Camera Towns - Illegal Red Light Cameras in California

Please start by reading the Home page.

On this Camera Towns page are details about many camera installations.

This page is not up-to-date - there are many more cities with cameras than are listed here. Due to time constraints, cities which started their camera program after early 2006 are not being added here - unless there is something unusual about the program.

Alpha Index to Cities Covered on this Page

The inclusion of a City in this alpha index doesn't necessarily mean they presently have cameras. They may just be thinking about it. Or, they may have had cameras at one time, but have since removed them. Or, it may just be listed here for rumor control.

After this alphabetic index you will find a geographic index to most of the same cities (but cities that aren't even considering having cameras - and never had them before - are not on the geographic index). You can use whichever index you prefer. Click on the highlighted city names.

Some cities have more info elsewhere on this site - check the Site Index.

If someone sent you a "ticket" that does not give the address of the court, or which says, "Do not contact the court," that's not really a ticket at all - so go to the section titled "Police Going Too Far...," on the Your Ticket page.

(1)

East LA, California

Ticket counts for East LA are in the LA County / CHP section.

East LA, May 2003, Whittier at Atlantic: Big Refund!
Posted Speed Limit: 30 (Or was it 35?)
Minimum yellow per table: 3.2 (Or 3.6?)
Programmed yellow:
Per the imprint on an actual ticket: 2.9
Per CHP personnel on Mar. 4, 2003: 3.0
Per county public works personnel on Mar. 5: 3.5
According to CHP personnel on Mar. 4, 2003, the boundary of the nearby 25 mph zone is approx. two blocks west of the intersection. On a Mar. 6 visit to the intersection, a 25 mph sign was found just 150 feet west of the intersection.
The signal has between 0.1 and 0.7 less yellow than required by law. A too-short yellow can cause the issuance of a lot of unwarranted, and unfair, tickets. On Mar. 4 this discrepancy was brought to the attention of the CHP personnel who issue the tickets. And on Mar. 5 county public works personnel promised to look into the matter, and call back.
By Mar. 24, none of them had called back, so the CHP was again contacted. They said that they had stopped issuing tickets at the intersection. But they would not say anything else, including what they plan to do about the tickets that are "in the pipeline" - those issued in the last several months.
On Mar. 26 a CHP lieutenant left a voicemail saying: "All the various entities are looking at your concern very seriously." He promised they would call again as soon as there was an answer.
By Apr. 14 there was no answer from the CHP, so a message was left for the lieutenant.
On May 16, 2003 a front-page article in the LA Times reported that the CHP and LA County have reversed nearly 3000 tickets issued at Whittier / Atlantic !
Note that these powerful agencies could easily have swept the defect under the rug - as at least one local city has - but instead the CHP and the County chose to do the right thing. They investigated the problem (pretty quickly, considering the size of both agencies), admitted the defect, and are attempting to make it right.
To read some news articles, click:
Los Angeles Times
La Opinion 5-17-03 - En Espanol
To read a County press release, click: DPW May 15 Press Release (pdf).
On May 23 the County provided a blank copy of the form letter their Department of Public Works has sent out. The form letter contains a phone number (213-744-3451) and an email address (trafficphotoclaims@auditor.co.la.ca.us) for the County department that will be processing refunds and claims.

Unlike East LA, some other cities that have malfunctions have refused to make refunds of any kind. For a blatant example, see the Bakersfield section.

East LA: No Automatic Refunds for Community Service, Traffic School Fees, Increased Insurance Premiums - To Get a Refund, File a Claim!
Added 6-9-03: If you did Community Service in lieu of paying your Atlantic / Whittier fine, you will not automatically be receiving a check. You should file a claim with the county - for at least the $270 or $320 value of your labor and the (approx. $30) Community Service fee. If you went to traffic school, or experienced higher insurance premiums as a result of your Atlantic / Whittier ticket, you should file a claim. The county has stated: "The county will evaluate each claim individually on its merits, and respond fairly and promptly."
On June 21 an article in La Opinion reported that as of June 19, the county had received only one* claim for the reimbursement of community service, and only fifty-six for reimbursement of traffic school fees.
To read the La Opinion article (in Spanish), click:
La Opinion 6-21-03 - En Espanol
Added 11-5-03: *A November 3 letter from the county said: "The County has not received any claims... from persons seeking reimbursement for community service nor has the County reimbursed any persons for community service."
The county claim form is available at: http://bos.co.la.ca.us/PDFs/AssessmentAppealsClaimForDamages.pdf.

East LA: Many Whittier / Atlantic Tickets Not Reversed
The May 16 Times article indicated that there are about 2000 tickets that were not reversed.
On May 19 I called the County and asked why, and was told that only tickets with a 0.5 or lower "Late Time" were reversed. In response, I asked them to consider reversing the 0.6 tickets as well - based upon the 2.9 seconds yellow imprint (" 1Y2⁹ " or " 2Y2⁹ ") seen on the actual tickets. On May 22 they called back and explained their rationale for not reversing the 0.6 tickets.
I now plan, in the near future, to send the County a letter arguing why the 0.6 (and possibly 0.7 - see Defect # 7 on the Home Page) tickets should be reversed. In order to write that letter, I need to learn much more about Whittier / Atlantic tickets, and how the equipment works. I would like to hear from anyone who got a 0.6 or 0.7 camera ticket at Whittier / Atlantic, or even a speeding ticket on Whittier near the intersection (within 1/2 mile).

For more information about Whittier /Atlantic, see the Other California Towns, Step 2, section on the Your Ticket page, and Defect # 5 on the Home page.

To contact CHP headquarters, the elected officials representing East LA, the local Chamber of Commerce, or CalTrans, see the Links page of this website. To contact your State legislator, see the Action page of this website.

West Hollywood, pop. 38,000, is 5 miles west of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for West Hollywood's cameras are available at: WeHo Documents.

Read Defect # 5 on the Home page.

