RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net


Email Address
Site Index

If you haven't already done so, please read the Hawthorne section on the Camera Towns page.

Hawthorne Chronology

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

This page contains details of some 2004 - 2006 trials of Hawthorne tickets.

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

Hawthorne ticket trials are held in the Inglewood courthouse, every Tuesday afternoon in Department N.  
Arraignments for Hawthorne tickets are done Monday thru Thursday mornings in Division 1, mixed in with Inglewood tickets.  See the
Inglewood Chronology for information about Div. 1 and Hawthorne's arraignments.

Ticket counts and signal timing for Hawthorne's cameras are available at:  Hawthorne Documents.

Hawthorne may hold the California record for the most tickets at a single intersection - at one time its Rosecrans / Hindry cameras were issuing about 1000 tickets per month - mostly on right turns.



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


Hawthorne, Aug. 3, 2004:  Details of First Major Trial Session
Hawthorne's camera system began operation in March 2004, and the Aug. 3 trial session was the first trial session with multiple red light camera defendants.  Seven camera cases were scheduled for Division "N," Comm. William R. Torres' courtroom, at 1:30, along with a number of non-red light camera cases.  All defendants had posted full cash bail prior to trial - there were no "OR" cases on the calendar.  Six "camera" defendants showed up.  Before court came in to session, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone in the courtroom.  Two camera defendants told him they wanted it.  A couple minutes later, Hawthorne police Officer Mark Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted to see it.  All of the camera defendants, including both of those who had already elected traffic school, chose to view their video. The showing was done in a small room adjacent to the courtroom, one defendant at a time.  After the viewings, all defendants but one elected to take traffic school.
At about 2:00 p.m. Comm. Torres came in and immediately announced the names of eight non-camera defendants whose cases were being dismissed because the officer was unavailable.  After those defendants left, there were nine total defendants remaining in the courtroom.  The non-camera tickets were heard first, and every defendant was quickly found guilty, with little or no explanation by the judge.  Most did not ask for traffic school.  The one non-camera defendant who asked for traffic school was granted it (it was Second Offender traffic school).
The sole red light camera trial, for a violation of the double left at Rosecrans and Hindry, began with Officer Escalante testifying to two foundational elements of the camera system:  That there had been a thirty-day "grace" or warning ticket period when the City's system was first started (it was never made clear whether there had been a grace period at Rosecrans / Hindry), and that warning signs had been posted at the subject intersection.  He then showed the video of the violation on a large movie screen which was visible to everyone in the courtroom.  The judge asked how long the yellow was.  Officer Escalante said it was set at 3.0 seconds [compare to the 3.6 at nearly all lefts in Inglewood, except for the 3.0 at Centinela / Florence], and that since the approach speed for a left turn is 25 mph (he did not state the source of that figure), that the minimum yellow required was 2.5 seconds.  (For more about the length of this yellow, see the left turn section of Defect # 2 on the Home Page.)
The defendant argued that the warning sign was too close to the intersection (it is about 120 feet away), and that there should be more warning signs, including one in the median to the east of the intersection.
The judge asked if the public had been notified prior to the start-up of the Rosecrans / Hindry camera.  Officer Escalante explained that there had been a general notification in March when the city's system was first launched, but no new notification  immediately before the start-up of the Rosecrans / Hindry camera, as it had started-up sometime after the initial system launch.  He explained that they were not required to re-notify upon each new intersection installation.  
The defendant briefly repeated his concern about the signs, then rested his case.  He was found guilty, with no explanation by the judge.  He requested traffic school, and was granted it.
The trial session ended at 3:05 p.m.

The personnel at the Inglewood / Hawthorne courthouse evidently do not appreciate having a citizen invade their territory and help defendants fight their tickets.  I was thrown out of the building three times in the week of Aug. 2 - 6 !

Hawthorne, Aug. 24, 2004 Trials:  All Tickets Dismissed - But Not Likely to Happen Again
The Aug. 24 session started with Hawthorne police Officer Mark Escalante grabbing me and threatening to arrest me for talking to the defendants who were waiting to get into the courtroom, and ended with all red light camera tickets being dismissed.  I hope that the former situation will not be repeated, and I imagine that Officer Escalante will take steps to ensure that the latter does not happen again.

Here are the details of the Aug. 24 trial session.

