, take about twice as long.  If your Late Time was very short (or you suspect that it was), compare the brightness of the red in the first photo...


Portion of "First photo," taken when front
of car was 1 - 2 feet behind limit line,
Late Time indicated as approx. 1/10 sec.

...to the brightness of that same lamp in the second photo.


Portion of "Second photo," taken approx. 1 sec. later,
when car was in the middle of the intersection.

If it is noticeably brighter in the second photo, then you were not facing a "steady" red at the time you were at the limit line - you have photographic evidence that you were facing a red that was still warming up.  Additionally, the dim red light probably didn't come close to meeting the 90% brightness requirement discussed in The Details (part of the expanded version of Defect # 7).

A yellow lamp will have the same sort of delay.  So, if it was an LED bulb and was fed electricity for only the legally-required length of time, it would have been visible for about 0.1 sec. less than the minimum legal amount at the moment the camera computer sensed the application of electricity to the red bulb and began counting off your "Late Time."  And if it was an incandescent bulb, it would have been visible for about 0.15 to 0.2 sec. less than the minimum legal amount.

How to Read Your Late Time You may need a magnifying glass, a pocket calculator, or a crystal ball ! Late Time is how long the signal already had been red (actually, how long power had been applied to the red light bulb) when your picture was taken.  The red light camera industry is so new that there's no standard terminology.  Thus, Late Time is also often called "duration," "time into red," "red time," or abbreviated as "TR." There's also no standard as to the number of decimal places - Some red light cameras display the Late Time rounded down to tenths of a second, others display hundredths of a second, and some of the newest cameras have four digits to the right of the decimal place.  In at least one city (Culver City) the number of digits varies from camera to camera. Pointing up the lack of standards, several cities' camera tickets don't display the Late Time at all, even though their Nestor systems clearly have the capability to do so. (From sample ticket at the end of a Nestor brochure.) A possible motive to leave it off could be so that they can cite for very short Late Times (like 0.1 second) without widespread criticism (including some from judges) about "Mickey Mouse" tickets.  If you phone the PD to ask what your Late Time was, they probably will say that to get that information, you must come in to the police station.  The visit to the police station serves to grind you down, make it harder for you to fight your ticket. See the Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Pasadena, Davis or San Bernardino section on the Camera Towns page for more information. Many red light cameras imprint the Late Time right on the top[2] photo on your ticket - but the format has not been standardized.  So here is how some of the more common cameras would display a Late Time of 1/10th (one tenth, or 0.1) of a second. The now almost-obsolete (but still widely used) ACS "wet film" 35mm cameras print 1/10th of a second as R001 .  The photo in Defect # 5 above is a good example of a ticket from an ACS 35mm camera.  The tenths digit is smaller than the rest and is always very hard to read; to be sure of what the tenths digit is, you may need to call the issuer of the ticket.  While it's not a 1/10th of a second ticket, the photo in Defect # 5 is a good example of that illegibility.  It shows a Late Time of R011, or 1.1 second, in the middle row on the right side of the data box. Early RedFlex cameras, such as Culver City's first seven installations, used 35mm "wet film" and displayed the data in bright, but fuzzy, red numerals in a strip across the top of the photos[2].  They would print a 1/10th second Late Time as Red T.  000.1 RedFlex's newer cameras, which are digital and take 12 seconds of video, display the data in tiny faint white letters on a black strip at the top edge of the photos[2] (best way to read them is by putting the ticket up on the window).  They would print a 1/10th second Late Time ("duration," "TR," or "time into red") as either 0.10 or 0.1000.  At court in Culver City I have seen some RedFlex "video" tickets with only the tenths digit displayed.  The officer told the court that this occurs when they are having a problem with their live data link. Most brands of cameras (ACS, RedFlex, etc.) have a second time counter, often called "elapsed time," which starts at zero at the instant the first photo is taken.  It will tell you the time that elapsed between the first photo and the second.  Sometimes using the elapsed time (subtracting it from the elapsed Late Time shown in the second photo on the ticket) will help you to figure out what the hard-to-read Late Time (in the first photo) is.  For example, here are the data boxes from the first and second photos on a typical ticket - actually the same ACS one used in Defect # 5, above. If you subtract the elapsed time of 0.89 (shown in the middle row, left side, below) from the elapsed Late Time of 2.0 ( " R020 " in middle row, right side, below) you get 1.11, which confirms that the Late Time shown in the first photo (middle row, right side, above) is 1.1 (after rounding off). For more practice reading Late Times, see this page. If you are making time/distance calculations, see:  The Math Page. [2] If two photos have a Late Time imprint, the applicable number will be the smaller one.