The Beverly Hills courtroom which was the scene of some of Culver City's detoured trials (Oct. 2002), is also the regular venue for both the City of West Hollywood and the City of Beverly Hills' red light camera tickets. Trials of the WeHo tickets are held on Thursday mornings. I attended for my first time on Oct. 24, 2002. On that morning one West Hollywood defendant demonstrated to Comm. Hugh Bobys (retired as of 2004) that the yellow at one intersection was too short, and Comm. Bobys let him go - not guilty! The judge also said something about asking the DA to have the signals adjusted. On Nov. 11 the City provided me with copies of their signal timing charts, and those charts did not reflect any recent lengthening of the yellows. Perhaps it was done shortly after the charts were copied for me. City Prosecutor Lisa A. Vidra (who also is Culver City's prosecutor) has assured me that the signals have been adjusted. But in West Hollywood it's easy to find out what the yellow interval is - the camera system used there actually imprints the programmed yellow time right on the ticket.
Added 6-12-03, updated 6-16-03:
On June 12 a Los Angeles Times article announced that Comm. Bobys had dismissed a number of West Hollywood tickets, because of the yellow being too short (June 12, page B1).
But later on the same day the article was published, Comm. Bobys heard a 40-minute argument by the City's red light prosecutor (William Litvak, whose firm fills that position for a number of cities) which convinced him to reverse himself, and not dismiss any more tickets because the yellow is too short. Comm. Bobys said: "As I said I looked at the CalTrans manual myself, last year, on the Internet. It was quite clear to me that the duration set by the CalTrans standard was 3.5 seconds in a 35 mile-an-hour zone. It's beyond me how one is expected to comply with a manual which you can't find out what it actually says. Or it's very difficult to do so. No continuances for rulings on traffic tickets. I'm not going to take this under submission. I've already given it a great deal of thought. I do agree with Mr. Litvak's argument. I am going to accept the argument that actually 3.0 seconds is the minimum below which the Legislature intended as a floor below which the traffic departments of the various cities could not go. I might be wrong. If you feel like you would like to appeal my decision Mr. Ramirez, I would have no quarrel. I am persuaded by Mr. Litvak's arguments as to substantial compliance, the intention - there's certainly no bad faith. I am truly concerned what the impact would be. I think he's right. I don't think the legislature wanted to take over the business of micromanaging traffic flow throughout the State of California."
(Transcribed from official audio tape of June 12 hearing. For a lengthy WeHo trial transcript, see the link in WeHo - More, below.)
(During his long appearance before Comm. Bobys, Prosecutor Litvak cited at least 11 document exhibits as the foundation for his arguments as to the legislature's intent, etc. A couple days later I asked the court if I could look at the exhibits, and was told that they had not been retained - they had been returned to Mr. Litvak.)
In another article the following day, The Times wrote:
"But West Hollywood officials say they have no intention of reviewing closed cases and refunding fines, which they estimate would cost about $4 million." (Times, June 13, page B4.)
Although the article didn't say as much, City officials may have wanted us to assume that the City could not afford to make refunds.
Their actual bank balance sheets say otherwise.

July 2002:

April 2003:

The City of West Hollywood is rich, and rapidly getting richer.
The scans above are from City Treasurer's reports, a public document. In case the images are not clear enough for you to read, the figures are:
July 2002: $31,906,455
April 2003: $48,587,510

June 16, 17 and 19, 2003, At the Courthouse
On June 16 and 17 I observed one morning and two afternoon sessions, but not including any 'not guilty' trials of WeHo tickets (which are held on Thursday mornings). I plan to observe some of those in the near future.
During my visit to the courthouse, I talked to a lot of defendants and many of them showed me their tickets.
The first thing I noticed was that you can't read the numbers on the tickets that WeHo mails to defendants. The very critical tenths digit is a smaller font size, so no one could tell for sure how late they were after the red, or how long the yellow was. The tenths digits were not legible on any ticket I saw - and we looked at them in good sunlight, with as many as two pairs of reading glasses at once! A sample ticket posted by the West Hollywood sheriff illustrates the illegibility very well.
I also noticed that many of Comm. Bobys' policies are different from those of Comm. Amado of Culver City, whose court I have attended a lot.
If you ask for extra time to pay the fine, Comm. Bobys will give you a few months, whereas Comm. Amado will allow you 11 or 12 months. Comm. Bobys allows 'second offender' (12-hour) traffic school, Comm. Amado does not. If you ask for Community Service, it is 47 hours in Comm. Bobys' court, versus 51 in Comm. Amado's. That difference is probably due to the hourly wage being higher in Beverly Hills. I also noticed that in Comm. Bobys' courtroom they do not play a City-produced red light camera video prior to the trials, as they do in Culver City.
Comm. Bobys has on his bench (as does Comm. Amado) a computer terminal linked directly to the company that issues and archives the tickets. The terminal gives him instant access to the company's digital copies of ticket photos. At arraignment, when a defendant tells him "It's not me," he is often able to dismiss the ticket "on the spot."

I attended the June 19 trial session for West Hollywood tickets, and purchased a copy of the official tape of that session ($10.00).
The first part of the tape has now been transcribed, and is available here: WeHo Trial Transcript
It is a good way to find out how an actual trial goes.

June 27, 2003: The "WeHo" Amendment !
On July 8 the author of Assembly Bill 1022 amended it in an attempt to clarify that CalTrans' minimum yellows must be complied with. Unfortunately, such an amendment will have little effect, as "Truth in Evidence" will prevail. See the Action page.

April 2004: New Judge in WeHo
Comm. Bobys has retired. The new judge is the Hon. Julius M. Title.

To contact West Hollywood officials, the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, or CalTrans, see the Links page of this website.
To contact your State legislator, see the Action page of this website.

Culver City, pop. 40,000, is in west LA, 3 miles north of LAX.

Culver City was the inspiration for the creation of this website.

On Mar. 28, 2007 the city signed a new contract with RedFlex. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

For more about the buttons, see the You Don't Have to Shop There section on the Action page.

See also the information about driver's photos, in the Culver City chronology at Nov. 7, 2002, and Jan. 9, 23 and 30 and May 30, 2003.

(4)

City of Costa Mesa, California

Costa Mesa, pop. 110,000, is immediately north of Newport Beach, in Orange County.

Detailed information about Costa Mesa is on two different pages.
Costa Mesa documents, including a table showing camera locations and number of tickets issued, are at Costa Mesa Documents.
Details of some Costa Mesa trials are at Costa Mesa Chronology.

Unlike most other cities, Costa Mesa's camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 12 on the Costa Mesa Documents page, for more information.

Costa Mesa has, in the past, refunded/reversed a large block of tickets due to yellow lights that were too short. Details can be found on the Chronology page, linked above. However, not all cities that have been caught with too-short yellows have made refunds. For a blatant example, see the Bakersfield section.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the city council held a study session to consider adding cameras at Harbor and Gisler, Harbor and South Coast, Harbor and Baker, and Victoria and Placentia.

Fremont, pop. 190,000, is in the East Bay, 10 miles north of San Jose and 25 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Fremont is a RedFlex town. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Beverly Hills, pop. 34,000, is 8 miles west of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Beverly Hills' cameras are available at: Beverly Hills Documents.

If you drive in Beverly Hills, have a look at SB 1325 in the Hot Legislation section on the Action page - speed cameras may be coming to Town! Also look at the MRCA section, below, as stop sign cameras have come to Franklin Canyon Park, and speed cameras may be coming to the Park, too.

