Nov. 14, 2002: Culver
City
Tickets
with Low "Late Times" Dismissed
The Nov. 14 trial session was heard by Comm. Amado.
For the
first time in eight weeks, City Prosecutor Vidra was
not
present. The session started with nine defendants, but
three
cases were dismissed immediately, again with no
explanation by
the court as to why. Later, the editor of this website
asked
those three defendants if they knew why. They didn't,
but their tickets
revealed that two of the three had a "Late Time" of
0.1 second, and the
other was 0.2 late. These dismissals, and the four
that occurred on
Nov.
7, may reflect an unannounced policy of Comm. Amado to
offset the too
short yellow times. Another ticket was dismissed on a
"necessity
defense" - the defendant had documents showing that
there had been a
police chase coming up the street behind him. Three
defendants changed
their pleas to guilty in exchange for guaranteed
traffic school. The
two
remaining defendants argued their cases, but neither
raised the VC 210
clear photo requirement, and Sgt. Corrales continued
to not zoom in on
the faces. Both were found guilty. Only one requested
traffic school,
and that request was granted.
Nov. 21 and 26, 2002:
Culver
City's
Cameras Aren't Perfect...
Driver's Photos Are Secret;
No "Second Offender" Traffic School
At the Nov. 21 trial session there was one defendant
who had
a ticket with an indicated time of day of 1:51 a.m. and
photos
that were obviously taken in full daylight. Comm. Amado
dismissed that ticket right away. Also, the TV set used
for
displaying the camera photos was re-positioned so that
the
public could not see any of the photos.
The Nov. 21 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 1 ticket eastbound, 1
westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 ticket northbound;
Jefferson / Cota, 2 tickets eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.6, 0.7
At the Nov. 26 arraignments there was a defendant who
got two tickets
for the same violation, date-stamped 0.6 seconds apart,
and with
dramatically different "Late Times." Comm. Amado
dismissed only one of
the two. The computer problems indicated by these two
tickets, together
with many ticket's indecipherable driver's photos, raise
a question
about how carefully tickets are being reviewed by Sgts.
Wolford
and Corrales before they affix their name and order the
tickets
to be mailed.
Comm. Amado made it clear that for defendants who
have
attended traffic school within 18 months, he will not
grant
"Second Offender" (12-hour) traffic school.
Dec. 3, 2002: Most
Culver
City
Warning Signs are Undersized, Blocked, or Poorly
Illuminated
The Vehicle Code requires (for
details see
Defect # 4 on the Home Page) that large
warning signs saying "Photo Enforcement" be
posted either at each camera-equipped intersection,
or at all the main
entrances to town. They must comply with the
CalTrans
specifications - including a minimum size of 30 x 42
inches.
The issue of the size of Culver City's warning
signs was
first brought up during an off-the-record exchange
between a defendant,
Sgt. Corrales, and City Prosecutor Vidra, at a
specially-scheduled late
afternoon trial on Dec. 3. No ruling was made on that
date, and the
trial was continued to Jan. 14. (And then to Feb. 11,
Mar. 11,
and Apr. 29 - See Jan. 14, Jan. 30, Feb. 11, Mar. 6,
Mar. 11, Mar. 27,
Apr. 29 and Sept. 11 entries, below, and Defect # 4 on
the Home
Page.)
On Dec. 10 (and 13) I videotaped and measured the
warning signs at six
intersections in Culver City.
The signs at Washington / Beethoven,
Washington /
La Cienega, Sepulveda / Machado, Jefferson / Duquesne,
and
Sepulveda / Green Valley all were just 36" tall, less
than the
42" minimum.
The signs at Jefferson / Cota were 42" tall, meeting
the minimum.
(Note that in March 2003 the City replaced the
undersized signs.)
For more details about the required dimensions, see
Defect # 4 on the
Home Page.
Many of Culver City's signs had other defects:
The sign for eastbound Jefferson at Duquesne, besides
being undersized,
was so low as to be easily blocked by a motorhome that
was legally
parked there.
The sign for eastbound Jefferson at Cota, while not
undersized, was
partially blocked by a small sidewalk tree.
The signs for Sepulveda at Green Valley, besides being
undersized, were
hard to see - the streetlight over the sign for
southbound traffic had
been made inoperable, including the placement of a bag
over the lamp.
The same had been done with several adjacent
streetlights. (The City
says that this was done as a power-saving and
cost-cutting measure.)
For northbound traffic the warning sign was only 5-1/2
feet off the
ground, and since it was at the end of a left-hand
curve, would be hard
to see over the roofs of other vehicles ahead. And, it
was
poorly lighted, with brightly-lit gas station signage
behind it.
The curve also impairs the driver's view of the signal
lights at
that location, if there is traffic ahead of you and
you are in
anything but the #1 (centermost) lane.
Dec. 5, 2002: Majority
of
Culver
City Tickets Dismissed
At the Dec. 5 trial session ten of the fourteen
tickets were dismissed.
Six were dismissed immediately, with no explanation by
the court as to
why. Later, their tickets revealed that at least two
of those six had
"Late Times" of 0.1 second. Of the remaining four (of
ten) dismissals,
one was for a "necessity defense" - the defendant
explained that she
had
had words with some other shoppers at the adjacent
mall, was being
followed, and ran the signal in order to escape.
Another ticket was
dismissed because it was too old, from January 2001.
(Comm. Amado
routinely dismisses tickets that are more than 12 - 15
months old.)
Another was dismissed because the photos were bad; it
wasn't necessary
for the defendant to bring up the issue - the judge
noticed the
bad photos and brought it up himself. The last
dismissal was based on a
technical defense having to do with the number of
decimal points
in the "Late Time" figure (his was 0.3 at Washington /
Beethoven
when its yellow was still set at 3.5) and the rounding
of those figures.
The Dec. 5 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 2 tickets eastbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 2 tickets southbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 1.7
Dec. 10, 2002, Culver
City:
Temporary Judge Grants Second Offender Traffic
School, and "O.R."
Comm. Amado was absent for the Dec. 10 arraignments,
so they
were heard by Pro Tem (Temporary Judge) M. Brent
Pickelsimer. He was
willing to grant "Second Offender" traffic school and,
for four
defendants who pled not guilty but said they couldn't
afford the bail,
release "O.R." (own recognizance), without payment of
the bail.