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 7 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 7 - Expanded.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 8:  TICKET MAILED LATE OR TO THE WRONG ADDRESS, WITHOUT PROOF OF SERVICE OR, INCOMPLETE

Most of Defect # 8 could apply to any violation, anywhere.

(A)  Many defendants are unaware that they ran a light.  Many other defendants loaned their car to someone else.  So that defendants are able to remember what they were doing on the date of the violation, or to whom they had loaned their car, California law gives the police only a limited amount of time (15 days) to mail a genuine Notice to Appear in the to the registered owner.
And, of course, they need to send it to the right address.

If you're not the registered owner, please note:  The 15-day requirement applies to the first mailing of a Notice to Appear, which is usually to the registered owner of the car.  If he or she received a genuine Notice to Appear, then gave your name to the police, who then re-issued the ticket to you, the 15-day requirement does not apply to the timing of the mailing to you.  But if what the registered owner received was something other than a genuine Notice to Appear (maybe a Snitch Ticket?), you could file a demurrer. For more info about demurring, see Defect # 8, Expanded.

(B)  And since red light camera Notices to Appear are not handed to you in person by a motor officer who obtains your signature, the law requires the police to obtain some evidence that the Notice to Appear was actually mailed.

(C)  Some cities leave the court's phone number off the Notice to Appear, or provide an incomplete address for the court (both of which are required on the approved form), in an apparent attempt to make it harder for defendants to have their day in court.
Or, the officer's declaration is not signed in handwriting.

The Law

In California, Vehicle Code Section 40518 says (in part, with emphasis added):

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 8 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 8 - Expanded.

'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE

If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory.  I use it too!

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 9:  "CHURNING"
Quotas, Enforcement on Left or Right Turns, Signals that Change Too Quickly, Cameras at Confusing Intersections, Federal Guidelines

"Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts.  Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws."
The Appellate Department, in People vs. Goulet

Nonsequitur, by Wiley Miller.  Shop at www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

A.  Ticket Quota$

The June 2008 contract between Roseville and RedFlex penalizes the City if:

"...the City or Police waives more than 10 percent of valid violations forwarded to the Police for acceptance...."

The contract between Los Angeles County MTA ("Metro") and ACS requires:

"The Contractor shall be required to maintain, at a minimum, the existing rates of citations issued by location...."

Ticket quotas are illegal in California - see CVC 41600 - 41603.

B.  Churning Right Turn$

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."
Prof. Peter F. Drucker

There has been a shift away from ticketing people who run straight thru intersections, towards ticketing drivers who "roll" a right turn.   It has become the profit center of most systems, and some of the newest contracts (between cities and red light camera providers) acknowledge the economic importance of rolling right enforcement by making it a contractual obligation.


From the Belmont and San Carlos contracts.

The Belmont and San Carlos contracts merely require those cities to enforce on rolling rights, without specifying exactly what will happen if the cities refuse to do so.  On the other hand, the Dec. 2007 Citrus Heights contract, the June 2008 Napa contract, the Aug. 2008 San Rafael contract (draft), and the Oct. 2008 Bell Gardens contract all provide for a monetary sanction against the city.


Take Political Action

If you have a right turn ticket, call your State legislators, and your auto club, and complain about the heavy right turn ticketing and the way out-of-proportion fine.  For phone numbers see the Hot Legislation section on the Action page.