See the June 16 - 19 West Hollywood entry, above, for much more information (including a trial transcript) about the Beverly Hills court, which hears both cities' tickets.

Also read Defect # 5 on the Home page.

Ticket counts for San Diego's cameras are available at: San Diego Documents.

The City of San Diego system was re-started in 2003. They will be issuing warning tickets for 30 days on each new camera they install (for comparison to other towns, see Defect # 6 on the Home page). The new system had a grace period of 0.5 second until July 18, 2006, when the city council ordered it reduced to 0.1 second (see July 18 Union Tribune story).
If you have a San Diego ticket, see Defect # 8 - C and Defect # 5.

(8)

City of Los Angeles
Operating cameras in or near the following locations:
Canoga Park, Westchester (and More)

November 2005 - New Camera Vendor Approved

On Nov. 18 the LA City Council approved a contract with Nestor Traffic Systems, to replace ACS as the supplier of the City's cameras. See this article for details.

If you have an LA ticket, see Defect # 8 - C and Defect # 9 - B on the Home page.

(9)

City of El Cajon, California

El Cajon, pop. 95,000, is an eastern suburb of San Diego.

Some of El Cajon's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for El Cajon's cameras are available at: El Cajon Documents .

(10)

City of Vista, California

Vista, pop. 85,000, is 30 miles north of San Diego and 5 miles inland of Oceanside and Carlsbad.

Some of Vista's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Vista's cameras are available at: Vista Documents .

(11)

City of Encinitas, California

Encinitas, pop. 60,000, is on the coast 20 miles north of San Diego.

Some Encinitas tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Encinitas's cameras are available at: Encinitas Documents .

And there is some interesting info ("During the first twenty days of the test period (warning citations only were issued), more than 500 violations were recorded on camera at "ECR" and Encinitas Blvd.") about the Encinitas red light cameras, and a video, on the SD sheriff's website.

(12)

City of South Gate, California

South Gate, pop. 94,000, is 8 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of South Gate's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for South Gate's cameras are available at: South Gate Documents .

(13)

City of El Monte, California

El Monte, pop. 113,000, is 12 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of El Monte's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for El Monte's cameras are available at: El Monte Documents .

Ticket counts for Long Beach's cameras are available at: Long Beach Documents

If you asked for a trial and got a "Trial Date" letter or a "Notice of Trial After Written Plea" containing a statement similar to this one formerly found in notices from the Long Beach court,

you should file a Peremptory Challenge. And if it is too late to file a PC, you could try a Challenge for Cause - the prejudice being that by pre-determining your penalty, the court has pre-judged your case. See: Challenge Forms.

In fairness, it should be noted that on June 29, 2004, Long Beach withdrew the above language from their forms. Later, Supervising Judge Andrews sent me a letter:

On Nov. 23, 2004 an independent website in Long Beach published a report suggesting that accidents had increased during the time the City's cameras were in operation.

Hawthorne, pop. 80,000, is just southeast of LAX

Some of Hawthorne's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Information about Hawthorne is on two different pages -

Ticket counts and signal timing for Hawthorne's cameras are available at: Hawthorne Documents.
Details of recent trials of Hawthorne tickets are at: Hawthorne Chronology.

Hawthorne issued warning tickets at its first camera location only. (See Defect # 6 on Home page of this website.)

Right Turns

Hawthorne has, in the past, issued many right turn tickets under the wrong section of the Vehicle code. If you have an old right turn ticket in Hawthorne, or any other town, see FAQ # 27 and the Sept. 7 and Sept. 28, 2004 entries in the Hawthorne Chronology.

For more about the buttons, see the You Don't Have to Shop There section on the Action page.

(16)

City of Inglewood, California

Inglewood, pop. 115,000, is just east of LAX.

Some of Inglewood's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Inglewood's tickets are heard by some of the same judges who hear Hawthorne tickets.

Details of recent trials of Inglewood tickets are available at: Inglewood Chronology.

Ticket counts for Inglewood's cameras are available at: Inglewood Documents.

Inglewood issued warning tickets at its first camera location only. (See Defect # 6 on Home page of this website.)

Inglewood in a Nutshell

Some of Inglewood's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Traffic School After Losing at Trial

If you plead not guilty, take your ticket to trial and lose, the judges in the Inglewood courthouse will not take away the opportunity to attend traffic school.

Did You Already Pay?

Even if you have already paid a pre-Dec. 9, 2003 left-turn ticket, any ticket at Crenshaw / 108th, or a pre-Aug. 19, 2004 ticket at Prairie / 111th, you may be able to get your money back.

You will need to go to the clerk's window and ask for a court date (but avoid Night Court). You may be asked to fill out a one-page form ("Motion to Re-Open Case"); you should then be given a new appointment in the courtroom. Once you are in front of the judge, ask for your case to be re-opened, and the matter dismissed. You should get your $341 fine back, but probably not the traffic school fees.

Some of Bakersfield's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Bakersfield: On Sept. 3, 2004 the Bakersfield police department issued a press release revealing that it would be overturning 613 citations issued between April 30 and May 14 at Ming and South Real, because the proper warning signs were not posted there during that period. The press release also revealed that the Department had initially decided not to dismiss charges against 292 people who had already paid their fines, but re-evaluated that decision after The (Bakersfield) Californian made inquiries.
It is also interesting that they issued that many tickets in just half a month. That would be about 1200 tickets in a full month - a rate higher than I have seen anywhere, anytime. Ticket counts for Bakersfield's cameras are available at: Bakersfield Documents.

There are two other defects that probably warrant further refunds of tickets. If you have a straight-through (not a left turn) ticket at Ming/South Real and the violation date is before July 20, 2004, or a straight-through ticket at Ming/99/Valley Plaza before June 8, 2005 (and possibly later), you may be entitled to a dismissal, or a reversal if you have already paid it.
For more information, read Sets #'s 3 - 9 at: Bakersfield Documents.
Whether or not you're able to take the time to go through the steps necessary to get a dismissal or reversal, if you can see that the yellow was too short at "your" intersection, I would like to suggest that you take a little time now to file a complaint with Attorney General Lungren in Sacramento. He has an on-line complaint form at: http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm.

(18)

City of Montclair, California

Montclair, pop. 33,000, is 30 miles east of Los Angeles

Ticket counts for Montclair's cameras are available at: Montclair Documents.

(19)

City of Indian Wells, California - System Inactive

Indian Wells, pop. 3000, is immediately east of Palm Springs

Ticket counts for Indian Wells' cameras are available at: Indian Wells Documents.

System Inactive

Indian Wells shut down its ACS system sometime in 2004. The city's official position it that they might re-start it in early 2006. See this article for details.