Dec. 12, 2002, Culver
City:
Secret
Judge Considers Secret Evidence;
'People' Dismiss Five of Ten Cases
At the Dec. 12 trial session Comm. Amado was again
absent, so
the cases were heard by Pro Tem Margaret E. Monos.
Getting the spelling
of this pro tem's name required a special effort. She
did not have a
name sign, and the bailiff thought her name was
Marguerite Mones, but
wasn't sure. Then, when the court clerk asked for the
spelling of her
name, Pro Tem Monos refused to provide it !
Pro Tem Monos dismissed five of the ten cases before
any testimony, at
the request of the People (Sgt. Corrales). There was
no explanation as
to why, but at least one of the five had a 0.1 sec.
Late Time on a
citation issued before Sept. 27, and many others had
indecipherable
driver's photos.
I had to gather the information about driver's
photos in the
hallway, as the courtroom TV set used for displaying the
camera photos
was still positioned so that the public could not see
any of the
photos.
Two defendants, prior to beginning their trials,
changed
their pleas to guilty and asked for traffic school,
which was
granted.
The remaining three defendants went to trial. None
raised the issue of
the undersized signs. Each of them asked for traffic
school after being
found guilty. In each case it was almost instantly
denied. Two of those
cases were interesting in other respects.
The first defendant made a "necessity" defense. (See
examples of other
"necessity" defenses at Nov. 14 and Dec. 5, above.) She
said that she
had her daughter in the car and did not stop because
there was another
car following too closely behind her - facts which she
said were
documented by the red light camera photos. (Her "Late
Time" was
0.2 second and she was driving 37 mph in a 40 zone.) Pro
Tem Monos did
not ask Sgt. Corrales to comment on the photos and the
following-too-closely issue, did not comment on it
herself, but found
the defendant guilty with only the following
explanation: "I do not
have
a reasonable doubt that the violation occurred."
The other defendant had not received the original ticket
with the
photos on it, and asked the judge for a postponement.
Sgt. Corrales
then
handed the defendant the prosecution's copy of the
ticket, and the pro
tem said, without having ruled on the request for a
postponement: "At this point I'm going to ask people to
present
their case."
There was an eleventh case on the calendar. It was a
case that Comm.
Amado would have immediately dismissed - the defendant
pointed-out that
it was 2 years old. Pro Tem Monos allowed a continuance,
so that
the defendant could get copies of the case documents.
The Dec. 12 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 ticket southbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 ticket northbound;
Jefferson / Duquesne, 1 ticket eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.6, 0.9
Dec. 19, 2002, Culver
City:
'People' Dismiss Nine of Nineteen Cases
At the Dec. 19 trial session Comm. Amado was again
absent, so
the cases were heard by Pro Tem Eliot M. Finkel. His
first action was
to
grant traffic school to four defendants who had decided
to change their
pleas to guilty. Then, nine defendants were asked to
stand, and were
told that their cases were being dismissed at the
request of the
People (Sgt. Corrales). Neither the pro tem nor the
sergeant gave the
reason for the dismissals, but at least one defendant
had a 0.1
sec. Late Time, another had a 0.2 on a citation issued
before Sept. 27,
others had indecipherable driver's photos, and some said
the person in
the photo wasn't them.
I was able to stay for only three of the actual trials.
The first
defendant said she had been waived through the signal by
a civilian who
was directing traffic around an accident that had
occurred
ahead. While neither she nor the court had been able to
find
proof that the accident had occurred, the pro tem said
that she
had raised a reasonable doubt, and dismissed the case.
Another
defendant made a good defense effort but was found
guilty, and
did not ask for traffic school. The third defendant
argued that the
photos didn't show him in a red light zone. He was found
guilty, then
requested traffic school - which was granted.
The Dec. 19 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 1 ticket eastbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 2 tickets southbound;
Sepulveda / Machado, 1 ticket southbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.7, 0.8, 1.7
Dec. 20, 2002: City of
Culver
City's Financial Picture Worsens
On Dec. 20 I obtained the latest financials, up to
Nov. 30, 2002, for
the City's photo enforcement program, and graphed
them. If the
revenues and expenditures continue at their present
pace, the City will
realize 50% less profit than it expects (and is
counting on). There is
no extra money in the City's current budget, so the
city council will
need to cut some substantial purchases, or some jobs,
at either the
police department or other City departments.
Update
3-15-03:
If
the
program's
performance
(revenue
25% below the budgeted
rate) during the first eight months of the current
fiscal year
(02-03) continues for the remainder of the year, the
profit
flowing from the program to the City's General Fund
will be 57%
less than the City expects. See the graph, at: Culver
City Documents.
Dec. 26 and Jan. 2: No
Trials
in Culver City
Dec. 31, 2002, Culver
City:
Two+
Weeks of Pro Tems - A Comparison
Comm. Amado was absent for a number of
arraignments
and trials. Those sessions were held in front of many
different judges
pro tem, who varied greatly in their policies (among
themselves and in
comparison with Comm. Amado). Here are some of the
highlights (some of
which are discussed in more detail, above and below).
It should be noted here that defendants have the
option of not having
their cases heard by a pro tem (temporary judge).
Defendants need only
refuse to sign the stipulation agreeing to trial by a
pro tem. (It is
passed around the courtroom on the day of trial.)
Arraignments, Dec. 10: Pro Tem M. Brent
Pickelsimer
discouraged requests for "Second Offender" traffic
school but granted
it
to defendants who persisted, did not discourage
requests for Community
Service, and granted release "O.R." for four
defendants who pled not
guilty but said they couldn't afford the bail.
Trials, Dec. 12: Pro Tem Margaret E. Monos
denied traffic
school for three defendants who asked for it after
having a trial and
being found guilty. There was one ticket that was more
than two
years old, and she did not dismiss it. No one asked
her for
"Second Offender" traffic school or Community Service.
Arraignments, Dec. 13: Pro Tem Philip
Tangalakis had no
requests for "Second Offender" traffic school, reduced
one defendant's
fine to $135, and did not discourage requests for
Community Service.
Arraignments, Dec. 17: Pro Tem Herbert A.
Bernhard had
only
one request for "Second Offender" traffic school, and
almost dissuaded
the defendant from taking it. No one asked him for
Community Service.