I did not attend the Aug. 10 or 17 trial sessions.  The calendar for the Aug. 24 trial session included approximately fourteen Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only about eight defendants showed up.
Before Div. N court came into session, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone in the courtroom.  One defendant told him he wanted it.  I'm not sure if that defendant had a regular ticket, or a camera ticket.   A couple minutes later, Officer Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted to see it.  All of the camera defendants chose to view their video.  The showing was done in a small room adjacent to the courtroom, one defendant at a time.  After the viewings, two camera defendants elected to take traffic school.  One of the two asked for and (later) got Second Offender traffic school.
At about 2:10 p.m. the judge came in, but it was not Comm. Torres, whose name is on the door at Div. N.  It was Comm. John L. Mason, who also has filled-in in Div. 1 downstairs (see Inglewood section, below).  Comm. Torres' name sign remained up on the bench, so the defendants may not have known that it was a different judge.  Comm. Mason immediately announced the names of six non-camera defendants whose cases were being dismissed because the officer was unavailable or had "no independent recollection."  He also dismissed one red light camera case, because the file was not available.
Then the trials began.  Two non-camera tickets were heard first.  A defendant ticketed for 80 mph in a 65 presented a novel defense.  He said that his car had a rebuilt transmission, which unbeknownst to him had altered the speedometer reading, and that he had been unaware of his excessive speed as it was late at night on an empty freeway.  He argued that to convict him it was necessary to find that he had intended to speed.  The judge took the case under advisement, and told the defendant that if he later found him guilty, he would reduce the charged speed to less than 80 (so he would be eligible for traffic school) and allow him to go to Second Offender traffic school.  The second non-camera defendant was cited for changing into the carpool lane over a double-double yellow.  She was found guilty and was offered traffic school, which she was not familiar with.  The judge explained how it worked, but she ended up refusing his offer.
Comm. Mason then provided a reading of rights tailored for the upcoming red light camera cases.
Then Officer Escalante gave his standard testimony, which would apply to all of the camera tickets.  He explained that the car must be going at least 15 mph for the camera to trip, and that it takes a 12-second long video of the violation.  Officer Escalante also testified that the City had met its legal (foundational) obligations, by giving thirty days of warning tickets, from 3-19-04 to 4-18-04 at the city's first camera at Hawthorne Blvd. at El Segundo Blvd. [but not on camera installations made after that initial launch], posting the required warning signs, advertising the installation of the system, and providing yellow phases meeting CalTrans guidelines, including yellow times of 3.0 seconds on left turns.  He noted that the city had filed, with the court, a survey of the timing of the lights.  He then said that the People were ready to proceed.
The first defendant was represented by a lawyer.  He had two red light camera tickets.  The police were not prepared to proceed on the first ticket, which was at Rosecrans and Hindry, so it was dismissed.
The lawyer said that he'd like to ask some questions about the second ticket, but would also like to get Second Offender traffic school for his client.  Comm. Mason replied:  "I won't deny traffic school because you tried the case."
 The lawyer said he wanted to ask about some foundational issues.  He asked Officer Escalante, "Who checks the system?"  Officer Escalante said that it is a man at RedFlex in Arizona,  who does it remotely, by wire, daily.  Under further questioning, Officer Escalante testified that he did not know who the local "tech" is who responds to problems, or what time the daily checks are done.  The lawyer then asked if there was a "log" for the day of the violation, showing that the camera was functioning properly.  Officer Escalante said there was none.  The lawyer asked if the system is assumed to be working properly if a citation is issued.  Officer Escalante said "yes."  The attorney then moved for dismissal of the case, because of lack of foundation and hearsay.  He noted something that I did not understand, about the business record exception to the hearsay rule.
The judge said he tended to agree, that the situation reminded him of what had once been said about breathalyzers, "we got a reading so it must be working."  He then granted the motion to reject the foundation, and asked Officer Escalante if he had any other evidence.  Officer Escalante replied "no." Comm. Mason then dismissed the case, and commented that (in the future) the police should "bring the records."
I went out of the courtroom for about two minutes.  When I returned, Comm. Mason and Officer Escalante were having a discussion about dismissing the rest of the red light cases - possibly initiated by Officer Escalante.  Comm. Mason then dismissed the rest of the cases - about four.

Hawthorne, Aug. 30, 2004 Arraignments:  Right-Turn Ticket Dismissed
During the Aug. 30 arraignments, Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein dismissed a right-turn ticket at Rosecrans and Hindry.  More dismissals could be coming.  While there is no guarantee of what will happen, I recommend that you take your Rosecrans/Hindry right-turn ticket to an arraignment.

Hawthorne, Aug. 31, 2004 Trials:  Six of Nine Dismissed
The calendar for the Aug. 31 weekly trial session included thirteen Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only nine defendants showed up.
Before Div. N court came into session, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone in the courtroom.  No one took the offer.  A couple minutes later, Officer Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted to see it.  Some of the camera defendants chose to view their video.  After the viewings, one defendant told him she wanted school, and was (later) granted Second Offender traffic school.
At 2:01 p.m. Comm. Torres came in, and immediately told four camera defendants that their cases were being dismissed.  He did not say why, but I believe it was because the face photos were of poor quality.  He then told 8 - 9 non-camera defendants that their cases were being dismissed, because the officer wasn't present.  There was one more "no officer" dismissal later in the session.
Then the trials began.  Three routine non-camera cases were heard first, and dealt with.
Then Officer Escalante gave his standard testimony that would apply to all the camera tickets.  He covered the same things that he testified to on the 24th, plus he noted that he had, for each ticket, a letter from RedFlex certifying that the camera was calibrated and working properly on the date of the violation.
The first camera defendant had a ticket for a right turn from northbound Hindry onto Rosecrans.  Officer Escalante showed a DMV (driver's license) photo on the screen and the judge asked the defendant if that was him.  The defendant said "no."  Officer Escalante asked him if it was his brother;  the defendant said "it's not me at all."  The judge noted that the DOB's (and other info) did not match, and dismissed the case.  Officer Escalante said he would re-file it (presumably against someone else).
The next camera defendant was told, as soon as he came forward, that his case was being dismissed because the face photo was not to the court's standards.
The next camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from westbound Rosecrans, to Hindry.  Although the face photo was unclear and very small even when enlarged on the screen, she did not challenge it.  She claimed the signal was yellow.  Comm. Torres came down off the bench and accompanied her over to the screen to point out the red signal.  After some more argument by the defendant, he found her guilty.
The next camera defendant was the one who had earlier asked for Second Offender traffic school.  She was granted it.
The last camera defendant's ticket was also for a left turn from westbound Rosecrans, to Hindry.  The photo was also of poor quality, but he did not challenge it.  He said that he had heard that the signal was faulty;  however, he offered no evidence as to what the fault was.  He was found guilty.
Neither of the camera defendants who were found guilty asked the judge for traffic school.  However, they told me later that the clerk offered it to them.