(20)

City of Del Mar, California

Del Mar, pop. 5000, is 15 miles north of downtown San Diego

Some of Del Mar's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Del Mar's cameras are available at: Del Mar Documents.
There is some info about Del Mar red light cameras, and a video, on the sheriff's website.

(21)

City of Santa Clarita, California
Operating cameras in or near the following locations:
Newhall, Saugus, Valencia (and More)

Santa Clarita, pop. 167,000, is 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of Santa Clarita's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Santa Clarita's cameras are available at: Santa Clarita Documents.

(22)

City of San Juan Capistrano, California

San Juan Capistrano, pop. 33,000, is on the coast midway between Los Angeles and San Diego.

Ticket Counts for San Juan Capistrano's cameras are available at: San Juan Capistrano Documents.

(23)

City of Rancho Cucamonga, California

Rancho Cucamonga, pop. 118,000, is 35 miles east of Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Rancho Cucamonga's cameras are available at: Rancho Cucamonga Documents.

(24)

City of Garden Grove, California

Garden Grove, pop. 171,000, is 20 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

Some of Garden Grove's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Garden Grove's cameras are available at: Garden Grove Documents.

(25)

City of Stockton, California

Stockton, pop. 234,000, is 50 miles east of San Francisco.

Some of Stockton's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Stockton's cameras are available at: Stockton Documents.

Stockton issued warning tickets at its first camera location only. As a result, a February 2005 appellate court decision (P. vs. Fischetti) could affect thousands of tickets Stockton issued. It has already forced another city to suspend the operation of most of its cameras, for 30 days. See Defect # 6 and Defect # 10, on the Home page.

(26)

City of Fresno, California

Fresno, pop. 405,000, is 216 miles north of Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Fresno's cameras are available at: Fresno Documents.

Shut Down

On Sept. 1, 2005, Fresno shut its Nestor system down. See this article for details.

(27)

City of Cerritos, California

Cerritos, pop. 57,000, is 12 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Details about a defect, and ticket counts for Cerritos' cameras, are available at: Cerritos Documents.

(28)

City of Mesa & Other Arizona Locales

Mesa, pop. 450,000, is east of Phoenix.

Mesa has both red light cameras and speed camera vans.
Even though it is not in California, Mesa is listed here because an event in Mesa shows how lengthening the left-turn yellow can dramatically lower the number of violators. See: City of Mesa, Arizona, Documents.
For a book on how to fight speed camera tickets like those issued by Mesa, see the Speeding Ticket section on the Links page.
If you have received a photo ticket (speed or red light) issued anywhere in Arizona, you can ignore it if it says, "This is not a summons to appear." (In California such a ticket would be called a Snitch Ticket - see the section about them, on the Your Ticket page.) These Arizona Snitch Tickets may or may not give the name of the court - and there will no address for the court. Be sure to read this excellent Phoenix New Times article before you make any contact with Arizona authorities or their websites.

(29)

City of Upland, California

Upland, pop. 67,000, is 32 miles east of Los Angeles.

Some of Upland's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

In May 2008 a local resident launched http://notrafficcameras.info , a website focusing on Upland red light cams.

Ticket counts for Upland's cameras are available at: Upland Documents.

(30)

City of Oxnard, California

Oxnard, pop. 152,000, is on the coast 50 miles west of Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Oxnard's cameras are available at: Oxnard Documents .

(31)

City of Pasadena, California

Pasadena, pop. 135,000, is 5 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Pasadena's cameras are available at: Pasadena Documents .

Unlike most other cities, Pasadena's camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 3 on the Pasadena Documents page, for more information.

According to an Oct. 25, 2005 article in the Whittier Daily News, Pasadena had just added its third camera.

(32)

City of Fullerton, California

Fullerton, pop. 125,000, is 15 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Fullerton's cameras are available at: Fullerton Documents.

Unlike most other cities, Fullerton's camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 2 on the Fullerton Documents page, for more information.

(33)

City of San Jose, California

San Jose, pop. 894,000, is 40 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Do not pay your San Jose automated photo radar ("NASCOP") ticket! The system was shut down in March 2007 and, according to City staff, the City has asked the court to stop processing NASCOP-related tickets.

San Jose never had red light camera enforcement. Beginning in 1998 it had semi-automated speed enforcement ("photo radar") by RedFlex, with cameras mounted in three manned mini-vans that parked at over 100 different locations.

In early 2007 the legality of the City's photo radar program came under intense scrutiny, and in response the City discontinued the program. See Set # 3 on the San Jose Documents page. ( For more details about the efforts to make speed cameras legal in California, see the Hot Legislation section on the Action page. Also see the MRCA entry, below.)

In late February 2007 a San Jose-area resident launched a new website, www.nascop.com, focused on San Jose's automated speeding (NASCOP) tickets.

On Sept. 27, 2007 a law firm filed a $1 Million claim against the City for "the unlawful implementation and operation" of the NASCOP program. The City did not settle the claim, and on Apr. 21, 2008 the firm filed a class action at court.

Ticket counts for San Jose's speed cameras are available at: San Jose Documents.

See more info about San Jose in the Humor section on the Links page.

( If some other California city or agency has issued you an automated photo radar speeding ticket, please let me know - because such enforcement is illegal. Also, see the following books for details on how to fight it.
1. Fight Your Ticket (see "Photo-Radar" and "Demurring" in its index), and
2. Smile for the Speed Camera - Details in the Speeding Ticket section of the Links page. )

(34)

City of Santa Ana, California

Santa Ana, pop. 308,000, is 28 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of Santa Ana's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Santa Ana's cameras are available at: Santa Ana Documents.

Santa Ana, Nov. 24, 2004 Trial Session: No Traffic School After Trial
On Nov. 24 I attended the weekly Wednesday afternoon trial session in Div. C-46.
In the hallway before the trial session, the SAPD officers were willing to discuss their ticket with any defendant who wished to do so. Among the things they told the defendants was that the judge didn't give traffic school to those who argued their cases and lost.
The session was presided over by Commissioner Duane Thomas Neary. One defendant, before trying his case, asked Comm. Neary if he could still get traffic school if he tried his case. The commissioner replied, "Not very likely. Unless you show me some wonderful evidence during the trial, you're not going to be able to go to traffic school." Needless to say, that defendant and all but one of the others grabbed traffic school and did not try their cases.

(For highwayrobbery.net's opinion about traffic school, see the editorial on the Links page.)

Right Turns

Santa Ana may have, in the very recent past, issued many right turn tickets under the wrong section of the Vehicle code. If you have a right turn ticket in Santa Ana, or any other town, see the Sept. 7 and Sept. 28 entries in the Hawthorne Chronology.

(35)

City of San Francisco, California

San Francisco, pop. 777,000, has a land area of 47 square miles.