Trials, Dec. 19: Pro Tem Eliot M. Finkel
granted traffic
school to the one defendant who asked for it after his
trial. No one
asked him for "Second Offender" traffic school or
Community
Service.
Arraignments, Dec. 20: Pro Tem Bennett Olan
freely granted
"Second Offender" traffic school, had no requests for
Community
Service,
and granted release "O.R." to the one defendant who
asked for it.
Arraignments, Dec. 27: Pro Tem Eric F. Edmunds,
Jr.
granted
"Second Offender" traffic school, and had no requests
for Community
Service or "O.R." release.
Arraignments, Dec. 31: Pro Tem Edward D. Benes
had no
requests for "Second Offender" traffic school or
Community Service, and
granted release "O.R." to the two defendants who asked
for it.
Arraignments, Feb. 7, 2003: Pro
Tem
Robert
L.
Duitsman
granted
release "O.R." to two defendants
who pled not guilty and said they couldn't afford the
bail, and reduced
the hours of Community Service for another defendant.
(See Feb. 7
entry,
below.)
Arraignments, Feb. 18: Pro Tem Damon
R. Swank
granted "Second Offender" traffic school, and reduced
the hours
of Community Service. (See Feb. 18 entry, below.)
More examples: More examples
of pro
tems' (and judges' in other cities) policies are
below, at Feb. 20 and
21, June 16 and 17, Nov. 6 and 13, and Dec. 11, 12
and 18.
Comm. Amado's policies are
summarized
below, for comparison.
Comm. Amado often won't grant traffic school
post-conviction (he
says only in "unusual cases" - but don't let that
discourage you from
asking, because many times he does grant it), whereas
the previous
judge, Comm. Pacheco, would almost always
do so.
Comm. Amado almost never grants "Second Offender"
(12-hour)
traffic school to anyone - he says: "It doesn't do
what you would
like it to do." He says that even though it does keep
the 'point' off
your DMV record, your attendance at Second Offender
traffic school will
be disclosed to your insurer and that that disclosure
will also allow
them to tell that you've been to traffic school
previously (the first
time), and they will raise your rates. (I have been
unable to find an
insurer, other than possibly 21st Century, which
admits to doing that.
You may want to call your agent and pose that
question, on a
hypothetical basis of course.) So, if you want Second
Offender traffic
school and are coming up before Comm. Amado, your best
bet is to do a
Challenge (before your trial begins) and ask for
another judge. Challenge
Forms.
Comm. Amado almost never reduces the $340 fine - he
implies
that the legislature won't allow it;
Comm. Amado discourages requests for Community Service
by basing the
hours on the fine plus penalty assessment, equaling 47
or 50 hours (ask
for only 16 hours).
He will not grant release "O.R." pending trial, even
though anyone who
hasn't had a "failure to appear" is entitled to it. So
you still should
ask.
Comm. Amado dismisses many tickets that are more than
a year old; and,
the court's policy of dismissing (albeit only on the
day of a
Thursday trial) some tickets having bad photos
began when Comm. Amado came to Culver City and could
be
attributed to him.
Comm. Amado's policies are compared
with
Comm. Bobys' (WeHo, Beverly Hills) below, in the June
16 and 17
entries.
Jan. 9, 2003, Culver City: 'People'
Dismiss
Twelve of Eighteen Cases;
New Policy About Driver's Photos
The Jan. 9 trial session was heard by Comm. Amado. The
People were
represented, as usual recently, by Sgt. Corrales. Sgt.
Mike Shank was
present as an observer.
The session started with eighteen defendants. Nine
were dismissed
immediately, with no explanation by the court as to
why.
During the trials that followed, three more defendants
received
dismissals. One of the three dismissals was because
Sgt. Corrales
noticed that the time of day shown on the ticket
(6:11, with
a.m. or p.m. apparently not stated) was at odds with
the full
daylight appearance of the ticket. Sgt. Corrales said
that this
occurred because a new computer had just been
installed in the camera,
and no one had set the time of day in it. The other
two of the three
dismissals were because the driver pictured clearly
was not the
defendant. The court did not ask those defendants if
they knew who the
driver was.
(Explanation of this seemingly new position came
during two cases
arraigned on Jan. 14. As he dismissed one ticket,
Comm. Amado said that
when defendants went to the police department and
showed it
wasn't them in the picture, the police would no longer
be
sending them back to the court - the ticket would get
dismissed
(by the PD). Later, a defendant told the court: "I
went to the police
department, the picture wasn't me, but the sergeant
said I could tell
them who it was, or I would have to come to court."
Comm. Amado
replied:
"That policy is not going to continue." He asked to
see the defendant's
copy of the ticket, then said: "It's not you," and
dismissed the case.)
Of the six remaining (Jan. 9) defendants, two changed
their pleas to
guilty, and got traffic school. Another of the six,
whose 0.4 Late Time
ticket was on Sept. 28 at Washington / La Cienega,
asked Sgt. Corrales,
who had just testified that the signal had a 4.0
second yellow
time, if the timing had been reduced to 3.6 seconds
the day
before she was ticketed. The Sergeant said he didn't
recall. The
defendant pointed out that her Late Time was equal to
the amount the
signal timing had been reduced. Comm. Amado found her
guilty, noting
that a driver would have to be Mario Andretti to
notice the 0.4
reduction. (More information about the signal timing
at Washington / La
Cienega is at Sept. 27, Jan. 17 and July 17 in this
chronology.)
The Jan. 9 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 2 tickets eastbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 ticket northbound;
Sepulveda / Machado, 1 ticket northbound;
Jefferson / Cota, 1 ticket eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4
Culver City, Jan. 14,
2003:
Developments about Driver's Photos;
The Sign Issue Heats Up
The court's position on driver's photos has shifted -
see the Jan. 9
discussion, above.
As to signs: At a specially-scheduled late afternoon
session of a trial
that had been continued from Dec. 3, the defendant
submitted a motion
asking that his case be dismissed due to the City's
signs being
undersized. The ensuing argument boiled down to
whether the Vehicle
Code's and CalTrans' requirements (see Defect # 4 on
the Home Page)
are
meant
to
be
mandatory,
or simply guidelines that the City
can ignore. No ruling was made, and the trial was
continued to
Feb. 11 (then to Mar. 11 and Apr. 29) so that a
representative of
CalTrans could be brought in to testify. See the Jan.