Hawthorne, Sept. 7, 2004 Trials:  Seven of Ten Dismissed
The calendar for the Sept. 7 weekly trial session included seventeen Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only ten defendants showed up.  In the hallway (before the doors were opened) everyone discussed their tickets - all but one were at Rosecrans and Hindry.  I looked at a number of defendants' tickets, and noticed that the data strip at the top of the photos was printed so poorly that it was not possible to read important figures like the Late Time or the speed of the vehicle.
Before Div. N court came into session, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone in the courtroom.  No one took the offer.  A couple minutes later, Hawthorne police department Officer Mark Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted to see it.  Most of the camera defendants chose to view their video.  After the viewings, no one opted for school.
At 1:58 p.m. the judge came in.  It was Comm. John L. Mason, not Comm. Torres.  If there was an announcement of the substitution, I did not hear it, nor did Comm. Mason have his name sign up on the bench.  Comm. Torres' sign was absent, though.  There was no sign at all.
Comm. Mason immediately told eight non-camera defendants that their cases were being dismissed, because the officer wasn't present.  There was one more "no officer" dismissal later in the session.
Then the trials began.  Three routine non-camera cases were heard first.  Two were speeding tickets, and were dismissed when the officers, under questioning by the judge, admitted that they had not performed every possible calibration of their radar gun before using it on the date in question.  A carpool ticket, with two counts, was partly dismissed and partly upheld.
Then Comm. Mason gave his instructions for the red light camera cases.  Among other things, he said that defendants could ask foundational questions, if they felt that the foundation had not been properly laid.  After that, he announced the names of 5 defendants whose cases were being dismissed, because of poor photos.
Then Officer Escalante gave his standard testimony that would apply to all the camera tickets.  He covered the same things that he testified to on Aug. 31st.
The first camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from westbound Rosecrans onto Hindry.  The video showed that he was late by a car length.  He was found guilty, and asked for traffic school, which was granted.
The next defendant had a ticket for a right turn from northbound Hindry to eastbound Rosecrans.  He argued that he was cited for running a red arrow (subsection (c) of CVC 21453) but there was no red arrow.  Officer Escalante asked to amend the charge to "(a)" but the judge said it was too late to do so and dismissed the case.  Officer Escalante said that they had since corrected that problem.
The next defendant had a ticket for a left turn from westbound Rosecrans onto Hindry.  Like the first camera defendant, she was in the #2 (furthest from the center of the street) left turn lane and was a car length late.  She was found guilty, and got traffic school.
The court and the police had thought that the next defendant was a "no show."  But then he responded to his name being called, and the police, after a pause, asked for his case to be dismissed.  I could not tell if it was because of bad face photo, or for some technical reason.
The last defendant had a ticket for a left turn from southbound Hawthorne onto El Segundo.  He was in the #2 lane and was a car length late.  He was found guilty and was offered traffic school, which he took.
The session was over at 3:00 p.m.

Hawthorne, Sept. 14, 2004 Trials:  All Tickets Dismissed
The calendar for the Sept. 14 weekly trial session included thirteen Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only nine defendants showed up.  In the hallway (before the doors were opened) everyone discussed their tickets - 5 or 6 were Hindry at Rosecrans right turn tickets where the defendant had been cited (incorrectly) for CVC 21453(c).  (See notes from Sept. 7 trials for details.)
At 1:44 p.m. Comm. Torres came in.  Comm. Torres immediately told all 9 camera defendants that their cases were being dismissed, because the officer wasn't available.  In the remaining cases where the defendants had failed to show up, their bail was forfeited and a conviction was entered. 
Moral of the story:  Show up for your trial!

Hawthorne, Sept. 16, 2004:  Arrested, Witnesses Needed
At 8:15 on the 16th, I was arrested for distributing highwayrobbery.net literature outside the Inglewood courthouse (where the Hawthorne tickets are heard).  If you saw the incident, please contact me.  For more details, see the Sept. 17 entry in the Inglewood section.