Ticket counts for San Francisco's cameras are available at: San Francisco Documents . (Big file, can take 30 - 60 seconds to load.)

(36)

City of Fairfield, California

Fairfield, pop. 92,000, is 40 miles northeast of San Francisco.

Some of Fairfield's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

In Oct. 2004 I received a letter from the City as follows.

In Oct. 2005, Fairfield fired a 21-year-veteran sergeant who (allegedly) made public a ticket-quota system in the City. See this article for more details.

(37)

City of Sacramento, California

The City of Sacramento, pop. 396,000, is 75 miles northeast of San Francisco.

(For County of Sacramento info, see the next section on this page.)

The City's system is operated by the Highway Patrol - as is the County's system.
Ticket counts for the City's system, and info about several appeals, are at Sacramento City Documents.

(38)

County of Sacramento, California
Operating cameras in or near the following locations:
Citrus Heights - see also the City of Citrus Heights section - (and More)

The County of Sacramento, pop. 1,125,000 (including the City of Sacramento), is 75 miles northeast of San Francisco.

(For City of Sacramento info, see the previous section on this page.)

The County's system is operated by the Highway Patrol - as is the City's system.
Ticket counts for the County's system, and info about several appeals, are at Sacramento County Documents.

(39)

City of Whittier, California

Whittier, pop. 84,000, is 10 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

On Oct. 27, 2004 I received a small table from the City, covering the first seven months of their program.

(In Aug. 2005, Transol was acquired by Nestor.)

(40)

LA County / CHP
Operating cameras in or near the following locations:
Covina, East LA, Glendora, Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, Wilshire/Sepulveda in Westwood/West LA

The County of Los Angeles, jointly with the Highway Patrol, operates cameras at approx. five intersections. The locations and (if known) the directions of enforcement are:

Covina: Cypress and Hollenbeck (in an unincorporated area near but not within the City of Covina)
East LA: Whittier Blvd. at Atlantic, EBD and WBD (also see the East LA section, above)
Glendora: Arrow Highway at Glendora Ave.
Hacienda Heights: Hacienda at La Monde, SBD
Rowland Heights: Colima at Batson, EBD and WBD
West LA/Westwood: Wilshire at Sepulveda, NBD, SBD, EBD and WBD

On Oct. 25, 2004 I received the following small table from the CHP, covering the five intersections for six months. The table contained a footnote (see below) indicating that the cameras had been out of operation since March 2004.
Camera-by-camera ticket counts were received on Nov. 29, 2004, and are posted at LA County Documents.

(41)

City of Montebello, California

Montebello, pop. 61,000, is 8 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Montebello's cameras are available at: Montebello Documents .

Read Defect # 5 on the Home page.

(42)

City of Ventura, California

Ventura, pop. 101,000, is on the coast 53 miles west of downtown Los Angeles.

Ticket counts for Ventura's cameras are available at: Ventura Documents .

(43)

City of Berkeley, California

Berkeley, pop. 105,000, is 8 miles east of San Francisco.

Per a 2003 report to the city council, was to have cameras at Shattuck / University, University / Sixth, and Adeline / MLK. (In Aug. 2005, Transol was acquired by Nestor.)

If you have a Berkeley ticket, have asked to look at the records, and are getting a run-around, please contact me.

(44)

City of Compton, California

Compton, pop. 92,000, is 6 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

On Nov. 16, 2004 the City sent me the following data summary.
"Since the inception of the Red Flex Camera Program, July 1, 2002 to-date in the City of Compton, the accumulative total of violator citations issued is 15,951. The number of citations paid is 4,820. The resulting citation difference of 11,131 are rejects, photos not clear, or other related factors.".

(45)

City of Emeryville, California

Emeryville, pop. 6,000, is 8 miles east of San Francisco.

Some of Emeryville's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The City started with two cameras, both at Powell and Christie. The warning period was from Sep. 2 to Oct. 1, 2004. From Oct. 2 to Dec. 31, 2240 violations were recorded and from those, 1641 notices were printed and mailed.

Red dots are Emeryville camera locations. Major stores shown: Home Depot, ToysrUs, Ikea.
Map by MapPoint.com

(46)

City of Gardena, California

Gardena, pop. 58,000, is 7 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of Gardena's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

On Oct. 6, 2004 RedFlex announced that Gardena had awarded it a contract for up to ten cameras, for a fixed fee of $6070 per camera per month ( = up to $728,400 per year ), for a term of five to nine years.

The contract, signed Sept. 28, 2004, includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for Gardena's cameras are available at: Gardena Documents .

(47)

City of Escondido, California

Escondido, pop. 119,000, is 18 miles north of San Diego.

Some of Escondido's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Escondido's cameras are available at: Escondido Documents .

Escondido has issued warning tickets for 30 days on each new camera it has installed (for comparison, see Defect # 6 on the Home page).

Per an article in the Sept. 23, 2005 North County Times, Escondido will add four more cameras. An earlier article provided more details.

(48)

City of Lynwood, California

Lynwood, pop. 66,000, is 5 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

Lynwood signed a contract with RedFlex on Dec. 18, 2003. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Lynwood's cameras are at: Lynwood Documents. .

(49)

City of Marysville, California

Marysville, pop. 13,000, is 42 miles north of Sacramento.

On Dec. 21, 2004 the city signed a contract with RedFlex. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

See the Marysville Documents page.

(50)

City of Maywood, California

Maywood, pop. 29,000, is 3 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Some of Maywood's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

On Dec. 10, 2004 the City sent me the following summary.
"...from 9/01/2004 to 11/30/2004 the RedFlex camera has recorded 1260 violations. Of those 184 have been rejected for "less controllable factors" such as the license plate or face of the driver not being visible. The total available for prosecution were 1076 during that period."
I have made a new request for a month-by-month breakdown of the number of tickets actually issued.
The camera location is Slauson at Alamo, with enforcement on thru movements and right turns.

(51)

City of Modesto, California

Modesto, pop. 206,000, is 90 miles east of San Francisco.

A map of camera locations provided by a resident, and ticket counts, are at Modesto Documents.

Some of Modesto's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract with RedFlex was signed on June 8, 2004, and includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(52)

City of Oceanside, California

Oceanside, pop. 158,000, is on the coast 30 miles north of San Diego.

Oceanside signed a contract with RedFlex on Dec. 17, 2003, and the system began operation on Dec. 11, 2004, with 30 days of warning tickets from all four cameras. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Oceanside's cameras are at: Oceanside Documents.

(53)

City of Paramount, California

Paramount, pop. 55,000, is 7 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

Shut Down

In a press release dated July 20, 2006, RedFlex announced that it and the City had mutually agreed that effective Aug. 1, 2006 the City's single camera would be shut down, "due to a low incidence of red light running." Paramount's system went into operation on Sept. 1, 2004.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page. Ticket counts for Paramount's cameras are at: Paramount Documents.