30,
Feb.
11,
Mar.
6,
Mar. 11, Mar. 27, and Apr. 29 entries below.
Culver City, Jan. 16,
2003:
'People' Dismiss Eight of First Twelve Cases
The Jan. 16 trial session was heard by Comm. Amado.
The
People were represented by Sgt. Corrales.
The session started with approximately seventeen
defendants. Four cases
were dismissed immediately, with no explanation by the
court as to why.
Four more were dismissed because the driver pictured
wasn't them. Four
defendants, including three who had Late Times of 0.2
second, were
found
guilty. I was not able to stay and watch the remaining
five trials.
Jan. 17, 2003: City of
Culver
City
Finally Coughs Up Signal Timing Records - And It's
True - They Actually
Reduced ( ! ! ! ) the Yellow at Washington / La
Cienega
When the City announced (see Sept. 27
entry,
above) that they had changed the yellow at four
intersections, I
assumed they had increased Washington / La Cienega's
yellow
time, just as they had with the three other
intersections. But
in the months since then, a noticeable upswing in
the number of
Washington / La Cienega tickets coming to court,
plus some of
Sgt. Corrales' trial testimony about those tickets,
pointed toward the
possibility that they might have reduced the
timing. Now, at
long
last, the City has responded to my Sept. 2002 public
records request
and
provided written confirmation that indeed it was
reduced, from 4.0 to
3.6. (More information about the signal
timing at Washington /
La Cienega is at Sept. 27, Jan. 9 and July 17 in this
chronology.)
The shortening of the yellow at this intersection
raises the serious
question:
How is the City's primary
responsibility, public
safety, served by making this change that
actually increases
the incidence of red light running at Washington /
La Cienega?
Jan. 22, 2003: Letter
Asks
Culver
City Judge to Resume Public Access to TV Image
On Dec. 23 and again on Jan. 22 I wrote to Comm. Amado
asking him to
re-orient the courtroom TV set so that the public may
again
view the ticket photos. The (continuing)
correspondence is here: Culver
City
Documents.
Jan. 23, 2003, Culver
City:
Driver's Photo Policy May Have Shifted, Again
The session started with approximately sixteen
defendants. Four cases
were dismissed immediately, with no explanation by the
court as to why.
I was not able to stay for any of the trials, but got
a report back
that
the defendant with the photo below was found guilty
after Sgt. Corrales
claimed that it was definitely the defendant.
Photo grade: 5. See Photo Grading
Page
You can see the driver's left cheek,
and his
chin. Everything else is covered by the window tint,
the rear view
mirror, and sun glasses. This defendant's conviction
may signal
a hardening of the court's policy about driver's
photos.
Jan. 30, 2003, Culver
City:
TV Crew
Films the Trials;
Courtroom TV Still Is Turned Around
The Jan. 30 trial session was heard by Comm. Amado.
The People were
represented by Sgt. Corrales. Sgt. Wolford was present
as an observer.
The session started with thirteen defendants. Four
cases were dismissed
immediately, with no explanation by the court as to
why. It was
suggested (by a defendant who had talked to all four
of those
defendants) that those tickets all had "not me"
photos, rather
than blurry photos. (More about "not me" photos is at
the top of
the Tickets Page.) One more was dismissed after he was
able to
convince Comm. Amado that the driver pictured wasn't
him. One
defendant got a continuance, so that he could bring in
his time
card to prove that it couldn't have been him driving
the car.
(He came back on Feb 6 with the time cards and his
case was dismissed.)
Two or three defendants changed their pleas to guilty
and took traffic
school. Five defendants were found guilty. One of
those had a Late Time
of only 0.1 second; I can think of two possible
reasons the People did
not dismiss that case 'up front.' One reason may have
been revealed
when
Comm. Amado pointed out that the defendant was looking
to the side and
talking on her cellphone. Another possible reason
could be that they
intend to begin pursuing all 0.1 tickets issued after
Sept. 27. Another
of those found guilty said that he was distracted by a
homeless person
walking into the street. Even though that defendant
didn't ask, Comm.
Amado offered him traffic school, "due to your age."
He was 60. Another
of those found guilty asked Sgt. Corrales what size
the warning sign
was
(at eastbound Washington / Beethoven, in July), and
the Sergeant
answered, incorrectly, that it was 30 by 42 (the
minimum size). That
defendant had to drop the undersized sign issue, as he
no evidence to
controvert Sgt. Corrales' claim that the sign was of
legal size. (For
more about the signs, see the Dec. 3, Jan. 14, Feb.
11, Mar. 6, Mar.
11,
Mar. 27 and Apr. 29 entries in this chronology, and
Defect # 4 on the
Home Page.) And another of those found guilty asked
Sgt. Corrales how
much Redflex (the independent contractor) gets paid
for each
conviction.
Sgt. Corrales said he didn't know, that there was a
new contract which he
hadn't
seen. (That claim by the sergeant was remarkable
in that he
is the manager of the red light camera system. I also
question just how
"new" the contract is, because "new contract" is the
same explanation
they gave me back in September, when during my own
trial I asked about
Redflex's pay. )
There was a TV crew filming the trials. They also did
a long interview
with Sgt. Corrales. Their report will be on KCBS-2 11
o'clock news
sometime in late February.
The Jan. 30 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 3 tickets eastbound, 1
westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 2 tickets southbound;
Jefferson / Cota, 1 ticket westbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.5, 1.5
Feb. 6, 2003, Culver
City:
'People'
Dismiss Ten of Sixteen Tickets
The Feb. 6 trial session was heard by
Comm. Amado.
The People were represented by Sgt. Corrales. Sgt.
Wolford was
present as an observer.
The session started with fifteen defendants, one of
whom had two
tickets. Six tickets were dismissed immediately, with
no explanation by
the court as to why. Three more were dismissed after
the
defendants were able to convince Comm. Amado that the
driver
pictured wasn't them; one of those three presented
color photos
of both herself and her similar-looking sister. And
one more ticket was
dismissed when, as Sgt. Corrales was finishing his
testimony, Comm.
Amado asked: "Is that the best picture we've got?"
One defendant changed his plea to guilty and took
traffic school. Five
defendants argued their cases and were found guilty.