Hawthorne, Sept. 21, 2004 Trials:  Thirteen of Fourteen Dismissed - Many for Right Turns
The calendar for the Sept. 21 weekly trial session included seventeen Hawthorne red light camera cases; however, only fourteen defendants showed up.  In the hallway (before the doors were opened) everyone discussed their tickets, and 7 or 8 were for Hindry at Rosecrans right turns where the defendant had been cited (incorrectly) for CVC 21453(c).  (See notes from Sept. 7 trials for details.)
Before Div. N court came into session, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone in the courtroom.  No one took the offer.  A couple minutes later, Officer Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted to see it.  Some of the camera defendants chose to view their video.  After the viewings, none of the defendants told him they wanted school.
At 2:14 p.m. Comm. Torres came in, and immediately dismissed three camera tickets, at the request of the police.  He then told nine non-camera defendants that their cases were being dismissed, because the officer wasn't present.
Then the trials began.  A routine non-camera case was heard first, and dealt with.
Then Officer Escalante asked for the dismissal of five more camera tickets.  Then he gave his standard testimony that would apply to all the camera ticket trials.  He covered the same things that he testified to on Aug. 31st. 
The first camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from westbound Rosecrans onto Hindry.  She argued that the signal phasing was wrong, and that the yellow was too short.  She was found guilty, and did not request traffic school.
The next camera defendant had a ticket for a right turn from northbound Hindry onto Rosecrans.  He argued that he had been cited for the wrong code section.  Officer Escalante noted that the citations were supposed to have been amended, but this one wasn't.  The judge dismissed the case, noting:  "It's the details."
Then four more tickets at the same location were quickly dismissed.
The last camera defendant had a ticket for a left turn from westbound Rosecrans to Hindry.  He argued that the arrow shown in the photo was not red, but amber.  The judge eventually agreed, and dismissed the case, noting:  "You're going to have to perfect your equipment."
The session ended at 3:00.

Hawthorne, Sept. 28, 2004 Trials:  Three Dismissed, Two Suspended Sentences, Two Guilty
The calendar for the Sept. 28 weekly trial session included sixteen Hawthorne red light camera cases;  however, only seven defendants showed up.  In the hallway (before the doors were opened) everyone discussed their tickets.  All of them were at the Rosecrans / Hindry intersection, with four being for right turns from northbound Hindry, and three being for left turns from westbound Rosecrans.  Three of the four right-turn defendants had received a notice of a motion by the city to amend the citation number to 21453(a).  While we were all out in the hallway, Officer Escalante arrived, and again threatened to arrest me for "interfering with a police operation."  He did not physically grab me as he had on Aug. 2. After Div. N's doors opened and the defendants filed inside and were seated, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone, but no one took it.  A minute later, Officer Escalante offered to show the ticket video to any camera defendant who wanted to see it.  Most of the defendants chose to view their video. After the viewings, none of the defendants told him they wanted school.
At 1:58 p.m. the judge came in.  It was Comm. John L. Mason, not Comm. Torres.  Comm. Mason's name plate was up on the bench. 
Then the trials began.  He immediately dismissed, at the request of the police, the ticket of a camera defendant who had made a right turn from Hindry but had not been sent an amendment (to the correct VC section number).   He then dismissed nine non-camera cases, because the officers weren't present.
He then tried four routine non-camera cases.  All four defendants were found guilty, and were offered traffic school.  Then he dismissed one more non-camera case, because the officer wasn't present.
Then the camera cases began.  Officer Escalante said that he had a certified letter from Clint Smith, the City's traffic engineer, stating that the approach speed for left and right turns is 25, and that the City's yellow lights (for lefts and rights) are set at 3.0 seconds, which exceeds the length required for that approach speed.  He also testified that for each case he had a certified letter from Angie Moreno of RedFlex, stating that the system was functioning properly as of the time of the violation.  Finally, Officer Escalante testified that on some of the citations [right turns] a letter had been sent to the defendants by Certified mail, notifying them of a motion by the City to correct the VC section number to 21453(a).
Of the six remaining camera defendants, two were dismissed because of poor photos, two were found guilty, and two were given suspended sentences (no fine, but still a point on record unless defendant attends traffic school).  All who requested traffic school were granted it.

Hawthorne, Oct. 5, 2004 Trials:  New Judge; Four Dismissed, Five Guilty
I was thrown out of the courthouse just before the Oct. 5 not-guilty trial session (for giving copies of CVC 21455.5 to some defendants), so the following information comes from an Oct. 27 review of the files at the clerk's office.
There were sixteen cases on the calendar, all from Rosecrans / Hindry.  At least eight of them were for right turns from Hindry.  The files of most of those right-turn defendants contained an amendment, filed by the City, changing the code section from 21453(c) to 21453(a). Two defendants failed to show up, and forfeited their bail.  Of the defendants who were present, four of their cases were dismissed at the request of the City, and five were found guilty.  All who requested traffic school were granted it.
There were also five trials by declaration ("TBD").  [Prior to reviewing the records of this court session, I wasn't aware that there could be a number of TBD's on the calendar.  In the future, I will routinely review the records for TBD's, and report on them here.]
Four of the TBD's resulted in a guilty verdict, and one was dismissed.  Among those found guilty was a defendant who argued (correctly) that he had been charged for the wrong code section (21453(c)) for his Hindry right turn.  And there was no amendment (to 21453(a)) in his file.  The dismissal was for a defendant who complained that he had received his (re-issued) citation forty-two days after the date of the violation.
According to the records, the cases were heard by Reginald A. Dunn, who retired from his judgeship in 2002.