The contract with RedFlex included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there weren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(54)

City of Roseville, California

Roseville, pop. 72,000, is 10 miles north of Sacramento.

On Dec. 17, 2003, the City signed a contract with Transol. The contract specified that the City was to pay Transol $48 per citation paid at the court. (In Aug. 2005, Transol was acquired by Nestor.)

In Oct. 2007 the City Council voted to shut down the cameras.

On June 18, 2008, the City Council will vote on the installation of a new system, by RedFlex.

Ticket counts for Roseville's cameras are at: Roseville Documents.

(55)

City of San Mateo, California

San Mateo, pop. 91,000, is 15 miles south of San Francisco.

Some of San Mateo's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

On May 27, 2004 the city signed a contract with RedFlex. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for San Mateo's cameras are available at: San Mateo Documents .

(56)

City of Solana Beach, California

Solana Beach, pop. 14,000, is on the coast 15 miles north of San Diego.

The City signed a contract with RedFlex on Dec. 30, 2003, and began issuing warning tickets in Oct. 2004.

Some of Solana Beach's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Ticket counts for Solana Beach's cameras are available at: Solana Beach Documents .

(57)

City of Davis, California

Davis, pop. 55,000, is 16 miles west of Sacramento.

The City signed a contract with Nestor on Aug. 1, 2005, and as of Oct. 14 the system had not yet been installed .

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause whereby the city will not have to pay Nestor the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Unlike most other cities, Davis' camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 1 on the Davis Documents page, for more information.

(58)

City of Poway, California

Poway, pop. 50,000, is 15 miles northeast of downtown San Diego.

Some of Poway's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Poway signed a contract with RedFlex on Oct. 22, 2004.

Ticket counts for Poway's cameras are available at: Poway Documents .

(59)

City of Union City, California

Union City, pop. 65,000, is in the East Bay, 14 miles north of San Jose and 23 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Some of Union City's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

In March 2004 the city signed a contract with RedFlex. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.)

Big Refund

In late Sept. 2005 the City announced that it would refund or dismiss approx. 3000 tickets issued prior to Sept. 17, due to the yellow times having been set too short. Here is an article about the refund.
As of Sept. 26, the City was still deciding what to do about the approx. $270,000 it spent (or owes) RedFlex for issuance of the now-dismissed tickets. City Manager Larry Cheeves, who until 2003 was the City's Director of Public Works, told me, "If it (the oversight) was internal, we won't pursue it with RedFlex."

Not all cities that have found too-short yellows have made refunds. For a blatant example, see the Bakersfield section.

(60)

City of San Leandro, California

San Leandro, pop. 72,000, is in the East Bay, immediately south of Oakland and 12 miles east of San Francisco.

On Sept. 6, 2005 the city council gave preliminary approval to a contract with RedFlex, for cameras at five intersections. According to an article in the Sept. 8 San Leandro Times, the contract will include a (illegal) "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The staff report prepared for the Sept. 6 council meeting also contained this remarkable sentence:
"Conclusion. Although San Leandro has not yet experienced a serious problem with traffic collisions directly related to red light violations, the city is continuing to experience an increase in the overall amount of traffic flow throughout the community."

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(61)

City of Murrieta, California

Murrieta, pop. 93,000, is 30 miles south of Riverside, at the junction of the I-15 and I-215.

On Oct. 18, 2005, the City signed a contract with Nestor. The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay Nestor the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(62)

City of Rocklin, California

Rocklin, pop. 32,000, is 15 miles northeast of Sacramento.

On Sept. 13, 2005 the City signed a contract with RedFlex. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(63)

City of Laguna Woods, California

Laguna Woods, pop. 20,000, is in Orange County, 12 miles southeast of Santa Ana. It is mostly within the gates of Leisure World.

On July 11, 2005 the City signed a contract with RedFlex. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Laguna Woods Documents.

(64)

City of Loma Linda, California

Loma Linda, pop. 21,000, is 6 miles southeast of San Bernardino.

Some of Loma Linda's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

On Sept. 13, 2005 the city council gave preliminary approval to a contract with RedFlex. The draft contract presented to the council includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(65)

City of Los Alamitos, California

Los Alamitos, pop. 13,000, is 5 miles northeast of Long Beach.

In July 2005 the City signed a contract with RedFlex. Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. On Nov. 4, 2007 the Orange County Register published an article which revealed that in January 2007 an Orange County Superior Court Commissioner dismissed a Los Alamitos ticket and "...issued an opinion opposing the agreements (the contract)." If you have paid a Los Alamitos ticket, please contract me - and see Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(66)

City of San Bernardino, California

San Bernardino, pop. 184,000, is 55 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The City's Nestor system began operation on Aug. 1, 2005, with a month of warning tickets.

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: San Bernardino Documents.

Unlike most other cities, San Bernardino's camera tickets don't display the Late Time (even though their Nestor system clearly has the capability to do so). 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. See the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page, and Set # 3 on the San Bernardino Documents page, for more information.

The City's contract with Nestor includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay Nestor the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(67)

City of Beaumont, California

Beaumont, pop. 11,000, is 5 miles southeast of Riverside.

Per a Transol press release dated Oct. 2004, Beaumont signed a contract with Transol. However, as of Oct. 2005, no system had been implemented. According to city staff, they still intend to have a system, but are having problems with CalTrans.
(In Aug. 2005, Transol was acquired by Nestor.)

(68)

City of Capitola, California

Capitola, pop. 11,000, is on the coast 75 miles south of San Francisco and just east of Santa Cruz.

Capitola's system began operation on Oct. 1, 2005.

Capitola's contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay ATS the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

In early 2006 there was a processing problem with the tickets. Read this article from the Jan. 20 Sentinel.

(69)

City of Santa Fe Springs, California

Santa Fe Springs, pop. 16,000, is 10 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Santa Fe Springs signed a contract with Transol in December 2003. (In Aug. 2005 Transol was acquired by Nestor.)

Ticket counts for the City's cameras are available at: Santa Fe Springs Documents.

In October 2006 the City cancelled its Nestor contract, and as of August 2007 did not have a new camera system.

(70)

City of Yuba City, California

Yuba City, pop. 34,000, is 25 miles north of Sacramento.

On Oct. 21, 2005 the city signed a contract with RedFlex. An article in the Oct. 19 (or 18?) Appeal-Democrat provides more details.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. (Other cities with similar clauses are Baldwin Park, Capitola, Cathedral City, Culver City, Davis, Gardena, Laguna Woods, Lancaster, Loma Linda, Los Alamitos, MRCA, Marysville, Millbrae, Modesto, Murrieta, Newark, Paramount, Redwood City, Rocklin, San Bernardino, San Leandro, San Mateo, Santa Maria, and Union City. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.)

