RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net

Email Address
Site Index


If you haven't already done so, please read Defect # 10 on the
Home page


Added 12-12-04

  Appeals Decision - Bohl

This case is an example of a hearsay defense.

This Sacramento defendant won his appeal.  There is an exception to "hearsay" exclusion, for documents created by a government employee - but many of the documents the police may present in court have been created by a private company's employees, who have no official duty to report accurately.  This decision addressed the hearsay issue.

Because it is an unpublished decision, the Bohl decision cannot be cited as precedent in most California courts, except maybe in Sacramento County.  But there is nothing stopping other defendants from using the same arguments Bohl did or from citing the same published cases the Appellate Division relied upon.

The appeal decision was re-typed from the original document.
Edits or explanatory notes by the editor are in double square brackets [[  ]].
This transcript may be freely copied and distributed, so long as credit is given to highwayrobbery.net .
Many other cases and /or transcripts are available - see the Index to Transcripts, Briefs, and Court Decisions.

Shortly before he died, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Gary Webb wrote about Sacramento traffic court and the Bohl case.   His Nov. 25, 2004 article, "Red Light, Green Cash," is available by typing "Bohl" into the search box at:  http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Home .

Also, read the
Moore case, and the Graham case, other successful appeals of Sacramento tickets.




Appeal Decision

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
APPELLATE DIVISION

DATE/TIME:  SEPTEMBER 17, 2004

DEPT. NO:  12a

CLERK:  B. WILSON
BAILIFF:  NONE

JUDGE:  MARYANNE G. GILLIARD - PRESIDING
JACK SAPUNOR
EMILY E. VASQUEZ

REPORTER:  NCR

Appellate Division No.:  02TR119273
Superior Court No.:  02TR119273

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff/Respondent

PRESENT:  LAURA TEAGUE, Certified Legal Intern w / MARGE KOLLER, DDA

VS.

[[  ]] BOHL
Defendant/Appellant

PRO PER 

Nature of Proceedings:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT

            The above-entitled cause came on for oral argument on SEPTEMBER 17, 2004.  The matter was argued to the Court and taken under submission.  The Court now rules as follows:

            Appellant objected to the maintenance logs as hearsay.  The trial court ruled that the maintenance logs were admissible under the official records exception.  A review of the record indicates that the People provided scant evidence relevant to the foundational requirements of this hearsay exception.  Notably, there was no evidence that the logs were made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event.  (See Evid. C. Section 1280.)  The evidence should have been excluded.  (Evid. C. Section 353;  Cf. People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, 126-129.) 

            Even if the logs had been properly admitted, they would only show that a technician spent four minutes on September 10, 2002 and four minutes on September 11, 2002 "checking" the system.  During that four minutes, the technician recorded the "Condition" of lanes, pole/cabinet and camera.  Also during that four minutes, the technician changed the film, changed the memory card and verified settings.  Although the technician checked the box for "verify the system is functioning properly," there is no explanation of what he did to verify that the system functioned properly or how he knew the camera would not take a picture of a driver unless the light was red.  The system appears to involve technology that has not been established as reliable in any published cases.  (Cf. People v. MacLaird (1968 264 Cal.App.2d 972 (establishing radar as accurate.))  As the photographs generated by the system do not show the signal light, the system must be proven reliable in order for the People to meet their burden of proof.  It is unreasonable, as a matter of law, to assume that logs showing four minutes of weekly maintenance would be all that is necessary to ensure that the system reliably worked.  Further, because there was no explanation from an expert who was qualified to render opinions on this technology's maintenance and reliability, appellant had no ability to cross-examine an expert on the system's maintenance and reliability.  The conviction is reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint.  (People v. Kriss (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 913, 921.) 

            In making this decision, the court did not consider appellant's untimely reply to the People's supplemental brief. 

-End-

(Emphasis added by highwayrobbery.net) 



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