Hawthorne, Oct. 12, 19 and 26, 2004 Trials:  Six Dismissed, Twenty-Three Guilty; All But Two at Rosecrans / Hindry
All three sessions were heard by Reginald A. Dunn, a retired judge.  More than two-thirds of the Rosecrans / Hindry tickets were for Hindry right turns.
Two of the six dismissals were at the request of Officer Escalante.  The other four were because of poor quality "face" photos, where the defendant resisted the impulse to answer questions such as:  "Is that you in there?" or "Do you recognize yourself?"  (You have the right to not testify.)
During one of the trials, the defendant argued that the photo could be any one of a number of his employees who had access to the truck.  The photo wasn't totally blurry - the officer quipped, "Do you have a twin brother?" and the judge said, "I think it is you - I see shades and a nose."  But then the judge said, after taking another look at a blow-up of the photo, "If he murdered somebody, I don't see why I should treat a traffic case any differently."  He then dismissed the case.
Two defendants tried to raise the issue of the lack of thirty days of warning tickets (Defect # 6) when the Rosecrans / Hindry camera was started (it was started about a month after the first camera in the system), but were not sufficiently familiar with VC 21455.5 (warning tickets vs. public noticing) to be able to respond to Officer Escalante's claim:  "The law says all we have to do is at the beginning of the system - we can put them up anywhere we want after that and not have to give noticing."
All who requested traffic school, or second offender school, were granted it.

Hawthorne, Nov. 2, 2004 Trials:  No More Face Photos?
Comm. Torres was back. There were fourteen camera cases on the calendar. Two were trials by declaration. I will review the records of them in a week or so, and report on them here.
At the beginning of the session, Officer Escalante requested that two cases be dismissed. (One had a fuzzy photo, the other had been issued to the wrong car or the wrong defendant.)
After viewing the video, two defendants changed their pleas to guilty and took traffic school.
Four cases were forfeited as the defendant did not show up.
A defendant with a Hindry right-turn ticket argued that he didn't have enough time to stop. He was found guilty.
The next defendant had a ticket for a left from westbound Rosecrans.  He brought a witness, who was driving the car in the other left turn lane.  She testified that the signal wasn't red.  The defendant questioned why the witness hadn't received a ticket too, as the video showed her running the light too.  Officer Escalante examined the video and said that she had cut the corner, had missed the loop, so had not been ticketed.  He said he would now send her a ticket!  The defendant argued that it had been 10 - 11 hours since RedFlex had "pinged" the camera to test it.  Then he rested his case and was found guilty.
The last defendant had been cited under CVC Section 21453(c) for a right turn from Hindry.  He argued that it was the wrong section.  Officer Escalante said that he had sent the defendant an amendment, changing the section to 21453(a), on June 8.  The defendant said that he never got it.  Officer Escalante re-checked his paperwork, apologized, and said that it had been sent on Oct. 25.  Comm. Torres asked him why he had waited so long to mail the amendment.  After Officer Escalante tried to explain, Comm. Torres said, "I heard some of these cases over 1-1/2 months ago and we had a problem... It's unfair. If you have proof of service before today, I'll accept it." Officer Escalante said he didn't, so Comm. Torres dismissed the case.
A noticeable change during the trials was that Officer Escalante didn't show the "face" photos during his courtroom presentation of the evidence, and neither the defendants nor the judge said anything about it or requested that the photos be shown.

Hawthorne, Nov. 9, 2004 Trials:  Police Dismiss More Than Half of Cases;  I Get Banned from Courtroom;  I Recommend "Challenging" Comm. Torres
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres.  There were approx. twenty camera cases on the calendar.  Six of them were Trials by Declaration ("TBD").
At the beginning of the session, the bailiff offered traffic school to everyone, and two camera defendants took it.  Later, when Officer Escalante began his presentation of the camera tickets, he requested that eight cases be dismissed.  Among the eight names he read off were the names of the two defendants who had earlier requested traffic school.  I do not know if the guilty pleas they had made (in order to get traffic school) were changed to 'dismissed.'  (I talked to the six other 'dismissed' defendants to find out why their tickets had been dismissed.  Two had not received the amendment letter for their northbound Hindry right-turn ticket, and three had very fuzzy face photos.  I couldn't discover the reason for the dismissal of the sixth ticket.)
The six defendants who argued their cases all lost.  All but one were ticketed at Rosecrans / Hindry.  During these trials, Officer Escalante did not display the "face" photos to the judge, and only one defendant raised the issue.  All who lost and asked for traffic school were granted it.
In the intervals between the six trials, Comm. Torres announced the names of an additional five defendants.  When they didn't answer, he said their cases were "forfeit."  I noticed that four of the five were defendants who were on the calendar for a TBD.  At the end of the trial session I asked the bailiff, and then the court clerk, about the TBD's.  The judge heard me make the inquiry with the clerk, and announced that the only person who has the right to inquire about an item on the calendar is the defendant.  I then left the courtroom.  A few minutes later, while I was seated outside the courtroom, the bailiff came out and told me that the judge had banned me from attending any further trials in his courtroom.
Based upon the very low success rate of defendants who have recently argued their cases before Comm. Torres, I am now making the following recommendation:  If your case is not one of those dismissed at the request of the officer and you have been called forward for your trial, do a Peremptory Challenge to remove Comm. Torres from your case.  See the
Challenges page of this website.  I also recommend doing a Peremptory Challenge if you are doing a Trial by Declaration.