(71)

City of Millbrae, California

Millbrae, pop. 22,000, is south of San Francisco and just north of San Mateo.

On March 14, 2006 the city council approved the implementation of a red light camera system, and also the police department's selection of American Traffic Solutions ("ATS") to be the supplier of the system. The staff report did not reveal why there was no competitive bidding.

On June 13, 2006 the city council held the public hearing required by CVC 21455.6. A contract was approved by unanimous vote, as Mayor Gottschalk had predicted in his June 8 State of the City address: "On June 13, the City Council again will approve a proposal to install red light traffic cameras at Rollins Road and Millbrae Avenue, which could generate additional revenue for the City (but more importantly improve traffic safety)."

Millbrae's system began issuing real tickets on Oct. 18, 2006. Some of the "tickets" mailed may be "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Millbrae's contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay ATS the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(72)

City of Newark, California

Newark, pop. 43,000, is in the East Bay, 9 miles north of San Jose and 24 miles southeast of San Francisco.

The city council approved Newark's contract with RedFlex in March 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(73)

City of Baldwin Park, California

Baldwin Park, pop. 75,000, is 14 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The city council approved Baldwin Park's contract with RedFlex in Jan. 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

(74)

City of Cathedral City, California

Cathedral City, pop. 36,000, is just southeast of Palm Springs.

The city council approved Cathedral City's contract with ATS in 2005.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay ATS the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(75)

City of Santa Maria, California

Santa Maria, pop. 72,000, is 60 miles northwest of Santa Barbara.

The city council approved Santa Maria's contract with Nestor in November 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay Nestor the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

(76)

MRCA - Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Southern California

The MRCA is a little-known State agency which manages a number of large and small parks in the Greater Los Angeles area. Among those are Franklin Canyon near Beverly Hills, Temescal Gateway in Pacific Palisades, Topanga State Park, Reseda, and the Hollywood Bowl Overlook.

Evidently tired of toiling in obscurity, in March 2007 the MRCA began to install two kinds of automated enforcement not permitted by California law (and found nowhere else in California): (1) Photo enforcement at stop signs (illegal because CVC 22450, the usual Code section for a stop sign violation, is not included in CVC 40518, the Code section authorizing the use of a mailed Notice to Appear), and (2) photo enforcement of speed (illegal because CVC 21455.6 says: "The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction"). Some of the photo enforcement is by "fixed" cameras, and some will be done by a mobile unit - maybe one recycled from the City of San Jose, which recently was forced to discontinue its RedFlex photo radar program. For more info about San Jose, see their section, above.

On Feb. 20, 2008 a bill was introduced in Sacramento which if passed will legalize the use of speed cameras and stop sign cameras throughout the State. See the Hot Legislation section on the Action page.

The MRCA began issuing tickets in Summer 2007.

A further illegal provision was found in the contract between the MRCA and RedFlex, the provider of the camera equipment. The contract's Exhibit D specifies that MRCA is to pay RedFlex $20 (fixed cam) or $40 (mobile cam) for each image processed, a blatant violation of the CVC 21455.5(g) prohibition of such "pay-per-ticket" schemes. See Subsection B of Defect # 10.

The MRCA stop-sign cameras use "non-visible" infrared light for illumination - so humans may not see a flash! To see close-up pictures of an MRCA stop-sign cam, see FAQ # 7.

Stop Sign Cam Enclosure on Hillside in Franklin Canyon* Non-standard Warning Sign** Loops in Pavement, Franklin Canyon

*If to your eye the cam enclosure looks PhotoShopped-in, click on the photo for a higher-resolution image.
**In addition to the small warning signs attached to the stop signs (depicted above), the MRCA also has made up a triangular sign. To see it, go to Defect # 4.

To read more about the MRCA go to their ticket site, their main site, or their staff report - see item V.(b) there - and also read three local articles ( Jul. 2007 Jan. 2008 Apr. 2008 ) and a local blog and a national article, and a former website about the MRCA's director. If you have a ticket and want to contact the MRCA, their number is (310) 858-3834.

If you would like to help to bring a halt to the MRCA program, call your State legislators (in your local phone book), your AAA auto club at (714) 885-1222, and the governor, at (916) 445-2841 (press 1, then 7).
You could also write to the LA County District Attorney, Steve Cooley. His fax number is (213) 687-8525.

(77)

MTA - Metro
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro operates buses, subways, and light rail in Los Angeles County.

Metro has red light cameras at road crossings along its Orange Line east-west busway in the San Fernando Valley and along the Blue Line light rail system which runs north-south between downtown LA and Long Beach.

At least one Orange Line camera detects an unusual proportion of very high Late Times (depicted above). For more about that, see the Metro Documents page.

(78)

City of Lancaster, California

Lancaster, pop. 145,000, is 40 miles north of Los Angeles.

The city council approved Lancaster's contract with RedFlex in July 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

(79)

City of Redwood City, California

Redwood City, pop. 76,000, is 20 miles south of San Francisco.

The city council approved Redwood City's contract with RedFlex in April 2007.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

(80)

City of Walnut, California

Walnut, pop. 33,000, is 20 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

The city council approved Walnut's contract with RedFlex in Aug. 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

(81)

City of Citrus Heights, California

Citrus Heights, pop. 88,000, is 8 miles northeast of Sacramento.

The city council approved Citrus Heights' contract with RedFlex in Dec. 2007.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract possibly provides a monetary sanction against the city if city traffic engineers lengthen the yellows. The contract reads:
"Cost neutrality is guaranteed except as follows: If the Customer [the City] fails to maintain the minimum yellow light change interval as established by Section 21455.7 of the California Vehicle Code."
The passage is open to two conflicting interpretations.
1. The City is required to maintain yellows that are at least as long as the length specified by the Code - but can be longer.
2. The City is required to maintain the exact length specified by the Code, and may not set yellows that are longer.

The contract also specifies that there shall be equipment to issue citations for right turn violations, and penalizes the City should it choose not to enforce those violations.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.

(82)

City of Riverside, California

Riverside, pop. 248,000, is 50 miles east of Los Angeles.

The city council approved Riverside's contract with RedFlex in Aug. 2006.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Some of Riverside's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(83)

City of Moreno Valley, California

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(84)

City of Belmont, California

The city council approved Belmont's contract with RedFlex in Feb. 2008.

The contract does not include a "cost neutrality" clause, but does include a clause that requires the City to enforce on right-hand turns. (See Defect # 9 - B.)