Other than quotas, the things noted in the Defect # 9 title above are mostly political issues - it would be difficult to use them to beat your ticket.  If you would like to read more about them, see Defect # 9, Expanded.

But before we move on, a few important notes -

(1)  Not all rolling right tickets cost $350 (or more).  Until Aug. 2008 the City of LA cited its rolling right turns under Subsection (b) of CVC 21453, instead of (a), which resulted in a much-lower fine - $159 including all fees.  And a few judges in other cities offer reduced fines to defendants with rolling right tickets.

(2)  At right turns, there is no requirement to post a sign telling you "stop before turning" or something like that.  See FAQ # 27.

(3)  For a turning movement (left or right), the yellow needs to be only 3.0 seconds long.

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 9 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 9 - Expanded.

Hearsay

Ordinarily, if you wish to use a document or letter as evidence in court, you need to bring in a live person to testify as to its authenticity and accuracy (and he can be cross-examined about the same, by your opponent).  Without that "live" authentication, the document would be ruled to be "hearsay," and it would be excluded from evidence.  There is an exception to the hearsay rule, for documents created by a government employee - but many of the documents the police present in court have been created by a private company's employees, who have no official duty to report accurately.  A recent appeals court decision (Bohl) addressed the hearsay issue.  Also see the Getting Records / Discovery page.

At a trial, Foundation is the introductory evidence necessary to establish the admissibility of other evidence.

There was no witness to the crime.  The case is based solely upon physical evidence - the photos and the data the computer recorded.  But the police can't use evidence if it was gathered illegally.  Vehicle Code 21455.5 (in box, below) specifies things the City must do and must not do in order to legally gather red light camera evidence.

To make this concept clear, here is an extreme example:  Suppose you're accused of shooting a convenience store clerk, and the police have produced a gun that matches the bullets found in the clerk; the gun also has a full set of your fingerprints on it.  It is almost perfect evidence - just like the photos the red light cameras take - except for one problem.  The police obtained the gun illegally, by breaking into your house without a warrant.  So, they will not be able to use the gun in court, and will have to depend upon other evidence, and eyewitness testimony, to make their case.

At your red light camera ticket trial, the officer will testify first, and he is supposed to begin his testimony by "laying the foundation."[5]  Without having to be reminded to do it, most officers will give a brief foundational speech (sometimes very brief) saying that they posted warning signs (Defect # 4), made announcements 30 days before starting up the system, gave warning tickets for 30 days (Defect # 6), have long enough yellows (Defects # 2 and # 3), etc.

[5] Think of the evidence as a house; houses collapse if they have no foundation.

When it's your chance to cross-examine him, you could ask the officer if he provided public notice 30 days before firing up your camera,
issued warning tickets for the first 30 days of operation (of your camera - see Defect # 6),
had four signs (full 30" x 42") posted at your intersection at the time you were ticketed,
and has written guidelines.

Home/Defects Page:
Defect # 10, Subsection B:
Foundational Requirement:  Pay-Per-Ticket ("Cost Neutrality") Contracts are Prohibited

Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 prohibits "pay per ticket" contracts.  21455.5(g) says:
(g) A contract [with a red light camera supplier]... may not include... payment... based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated..."
( Full text is in the big box, below. )

The author of 21455.5 wrote:
"Paying red light camera vendors [suppliers] based on the number of tickets issued undermines the public's trust and raises concern that these systems can be manipulated for profit."
(Official comment by Senator - then Assemblywoman - Jenny Oropeza, published in 8/27/03 legislative analysis of AB 1022 of 2003.)

Many cities are ignoring that law.  An example is Marysville, where the contract signed Dec. 21, 2004 says:
"Fixed fee of $6,030 Per Month Per Designated Intersection Approach..."
"Payment [to camera supplier RedFlex] will only be made by Customer [the City] up to the amount of cash received
by Customer from Yuba County through the collection of red light citations
up to the amount currently due."
"Cost neutrality is assured to Customer using this methodology as Customer
will never pay RedFlex more than actual cash received."
In other words, contrary to the misleading "fixed fee" language, RedFlex will get less money if there are fewer tickets, and more money if there are more.