One of those found
guilty said that her view of the signal at northbound
Sepulveda / Green
Valley (the road curves to the left) had been blocked
by a yellow
school
bus in the lane to the left of her. Only one of them
requested traffic
school after conviction. He was told no.
The Feb. 6 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 3 tickets eastbound, 1
westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 3 tickets northbound;
Jefferson / Duquesne, 1 ticket eastbound, 1 westbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.6, 0.7
Feb. 7, 2003, Culver
City:
Temporary Judge Grants "O.R." and Fewer Hours of
Community
Service
Comm. Amado was absent for the Feb. 7 arraignments, so
they were heard
by Pro Tem (Temporary Judge) Robert L. Duitsman. He
granted release
"O.R." (own recognizance, without payment of the bail)
to two
defendants
who pled not guilty and said they couldn't afford the
bail. He also
initially refused to grant traffic school plus
Community Service to
three defendants who requested both, then relented
when one of
those defendants appeared a second time and forcefully
argued
the point. The judge then recalled the other two
defendants and granted
the combination to them too. The same insistent
defendant also got the
judge to compute her Community Service hours using the
'base' fine of
$100 rather than the full $270 or $320 - an option
that judges
apparently have - so she will have to do only 16 hours
of Community
Service, not 43 or 50. See the comparison of judges,
at Dec. 31, above,
and the Feb. 18 entry, below.
Feb. 11, 2003, Culver
City:
The
"Warning Sign" Trial Is Put Off
Comm. Amado wants to hear testimony from CalTrans as
to whether their
specification of a minimum size for the warning signs
is advisory, or
mandatory. The cost of flying in a witness from
Sacramento was
estimated
to be $3000, so Comm. Amado suggested, as one option,
that the witness
be allowed to appear by speaker phone. The case was
continued to March
11, at 1:30 in Div. 3. (For additional information
about warning signs,
see this chronology at Dec. 3, Jan. 14, Jan. 30, Mar.
6, Mar. 11, Mar.
27 and Apr. 29, plus Defect # 4 on the Home Page.)
Feb. 13, 2003, Culver
City:
'People' Dismiss Five of Nine Tickets
- And All Are from Washington / Beethoven
The Feb. 13 trial session was heard by
Comm. Amado.
The People were represented by Sgt. Wolford.
The session started with nine defendants. Three
tickets were dismissed
immediately, with no explanation by the court as to
why - although I
found out that one was a 0.1 ticket, and another was a
0.2 from
Washington / Beethoven back when it had a 3.5 yellow.
Two more
were dismissed after the defendants motioned for
dismissal based
on lack of proof that they were driving the vehicle,
after Sgt.
Wolford testified: "That is Mr. __ behind the wheel."
After the
defendants made their motions, Comm. Amado came down
from the
bench and looked at the TV up close. As he dismissed
one of the two
tickets, he stated: "That could be Mr. __, but it's
not clear."
Two defendants waited until Sgt. Wolford had finished
his testimony,
then changed their pleas to guilty and took traffic
school. Two
defendants argued their cases and were found guilty.
Neither of them
requested traffic school after conviction.
The Feb. 13 tickets were at the following
intersection****:
Washington / Beethoven, 5 eastbound, 3 westbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5
Feb. 18, 2003, Culver
City: A
Temporary Judge Grants Second Offender Traffic
School, and Again
Grants Fewer Hours of Community Service
Comm. Amado was absent again, so the Feb. 18
arraignments were presided
over by Pro Tem (Temporary Judge) Damon R. Swank. He
granted Second
Offender traffic school to a defendant who asked for
it (he warned:
"There are some people who think that your insurance
company will find
out... it's not bulletproof...."), and when another
defendant asked for
Community Service, he computed her Community Service
hours using the
'base' fine of $100, so she will have to do only 16
hours of Community
Service, not 43 or 50. See the Feb. 7 entry, and the
comparison of
judges, at Dec. 31, both above.
Feb. 20, 2003, Culver
City:
Temporary Judge Grants Traffic School After Trial
The Feb. 20 trials were heard by Pro Tem Duitsman, who
also presided
over the Feb. 7 arraignments. Sgt. Wolford represented
the People. The
session started with eleven defendants. Three tickets
were dismissed
immediately. One of those had a blank driver's photo.
The other two
were
"it's not me" tickets. There was a fourth bad photo
dismissal, late in
the trial session.
Two defendants changed their pleas to guilty and took
traffic school.
Five defendants argued their cases and were found
guilty. Four of them
requested traffic school after conviction, and two
requests were
granted.
The Feb. 20 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 3 westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 southbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 northbound;
Slauson / Buckingham, 1 westbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.3, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 1.1
Feb. 21, 2003, Culver
City:
Pro Tem
Grants Second Offender Traffic School
The Feb. 21 arraignments were presided over by Pro Tem
Lola
McAlpin-Grant.
She granted Second Offender traffic school to two
defendants. Another
defendant had a driver's photo that was blank (no face
behind
windshield):
Photo grade: 1. See Photo Grading
Page
He asked the Pro Tem to look at the
photo,
but she wouldn't, so he will have to appear at least
one more
time in order to get his ticket dismissed. I see a
blank ticket
like this one nearly every day. Why are the Sergeants
(who say
they personally review each ticket before issuance)
allowing so
many tickets with blank photos to be mailed? Do most
people who
receive such a ticket elect to pay it rather than take
days off work to
fight it?
Pro Tem McAlpin-Grant also told one defendant she
could
not have Community Service, because she was employed.
She told
another defendant that she could not grant the
combination of
Community Service and traffic school.
I have again written to the courts, this time to the
Presiding Judge,
about the fact that the TV set used to display the
driver's photos is
oriented so that the public cannot see it. See Nov. 21
and Jan. 22
entries above, and the correspondence at: Culver
City Documents.
Feb. 27, 2003, Culver
City:
TV
Still is Turned Around
The Feb. 27 trials were heard by Comm. Amado. Sgt.
Wolford represented
the People. The session started with fourteen
defendants. Three tickets
were dismissed immediately, with no explanation by the
court as to why.
Nine defendants changed their pleas to guilty, with
eight of those
granted traffic school. One of them was ineligible for
regular traffic
school and was denied Second Offender school.
Two defendants argued their cases and were found
guilty. Both of them
requested traffic school after conviction, and one
request was granted.
Two defendants took Community Service.