Hawthorne, Nov. 10, 2004:  Yellow Increased at Northbound Hindry
On Nov. 10, 2004 I received the signal timing charts for Rosecrans / Hindry.  (Signal timing charts show the length of the yellow, as programmed into the signal controller.)  The newest chart showed a "Date Completed" of 9-29-04 and also indicated that the yellow for northbound Hindry was increased from 3.0 seconds, to 4.0 seconds, probably on that same date.  Since drivers in the northbound left-turn lane have the option of going straight across (into the shopping center), I believe that the yellow was lengthened because 3.0 seconds would be illegally short for that through movement.
If you have pre-Sept. 30 northbound Hindry ticket, especially one for turning left or going straight through, you could fight it based upon the length of the yellow.
Copies of the old and new signal timing charts for Hindry are posted on the
Hawthorne Documents page.

Hawthorne, Nov. 13, 2004:  Ticket Counts Arrive;  Rosecrans / Hindry is Highest in State
On Nov. 10 the City sent me a RedFlex "Customer Violations Report" containing camera-by-camera data.  The Report showed that the Rosecrans / Hindry cameras have been issuing about 1000 tickets per month, the most I have seen at any intersection in California.  The runners-up are Harbor / Warner in Santa Ana, which recently averaged 744 tickets per month, Ming / South Real in Bakersfield, which briefly averaged 660 tickets per month, and Firestone / Atlantic in South Gate, which averaged 620 tickets per month during the first half of 2004.  For more info about Santa Ana, Bakersfield or South Gate, see the Camera Towns page.
For more details about Hawthorne, see the
Hawthorne Documents page.


Hawthorne, Nov. 16, 2004 Trials:  Most Cases Dismissed
I have been banned from Div. N, so this report is based on my observations from the hallway.
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres.  There were forty-six cases on the calendar, of which twenty-five were camera cases.  Four of the camera cases were Trials by Declaration ("TBD").
At 2:05 p.m. about eight non-camera defendants stormed out of the courtroom.  Their cases had been dismissed as the officers had not shown up for the trial.
At 2:45 p.m. six or seven camera defendants came out, in a group.  Their cases had been dismissed "in the interest of justice," probably at the request of Officer Escalante.  All but one of them had poor face photos on their tickets.  Two camera defendants whose cases would have been among those dismissed, had failed to show up so their cases were probably not dismissed.
There were five trials, four of which resulted in guilty verdicts.  One case was taken under submission.  During the trials, Officer Escalante continued his new practice (first seen Nov. 2) of not voluntarily showing the face photos to the judge.   Two defendants asked that the photo be displayed.   One of the two questioned the photo's adequacy, but the judge said he thought it was the defendant in the photo.  However, that defendant had a short Late Time (0.27) on a Hindry right turn ticket, so the judge took the case "under submission," with the verdict to be mailed to the defendant.
  The other defendant of the two didn't raise the issue of the quality of the photo.  However, he did ask for the guidelines (Defect # 10), and Officer Escalante replied, "We issue tickets to people who run the light."  The defendant did not then follow-up with a request for the written guidelines.
Doing the math, I estimate that six defendants failed to show up for the trial session (plus the two whose cases would have been dismissed per Officer Escalante's request).
When the session was over I showed Officer Escalante the timing charts with the new longer yellow for northbound Hindry (see Nov. 10 entry, above).  He said he hadn't been aware of the change, and that I may have miss-interpreted the chart.   Then the elevator came, and he left.
 

Hawthorne, Nov. 23, 2004 Trials:  Five Dismissed, Three Convicted
There were fewer cases than usual.  Other than that, this session was very much like the Nov. 16 session, except that three defendants opted to grab traffic school right away, even before Officer Escalante could make his request for dismissal of some cases (of which there would be five).
During the trial session Officer Escalante came out into the hallway briefly and told me he believed the northbound Hindry yellow had not been increased.
After the session was over, I called  the County Public Works Department, which is responsible for the signal settings, and confirmed my interpretation of the charts.  I then called the police department and left a message for Officer Escalante, giving the Public Works phone number.
 

Hawthorne, Nov. 30, 2004 Trials:  Two Dismissed, One Guilty, One "Under Submission"
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres.  There were just twelve camera cases on the calendar, and six of those were Trials by Declaration.  
One defendant took traffic school right away, without trying his case.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the first case to come to trial, because, he said, it looked like the defendant stopped (before making his right turn from Hindry).  The ticket could also have been dismissed because there was no face in the face photo - just windshield.  But Officer Escalante did not show the face photo to the judge.
The next defendant was another Hindry right turn.  He had previously done a Trial by Declaration wherein he argued that he had been cited under the wrong code section.  He had been found guilty.  This was his Trial de Novo.  A few days before, he had received an amendment of the code section, and he was again found guilty.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the next case after the defendant got him to display the face photo.
The next defendant asked for traffic school before arguing her case, even though she had not received an amendment letter for her incorrectly-cited Hindry right turn.
The case of the last defendant, who was a lawyer, was taken "under submission," with the decision to be mailed to the defendant.  He told me that the judge had indicated that verbal guidelines (see Defect # 10) were OK, and that the lack of thirty days of warning tickets didn't matter.  He also said that Officer Escalante had said that there had not been any change to the length of the Rosecrans/Hindry yellow.
After the session, Officer Escalante told me that he was going to convince the judge that everyone who fights their ticket should be denied traffic school.
On Dec. 1, I phoned Sgt. Kauffman at the police department and told him about the new timing chart.  He agreed to check-out the new charts.