The known examples of illegal contracts are Baldwin Park, Bell Gardens, Capitola, Cathedral City, Citrus Heights, Commerce, Corona, Covina, Culver City, Daly City, Davis, Escondido, Fullerton, Gardena, Glendale, Grand Terrace, Highland, Laguna Woods, Lancaster, Loma Linda, Los Alamitos, MRCA, MTA/Metro, Manteca, Marysville, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Modesto, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Napa, Newark, Oroville, Rancho Cucamonga, Redding, Redwood City, Riverside, Rocklin, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Juan Capistrano, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Rafael, Santa Maria, City of South San Francisco, Union City, Ventura, Victorville, Walnut, Yucaipa, and Yuba City.

In Nov. 2008 a defendant won an appellate victory on the cost neutrality issue.  See the expanded version of Defect # 10 - B for more information and a copy of the decision.

Check the contract in "your" city.  You can get it by calling the city clerk, at city hall.  If the contract was signed or amended after Jan. 1, 2004 and the quantity of tickets (or the amount of ticket revenue the city gets from the court) has any effect upon the amount paid to the camera supplier, make a motion (or add to your Trial by Declaration) to exclude the camera evidence, because it was gathered illegally. 

The Law

Defect # 10, Subsection C:
Motion to Strike Evidence and Challenge Constitutionality

In association with the National Motorists Association (NMA), an attorney prepared a 20-page defense brief asking a court in Fairfax, Virginia to strike the evidence and rule the underlying ordinance unconstitutional.
While some of the brief would apply only to a ticket in that city, many sections of it might be useful in California. 

See the Links page for more information about the NMA.

You should also read about California's Truth in Evidence law and the Best Evidence Rule.

This (above) is the new condensed Version of Defect # 10 - Brand New as of Aug. 17, 2008
The original  (un-condensed) version is at Defect # 10 - Expanded.

Disclaimers / Notes

Don't run red lights.  It is a dangerous practice - Russian Roulette with a car.  This website is inspired by the short-sighted cities that have chosen to "rig" their cameras and signals to maximize profits - and minimize safety.

This site is a free-of-charge public service.  I am not selling anything, and cannot accept donations.  I ask each person who uses this website to call their legislators about the pending anti-motorist legislation.  See the Hot Legislation section on the Action page.

Contributions of information are welcomed.  See the Help & Info Needed section on the Action page.  And if you operate a website or a "blog," please mention highwayrobbery.net.

You should double-check any material obtained here, before you use it.

If you would like to fight your ticket but do not want to appear personally in court, or cannot easily do so, you could do a Trial by Declaration, through the mail.  See the Your Ticket page.  Or, I can refer you to lawyers who specialize in traffic tickets.  I do not accept any kind of compensation, not even a free lunch, from these attorneys.

During the first three years of this site's existence I attended traffic court twice a week, and there is an extensive chronology of those visits in the Culver City, Inglewood and Hawthorne sections on the Camera Towns page.  Even if your ticket is not from one of those three cities, you may find the information there to be useful.

Most of the information on this website applies only to tickets issued in California.

I update portions of this website almost daily.  If you are making a return visit after an absence of more than a day, I recommend that you hit the "reload" or "refresh" buttons, to make sure you have the latest version of the page you're interested in.

If you have a question, email for a fast reply.

Composed on Arachnophilia

Internal Links

You are on the new Condensed Version of the Home / Defects page.
For the expanded (original) version, click: Home / Defects - Expanded.

Onward, to Camera Towns page

Back, to Top of Condensed Home page

Email:  For my address, go to the Action page.

PHOTO ENFORCEMENT 'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE

If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory.  I use it too!

Please also note that on Aug. 17, 2008, highwayrobbery.net launched this condensed version of the Home/Defects page.  If you are having trouble finding something that you saw before, it might be something that is only on the original/expanded version of the page - which is still available, and maintained.

---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net