The Feb. 27 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 2, direction unknown;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 2 southbound;
Jefferson / Duquesne, 1 westbound, 1, direction
unknown
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.7, 1.2
Mar. 6, 2003, Culver
City:
Seven
Dismissals Out of Fourteen Matters Heard;
City Puts Up Bigger Signs at One Intersection
The Mar. 6 trials were heard by Comm. Amado. Sgt.
Wolford represented
the People. The session started with sixteen
defendants. Five tickets
were dismissed immediately, with no explanation by the
court as to why.
Later in the trial session two more were dismissed,
one because he was
being chased, the other because his brakes went out.
Five defendants changed their pleas to guilty and took
traffic school.
Two defendants argued their cases and were found
guilty. One of them
requested traffic school after conviction, and was
denied.
One defendant argued that the signal had been out of
order; Comm. Amado
offered to bring in the repair records for her, and
the case was
continued.
Another defendant did a Peremptory Challenge; his case
was then
transferred to the Beverly Hills courthouse.
The Mar. 6 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 2 northbound, 1 southbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 northbound, 1 southbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.2, 0.6, 1.3, 1.5
On my drive home from the Mar. 6
court
session, I noticed that (finally!) the City has put up
42"
warning signs at Washington / Beethoven. I believe
that the
signs were put up on the same day I first saw them,
the 6th. I
then went by and checked Sepulveda / Green Valley, and
that
intersection still had its original 36" signs.
Mar. 11, 2003, Culver
City:
The
Warning Sign Issue Still Not Decided
On Mar. 11 another session was held of
the
continued trial of the defendant who is arguing the
issue of the
undersized warning signs. The session ran almost until
5 p.m.,
and was continued to Apr. 29.
Mar. 13, 2003, Culver
City:
None of
Defendants is from Culver City
In the hallway prior to the start of the trials, I
asked the defendants
if anyone was from Culver City. No one was.
The Mar. 13 trials were heard by Comm. Amado. Sgt.
Wolford represented
the People. The session started with twelve
defendants. Three tickets
were dismissed immediately, with no explanation by the
court as to why
(in hallway, I found that one was a 0.1, and another
was a 0.8 with a
good driver's photo).
Six defendants changed their pleas to guilty, five
took traffic school,
and one was ineligible for school due to having
recently attended.
Two defendants argued their cases and were found
guilty. Neither of
them requested traffic school after conviction.
One defendant asked for her case to be continued until
after the Apr.
29 trial on the issue of warning signs. Comm. Amado
took the case under
submission.
The Mar. 13 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 2 eastbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 northbound, 1 southbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 northbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8
Mar. 20, 2003, Culver
City:
No
Report
I was not able to attend the Mar. 20 Culver City trial
session.
Mar. 27, 2003, Culver
City:
Public
Trial, Schmublic Trial !
Nine Dismissals Out of Fifteen Matters Heard;
Speed Surveys Reveal Why A Few Cameras Produce All
the Tickets;
The Warning Signs Have Grown!
The Mar. 27 trials were heard by Comm. Amado. Sgt.
Wolford represented
the People. The session started with seventeen
defendants, one of whom
had two tickets. Seven tickets were dismissed
immediately, with no
explanation by the court as to why (in the hallway, I
found that most
had bad driver's photos).
The defendant with two tickets was not present, but
was represented by
a lawyer. Comm. Amado called the lawyer up to the
bench, where they
spoke for several minutes in whispers not audible in
the courtroom.
Then
the lawyer sat down. The disposition of those tickets
was not announced
to the public - no indication as to whether the two
tickets were
continued, dismissed, or pled guilty. Along with the
TV turned so the
public cannot see it, this secret trial is more
evidence that
the court does not understand the Constitutional
(Federal and State)
requirement for a "public trial."
Four defendants changed their pleas to guilty and took
traffic school.
Two defendants argued their cases and were found
guilty. One didn't ask
for traffic school. The other had attended traffic
school within 18
months, asked for Second Offender traffic school, and
was denied.
One defendant asked for and got a continuance.
Another defendant had his case dismissed because it
had been 45 days
since his arraignment and the People were not ready to
proceed.
The Mar. 27 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 1 westbound;
Sepulveda / Machado, 1 southbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.9, 0.9
After the court sessions of Mar. 27
and 28 I
went over to City Hall and reviewed the speed surveys
that
Culver City used to determine what speed limits would
be posted
on the streets where camera enforcement is used. These
surveys
revealed a close match between high ticket production
and speed limits
that are set lower than the actual speed of the
traffic (as measured by
the City's survey). Those too-low speed limits allow
the City to set a
shorter yellow time). See Defect # 2 on the Home Page,
and Set # 5 of Culver
City
Documents.
Also on Mar. 27 I noticed that there
were
new, larger, warning signs at Sepulveda / Green
Valley. In the
next week or so, I will check all the other
intersections.
Apr. 3, 2003, Culver City:
Two
Dismissals Out of Ten Cases
The Apr. 3 trials were heard by Comm.
Amado.
Sgt. Wolford represented the People. The session
started with ten
defendants. Two tickets were dismissed immediately,
with no explanation
by the court as to why. In the
hallway I learned
that
one of the two was a 0.1 ticket.
Four defendants changed their pleas to guilty and
three of them
took traffic school.
Four defendants argued their cases and were
found guilty. None
of them asked for traffic school.
The Apr. 3 tickets were at the
following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 1 eastbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 2 northbound, 1 southbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1 northbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.1, 0.4, 0.4, 0.9, 1.0, 1.0
Apr. 10, 2003, Culver
City: Five
Dismissals Out of Seventeen Cases
The Apr. 10 trials were heard by Comm. Amado.
Sgt. Wolford
represented the People. The session started with
seventeen defendants.
Three tickets were dismissed immediately, with no
explanation by the
court as to why. Two more tickets were
dismissed after the
defendants said it wasn't them driving.
Six defendants changed their pleas to guilty.
Three of them
didn't ask for traffic school. Two of them asked
for traffic
school and were granted it. One of them asked
for second traffic
school, which was denied.
Six defendants argued their cases and were
found guilty. Four of
them didn't ask for traffic school. One of them asked
for second
traffic
school, which was denied. Another of them, who
had explained that
he was heading to the hospital with a badly cut hand
and had a note
from
the doctor, was offered traffic school after he
was found guilty,
and took it.