Hawthorne, Dec. 7, 2004 Trials:  Four Dismissed, Three Convicted
The trials were heard by Comm. Torres.  There were twenty-two camera cases on the calendar, of which four were Trials by Declaration.
I have been banned from Div. N, so this report is based on my observations from the hallway.
Six defendants took traffic school right away, without trying their cases or even waiting to see if theirs would be one of the cases where Officer Escalante would request dismissal.
Then the trial session began.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the first case, without specifying why (he doesn't have to).  However, it may have been because the face photo was very blurry.
Officer Escalante requested dismissal of the next case, because he had not brought the video/photo evidence with  him.
The next defendant brought up the longer yellow, and told me that Officer Escalante denied that it had been increased.  However, it turned out that his ticket was for a left from westbound Rosecrans (for which the yellow has not yet been increased).   He was found guilty.
The next defendant had a northbound Hindry ticket, but did not bring up the longer yellow.  He was found guilty.
The next defendant had two tickets.  One was a northbound Hindry ticket for which she had not received an amendment.  It was dismissed.  The other ticket was dismissed because Officer Escalante thought that the video was no good.
The next defendant was found guilty.  I could not get any details about her ticket, as she was too upset.
After the session, Officer Escalante told me that in the future there would be no more traffic school granted after trial because "You just pi$$ed-off the judge."  (At previous trial sessions Officer Escalante told me that he was trying to convince Comm. Torres to deny traffic school to those who fought their tickets and lost.   If Officer Escalante has truly succeeded in changing the judge's policy and you see the judge deny post-trial traffic school to a defendant at your trial session, I suggest that you do a
Peremptory Challenge to get a different judge - unless you have a very blurry face photo.)

Hawthorne, Dec. 14, 2004 Trials:  Traffic School Still Available, So Far
Comm. Torres was absent, and the trials were heard by Comm. Mason.   There were twenty-three camera cases on the calendar, of which four were Trials by Declaration.  There were also thirty-two non-camera cases on the calendar.
This report is based on my observations from the hallway, and interviews with defendants.
In the hallway before the session began, I noticed that several defendants had tickets for right turns from Hindry, but had not received amendment letters (amending the code section to 21453(a)).
After the defendants were seated in the courtroom, Officer Escalante announced to everyone there (including about 20 non-camera defendants) that the judge would not grant traffic school after trial.  He announced that it was because of (my) meddling.  Shortly after making that announcement, Officer Escalante went into the back room (judge's chambers?), then emerged and made a revised statement about traffic school, that the granting of it would be at the judge's discretion.  Around this time, there was a rush of about ten people who grabbed traffic school.  There are two versions of the exact sequence of events.  One defendant told me that the rush occurred before Officer Escalante's revised announcement.  Another defendant said that the rush was after the revised announcement.
Right after the judge came onto the bench, there was another rush of (about thirteen) people leaving the courtroom.  They had non-camera tickets, and their cases were dismissed by the judge because the officers had not shown up.  There was one more non-camera defendant whose officer didn't show up, but for some reason she waived her right to a speedy trial, to allow the case to be continued to a later date so that the officer would have another chance to show up.
During the time the judge was hearing the non-camera cases (which are heard first), Officer Escalante and his team - Officer Sepulveda and a new addition, Officer Michael Mullen - were showing photos of their violations to defendants who wished to see them.  After seeing their photos, several more camera defendants elected to take traffic school rather than go to trial.
When the camera trials began, Officer Escalante asked the Court to dismiss two tickets, for unspecified reasons.
The first defendant to argue his case had a ticket for the left turn from westbound Rosecrans, and argued that the 3.0 yellow was too short.  Officer Escalante countered that the 3.0 met a state guideline.  The defendant was found guilty. 
The next defendant also had a westbound left ticket.  He argued that the camera was out of calibration, because the time stamp on the ticket disagreed with the time on his receipt from the CostCo gas station nearby. Officer Escalante countered that the CostCo clock could be off and that in any case the exact time didn't matter, "You still ran through the light."  Comm. Mason offered the defendant a continuance, so that he could bring in an expert witness, but the defendant declined, and was found guilty.
The next defendant also had a westbound left ticket.  He admitted that he ran the light.  He then asked Officer Escalante if ever in his patrol experience he had not cited someone for running a red light, because of extenuating circumstances.  He said, "Yes."  The defendant argued that his car, which he had just picked up from the nearby Ford dealer, was running out of gas and sputtering and that he kept going, to avoid stalling in the intersection and jamming-up traffic. The judge felt that there was sufficient "necessity," and found the defendant not guilty.
The next defendant had a ticket for a right turn from Hindry.  He had received an amendment letter changing the cited section from (c) to (a), but only two days before.  Comm. Mason initially discussed offering the defendant a continuance, since the amendment was so recent.  Then, after some discussion, he decided that the correct section for the violation was 21453(b), and found the defendant not guilty.
During this trial session, all who requested traffic school were granted it.
During this trial session, the Hawthorne red light camera team continued their new (and unique) practice of not showing the judge the face photos.
During this trial session, although he did not do it as part of official testimony, Officer Escalante stated that he still believed that the yellow time on northbound Hindry had not been increased from 3.0 to 4.0.