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(85)

City of Highland, California

Highland, pop. 54,000, is just northeast of the City of San Bernardino.

The city council approved Highland's contract with RedFlex in Mar. 2008.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(86)

City of San Carlos, California

The city council approved San Carlos' contract with RedFlex in Nov. 2007.

The contract does not include a "cost neutrality" clause, but does include a clause that requires the City to enforce on right-hand turns. (See Defect # 9 - B.)

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(87)

City of Glendale, California

Glendale, pop. 198,000, is 6 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

The city council approved Glendale's contract with RedFlex in Aug. 2007.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(88)

City of Napa, California

Napa, pop. 72,000, is 35 miles north of San Francisco.

The city council approved Napa's contract with RedFlex in June 2008.

The contract includes an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

The contract penalizes the City should it choose not to enforce right-hand turn violations.

Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore. A Snitch Ticket will not have the Court's name and address on it. For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

(89)

Why Don't You Check the Cameras in Your Town? [2]

The "Watch List"
(And Rumor Control)

Please note that this "Watch List" is not up-to-date. Some cities listed here may have installed cameras. And many cities not listed here, or anywhere else on this page, have installed cameras. Due to time constraints, new camera programs begun after early 2006 are not being reported, unless there is something unusual about the program.

The following towns appear on various Internet lists of places that either have cameras or have signed a contract. Sometimes those lists are incorrect, premature (the city is just thinking about installing cameras), or out-of-date (the city has shut the cameras down). When I receive further information about any of them, it will be posted below. Or, if there is reliable information that they have signed a contract, a new section will be added to the town-by-town listing, above.

Anaheim
Status as of Oct. 10, 2005: No red light cameras, and City was not working on a system.
Atherton
On May 17, 2006 the city council voted to conduct a 12-hour test at three intersections. The agenda said, "...if the trial proves viable, staff recommends... permanent installation."
Bell
Status as of Oct. 19, 2005: Per city staff, no red light cameras. Bell's inclusion on some Internet lists may be because of Maywood's cameras nearby.
Bell Gardens
Status as of Oct. 25, 2005: Per city staff, no red light cameras. The inclusion of Bell Gardens on some lists may be because of South Gate's camera at Garfield / Southern.
Burlingame
Status as of July 14, 2006: On July 13 the Traffic Commission heard a presentation by RedFlex. There had previously been a presentation by ATS. The Commission approved the concept and forwarded it to the city council for consideration.
Campbell
Status as of Oct. 6, 2005: Campbell never has had red light cameras but appeared on lists on some other websites as Campbell did at one time have automated cameras for speeding violations (and nearby San Jose had speed cameras until they were shut down in March 2007).
Chino
Status as of Oct. 10, 2005: Chino was looking into having red light cameras, but had not yet selected a vendor or signed a contract.
Colton
Status as of June 15, 2005: Per a June 15 article in the (Bay Area) Daily Review, Colton was looking into having red light cameras.
Cupertino - Shut Down
Status as of Oct. 6, 2005: Per Santa Clara County Sheriff's Dept., red light cameras may still be visible, but are not working. A Cincinnati Post article of Dec. 20, 2004 provided the history:
Officials in Cupertino, Calif., located in the Silicon Valley near San Francisco, stopped its camera program in January [2004] after three years of use. Although they initially planned on using seven cameras, four were installed in that period and only two were fully operational, with the other two plagued by technical glitches.
Cupertino ended up spending about $200,000 more each year to operate the program than the revenues it generated.
"The system was never really foolproof enough that the (courts) had full confidence in it," said Rick Kitson, a city spokesman.
But the cameras have some merit, Cupertino officials added.
"The red light enforcement programs are worthwhile efforts as safety programs," said Glenn Goepfert, the city's assistant public works director. "We did see initially a drop in red light running. It did start rising near the end, though."
Daly City
Status as of June 19, 2006: City staff told me, "It's (cameras) been discussed."
Downey
Status as of Oct. 10, 2005: No red light cameras and no plans to install any. The Florence / Paramount intersection, reported on some websites as having a red light camera, does not. It has traffic flow monitoring cameras. The Firestone / Garfield intersection, reported to be in Downey, is actually in South Gate.
Fountain Valley
Status as of Oct. 19, 2005: Per city staff, no red light cameras. Fountain Valley's inclusion on some Internet lists may be because of Santa Ana's very busy camera at Harbor / Warner, just across the river.
Hermosa Beach
Status as of April 6, 2005: Hermosa Beach was considering red light cameras. Some information is available at: Hermosa Beach Documents.
Hillsborough
A Jan. 29, 2006 article in the Oakland Tribune quoted Hillsborough Police Capt. Mark O'Connor as saying that his department hoped to permanently install cameras at El Camino Real and Floribunda. However, on June 19, 2006 Capt. O'Connor told me that a RedFlex test of the intersection revealed no violations during a 24-hour period, and that an installation would not be cost effective. (The test looked for straight-through violations, not turns.)
Huntington Beach
Status as of Sept. 18, 2007: At a council study session on Sept. 17 they voted unanimously to "pursue the feasibility" of a camera system.
Huntington Park
Status as of Dec. 6, 2005: At the council meeting of Dec. 5, the city council considered a police department memo and voted not to move ahead with a camera program.
Indio
Status as of Oct. 24, 2005: Indio was looking into having red light cameras.
Irvine - Shut Down
In late 2000 Irvine installed two red light cameras. They were removed mid-year 2001. Currently (Nov. 19, 2005) the supplier of that system, Nestor, lists Irvine (and Fresno, another discontinued system) on its website in a way ("Nestor Traffic Systems has provided its safety products and services to the following cities and states across the country") that could give the impression that Irvine has an active red light camera system.
La Puente
At their meeting of July 10, 2007 the council decided not to do a staff-recommended traffic study which could have led to the installation of cameras.
Manhattan Beach
Status as of Mar. 10, 2006: At the council meeting of Mar. 7, 2006, the city council decided not to install cameras. The staff report is on-line on the City's website, under the city council agenda for that date.
Menlo Park
At its meeting of April 25, 2006 the city council authorized the police to research setting up cameras. Status as of June 19, 2006: The matter had not yet been scheduled for another hearing by the city council.
Mission Viejo
Status as of Oct. 6, 2005: No red light cameras, and no plans to install any.
Palm Desert
Status as of Oct. 31, 2005: Palm Desert's inclusion on some Internet lists may be due to Indian Wells' red light camera at Eldorado / Fred Waring.
Placentia
Status as of Feb. 21, 2006: The city council held a study session on Feb. 7, 2006, and according to a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - the main pages - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HOME / DEFECTS	CAMERA TOWNS	YOUR TICKET	ACTION	LINKS / REF / FAQ	SITE INDEX