The Apr. 10 tickets were at the
following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 2 eastbound, 1 westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 3 northbound;
Jefferson / Duquesne, 1 eastbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 2 northbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 25.2
Apr. 17, 2003, Culver
City:
Mickey
Mouse 0.1 Tickets Again Being Prosecuted;
Court Demonstrates Wide Discretion It
Has to Grant Traffic
School, or Not
The Apr. 17 trials were heard by Comm. Amado.
Sgt.
Wolford
represented the People. The session started with
twelve defendants.
Three tickets were dismissed immediately, one because
it was issued to
a
corporation, and for the other two, no explanation by
the court as to
why. Six defendants changed their pleas to
guilty, with four
asking for and being granted traffic school. One
defendant filed
a
Peremptory Challenge and had his case transferred to
Beverly
Hills. Another asked for and was granted a
continuance, so she
could research her case.
In the hallway before the beginning of the trial
session, I had
met two defendants who had 0.1 tickets. I
had assured them
that, based upon a
long
-standing practice by Comm. Amado and the PD of
dismissing 0.1 tickets
(of any date, at any intersection) when the
defendants showed up for a
Thursday trial, their
cases would be
dismissed. Well, it didn't come down
that way!
Neither case was dismissed. The first 0.1
defendant to be called,
realizing that a change was afoot, immediately pled
guilty and took
traffic school. The second 0.1 defendant, rather
than pleading
guilty immediately, made a brief
argument: that the signs were too small ,
and that
her
violation was only 0.1 second. When she
concluded her argument,
Comm. Amado offered: " If you want to
plead guilty, I'll
give you traffic school." The defendant chose to
wait for Comm.
Amado's ruling on her argument. It was:
"The sign is valid, and as to the 0.1, there's
gotta be a line
somewhere. Guilty." The defendant then
asked for traffic
school, which was denied. Later in the trial
session, traffic
school was granted
to
two defendants who had much longer red times (0.4 and
0.7) and also had
made brief arguments ("The sun was in my eyes."
"I didn't see the
warning signs.").
The Apr. 17 tickets were at the
following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 3 eastbound, 1 westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 southbound;
Jefferson / Cota, 1 eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7
Apr. 24, 2003, Culver City:
Nine
Dismissals
Out
of
Twenty-Two
Cases
Heard
The Apr. 24 trials were heard by Comm. Amado. Sgt.
Wolford represented
the People. The session started with twenty-three
defendants. Six
tickets were dismissed immediately, with no
explanation by the court as
to why. Two more tickets were dismissed after
the defendants
said
it wasn't them driving. Another ticket was
dismissed because the
People weren't ready to proceed.
Nine defendants changed their pleas to guilty and
took traffic
school.
Four defendants argued their cases and were
found guilty. One of
them didn't ask for traffic school. One of them asked
for second
traffic
school, which was denied. Another of them asked
for regular
traffic school, which was granted. And the
fourth of them was
offered traffic school but decided not to take it, to
preserve her case
for appeal.
One case was continued after Comm. Amado said he would
go out to the
intersection and check the defendant's claim of a
malfunctioning signal.
The Apr. 24 tickets were at the following
intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 2 eastbound, 3 westbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 3 northbound;
Slauson / Buckingham, 1 eastbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.6, 0.6, 0.6, 0.9, 1.1, 1.7, 2.0
Apr. 29, 2003,
Culver
City: The Warning Sign
Issue
Not Decided - Case Dismissed
On Apr. 29 the final session was held of
the
continued trial of the defendant who was arguing the
issue of
the undersized warning signs. Sgt. Wolford represented
the People - no
City Prosecutor was present. At the opening of
the session, Comm.
Amado said he would be dismissing the case under
Vehicle Code
Sec.
41500 which says: "No person
shall be subject to prosecution for any non felony offense arising
out of the
operation of a motor vehicle or
violation of this code
as a pedestrian which is pending against
him at the
time of his
commitment to the
custody of the Director of
Corrections or the Department of the Youth
Authority." He would
do
so, Comm. Amado explained, because the defendant was
scheduled to go
into Federal custody (in another case) in the near
future. The
defendant, who was present, "ready to proceed," and
had prepared a
103-page motion (titled "Motion to Dismiss Case and
Remove Improper and
Illegal Signage; Sanctions..."), noted that the court
and the
prosecution were avoiding the issue, and asked that
the case be heard,
not dismissed. Comm. Amado noted: "The
signs have been
changed." He then dismissed the case. (See
the Dec. 3, Jan. 14, Jan.
30, Feb. 11, Mar. 6, Mar. 11, and Mar. 27
entries in this chronology for previous discussion
of this issue.)
May
1,
2003,
Culver City: Six Dismissals Out of Fifteen
Heard;
Another Non-Public Trial
The May 1
trials were heard by
Comm. Amado. Sgt. Wolford represented the
People. The
session started with fifteen defendants. Three tickets
were dismissed
immediately, with no explanation by the court as to
why.
Two more tickets were dismissed after the defendants
said it wasn't
them
driving. Another ticket was dismissed because
the entire middle
of
the driver's face was obscured by the rear view
mirror.
Four defendants changed their pleas to guilty.
One of them
requested second offender traffic school, which was
denied. One
of
them didn't request traffic school.
Another was
granted traffic school. It was not possible to
tell if the fourth
defendant requested or was granted traffic school, as
he was
represented
by a lawyer and his trial, except for the announcement
of a guilty
plea,
was conducted in whispers at the bench - for 2-1/2 or
3 minutes.
Five defendants argued their cases and were
found guilty. One
of
them
requested
second
offender
traffic school, which was
denied. Two of them didn't ask for
traffic school.
Two of them asked for regular traffic school, which
was denied.
The May 1 tickets were
at the
following intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 1 eastbound, 2 westbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 2 northbound;
Sepulveda / Machado, 1 northbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.5, 0.6, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2
May
8,
2003,
Culver City: Most Tickets are at
Washington / Beethoven and Have
Short Red Times
The May 8
trials were heard by
Comm. Amado. Sgt. Wolford represented the
People. The
session started with fifteen defendants. Three tickets
were dismissed
immediately, with no explanation by the court as to
why.
(In the hallway, I had seen that two of them had bad
driver's
photos.) One more ticket was dismissed after the
defendant said
it
wasn't him driving.
