Ana Documents - Set # 2
Decision - People v. Anna V.
case is an example of a foundational defense (see Defect
# 6 and Defect # 10 on the Home page).
similar to People v.
fought the ticket based upon a number of
foundational objections, among them that Vehicle
Code Section 21455.5 says, in part: "Prior
to issuing citations under this section, a local
jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic
enforcement system shall commence a program to
issue only warning notices for 30 days."
(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.)
In August 2008 the Appellate Division ruled in
favor of Defendant/Appellant Anna V., that Santa
Ana erred when it failed to provide 30 days of
warning tickets when it added the camera that
ticketed the Defendant. The court did
not comment upon the defendant's other
The August 2008 Anna V. decision was the second
time the Orange County Appellate Division had
ruled on the warning ticket issue. The first
time was in the 2005 Fischetti case involving a
Costa Mesa ticket. In December 2008 the
Appellate Division ruled a third time - on a new ticket
received by Fischetti, this one in Santa Ana.
This decision has not been published, so cannot
be cited as precedent in other cases, except possibly in Orange
County. The general issue of which decisions get
published, and which don't, is under study. See nonpublication.com
for more information.
these links for the documents in the Anna V.
appeal (these are in chronological order):
Judge's Written Decision
Appellant's Opening Brief - .txt file .pdf file
City's Response Brief - Not Filed
Appellant's Closing Brief - Not Filed
These materials may be freely copied and distributed, so
long as credit is given to highwayrobbery.net .