RED LIGHT CAMERAS

www.highwayrobbery.net

Site Index

If you haven't already done so, please read the Home Page

Back to the Camera Towns page

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 #3 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