Two defendants changed their pleas to guilty
without arguing
their cases. Neither of them requested
traffic
school.
Two more defendants changed their pleas to guilty
after making a short
argument. They both asked for traffic school,
which was
granted.
Five defendants argued their cases and were
found guilty. One
of
them
requested
second
offender
traffic school, which was
denied. Three of them didn't ask for
traffic school.
One of them was offered regular traffic school, which
he took.
Two defendants argued, based upon the dimensions of
the intersection,
the distance their car traveled between the two
photos, and the
indicated elapsed time, that the camera at Washington
/ Beethoven was
in
error. Comm. Amado took those cases under
submission, saying that
he would go out and measure the intersection.
The May 8 tickets were
at the
following intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 4 eastbound, 2 westbound;
La Cienega / Washington, 1, direction not noted;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 1 southbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6
May 30, 2003,
Culver
City:
New Computer Terminal Eases Dismissal of "It's Not
Me" Tickets
In Culver City, Comm. Amado now has, on his
bench, a computer
terminal linked directly to the company (Redflex/TSS)
that issues and
archives the tickets. The terminal gives him
instant access to
the
company's digital copies of ticket photos. Prior
to the arrival
of
this terminal, when a defendant at arraignment
told him "It's not
me," Comm. Amado had to make his decision based upon
the photo on the
defendant's copy of the ticket. Many of those
photos were poorly
printed and indistinct, so he often had to tell the
defendant to plead
not guilty and come back for a trial during which the
original, clearer
photo negatives could be displayed. Now, at
arraignment, when a
defendant tells him "It's not me," he is now much more
able to dismiss
the ticket "on the spot."
June 12, 2003,
Culver
City: Neither Computer nor Radar Calibrated !
The June 12 trials were heard by Comm. Amado.
Sgt. Shank
represented the People, replacing Sgt. Wolford (who
was present, along
with Sgt. Corrales). Five of eight cases were
dismissed, four of
them immediately. (One of the four was dismissed
because it was a
school bus, and the other three had bad driver's
photos.)
One defendant elicited testimony that contrary to the
City's routine
testimony that the system was calibrated by a human
being on an annual
basis, no calibration date for the computer
could be found
among
the records the City had brought to court, and the
last
calibration of the radar was on 12-20-01.
Despite these
revelations, he was found guilty, and denied traffic
school.
June 16 and 17,
2003:
Observing in Other Court Points Up Differences in
Culver City
I observed 3 sessions in the
Beverly Hills
courtroom of Comm. Bobys. I noticed that
many of Comm.
Bobys' policies are different from those of Comm.
Amado.
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. (Late
note: On Sept. 4 - see
below - Comm. Amado reduced his Community Service
hours to 47.) I
also noticed that in Comm. Bobys' courtroom they do
not play a
(police-produced) video prior to the trials,
probably because
permitting
the showing of a video produced by one of the
parties to a case gives
the appearance of prejudice on the part of the court
and could provide
the basis for disqualification of the judge.
See Challenge
Forms.
A trial transcript from Comm. Bobys' court is
available here: WeHo
Trial
Transcript.
Compare it with a Culver
City transcript, at Culver
City Documents.
Comm. Amado's policies are compared with
Pro Tem
judges' policies, in the Dec. 31 entry, above.
July 17, 2003,
Culver
City: No More 0.1 Ticket Dismissals;
Digital Cameras Debut;
Possible Increase of La Cienega /
Washington Yellow Time
The July 17 trials were heard by Comm. Amado.
Sgt. Wolford
represented the People. Nine of the twenty-two
cases I watched
were dismissed, eight of them immediately. The
immediate
dismissals (at the request of the police) were because
the driver's
photos were bad. The ninth dismissal was an
"It's not me."
Two defendants who were convicted had 0.1 tickets.
Neither of them was
speeding or talking on the phone.
Three tickets were from the new digital camera at
Washington and
Sawtelle.
During the
trial of a northbound La Cienega / Washington ticket
issued March 1,
Sgt. Wolford testified that the yellow was 3.9.
Based
upon that testimony, it is possible
that sometime after September 2002 (when it was
reduced from 4.0 to
3.6), the
La Cienega / Washington yellow was increased back up
to 3.9
seconds. 'Possible' has been emphasized here, as
today's 3.9
testimony conflicts with Wolford's testimony during
the June 5 trial of
a later (issued May
1)
northbound La Cienega / Washington ticket, during
which trial he said
the yellow was 3.6. (See clarification, in Sept. 4
entry, below.)
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.6
Sept.
4,
2003,
Culver
City:
Community
Service Hours Reduced;
Second Offender Traffic School Granted;
La Cienega / Washington Yellow Time Clarified
The Sept. 4 trials were heard by Comm. Amado.
Sgt. Wolford
represented the People. Five of the eleven cases
were dismissed,
three of them immediately.
A defendant who requested Community Service on a 2003
ticket was told
it was 47 hours. The previous standard sentence
in Culver City
court was 51 hours. The reduction brings Culver
City into line
with Beverly Hills court. (See June 16 entry,
above.) You
might ask: Will previous defendants who
were sentenced to 51 hours and have already served it,
be sent a check
for the $27.23 value of the extra four hours they
served? Will
defendants who were originally sentenced to 51 hours
but haven't yet
finished doing their community service be allowed to
do just 47 hours?
The answer is no, and no.
For the first time in 10 months, a defendant was
granted Second
Offender (12-hour) traffic school. The defendant
told Comm.
Amado that he had checked with his insurance company
and that they said
they would not raise rates or cancel if he attended
second offender
school. He also pointed out that his first
traffic school
attendance wasn't yet on the court's computer, and
that he could have
failed to disclose that attendance to the court in
order to be granted
traffic school again, but had instead been forthright
about it.
Previously (July 17, above) I had heard Sgt. Wolford
testify that the
yellow at La Cienega / Washington was 3.9 seconds
long. That
evidently was a one-time slip of the tongue by the
Sergeant. On
cases heard since then his testimony has consistently
been that the
yellow is 3.6 seconds.
The Sept. 4 tickets were at
the
following intersections****:
Washington / Beethoven, 3 eastbound;
Sepulveda / Green Valley, 2 northbound.
The tickets had the following Late Times****:
0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6
****
End of Part 2
Part 1
Part 3