Hawthorne, Dec. 21, 2004 Trials:  Most Cases Dismissed
There were 36 camera cases on the calendar, including three Trials by Declaration.
Shortly after the defendants were admitted into the courtroom, two people with camera tickets exited.  They had elected to change their pleas to guilty and take traffic school, without waiting for the judge to come in.
After the courtroom had been open for about half an hour, all the remaining camera defendants exited at once - their cases had been dismissed because there was no evidence against them - the Hawthorne PD red light camera team had not arrived.  The defendants had been told that the officers had not come because there was an unspecified computer problem that made the (digital) ticket files unavailable.

Hawthorne, Dec. 28, 2004 Trials:  Most Cases Continued
There were sixteen camera cases on the calendar, including two Trials by Declaration.
Three people elected to take traffic school without waiting for the judge.  One more asked for it a little later.
Three cases were dismissed, one because the defendant had a northbound Hindry right-turn ticket and had not received an amendment of the charges.  It was not clear why the other two were dismissed.
The remaining camera cases all were continued to Jan. 4 - possibly because the judge had become ill.  Each of those defendants should check to see if that new date is beyond 45 days (speedy trial) from the date they pled not guilty and paid their bail.


Hawthorne, Jan. 4, 2005 Trials:  New Judge; Six Dismissed, Six Convicted
For the New Year, Comm. Torres' courtroom has been re-designated as Department 8, and the Department N sign and red light camera ticket case load has been moved to the courtroom of Comm. John R. Johnson.
On Jan. 4, Officer Escalante was absent, so the Hawthorne police were represented by Officer Michael Mullen.
One person elected to take traffic school without waiting for Comm. Johnson to come in.  His face photo was a total blur, but he was convinced that all the police needed to show the judge was the photo of the license plates.
When the judge began hearing the cases, Officer Mullen immediately asked for the dismissal of four cases.
The next case was dismissed because the face photo was very blurry - a "4" on my
Photo Grading scale.  With the photo blown up all the way on the screen in the courtroom, you could tell that the driver was the same age (+/- 25 years) and gender as the defendant, but that's all.  The skin color was wrong.  The judge said, "I can't really tell if that is one and the same person."
The next defendant, who had a ticket for the northbound Hindry right turn, argued that the City should put up a sign telling people they must stop.  That argument didn't work, so he asked that the face photo be shown.  The blown-up photo showed a very blurry face, with the sun visor covering the place where the eyes would be.  It was a "5" on my scale - age, gender and skin color were evident.  The judge said, "It's kind of washed-out."  The defendant didn't further pursue the issue.  He did not ask the judge, "Are you sure it's me."  He was found guilty.
The next defendant, who had a ticket for an Imperial/Freeman right turn, argued that he didn't know he was supposed to stop.  That argument didn't work, so he asked for the face photo to be shown.  The blown-up photo was an "8" on my scale, with the driver in half-profile.  The defendant said that he had an 18-year old son.  The judge said that the photo didn't look like that age.  The defendant was found guilty.
The next defendant had a very early Rosecrans/Hindry ticket, from April.  The judge asked Officer Mullen about the grace (warning ticket) period.  I thought I heard Officer Mullen reply that there had been a grace period at Rosecrans/Hindry beginning March 19.  Later, I asked Officer Mullen about that testimony, and he said that he believed he had testified that there had not been a grace period at that intersection.  The defendant didn't put on any defense, but elected to ask for traffic school, which was granted.
The next defendant had a ticket for the northbound Hindry right which showed his speed as being 19 mph.  He argued that a car couldn't make the turn at that speed.  That didn't work, so he asked that the face photo be shown.  It was a "3" on my scale - the skin color was correct, but it was just an outline of a head, no features. 
The defendant did not ask the judge, "Are you sure it's me."  He was found guilty.
The next defendant said that a man in an orange vest had a wire attached to the camera and was clicking a button at the time her violation occurred.  She said that she parked and approached him but he would not identify himself and told her "None of your  ---damn business" when she asked what he was doing.  She said she left three messages on the Hawthorne traffic bureau number to discuss her ticket, but never received a call back.  She was found guilty.
The next defendant argued that the yellow was too short for the left from westbound Rosecrans, and that it was a "trap."  The judge asked Officer Mullen if RedFlex had anything to do with the setting, and he replied "None at all."  She was found guilty.
The last defendant, a cab driver, said, "It's not me."  The face photo was blurry but you could see the driver's eyebrows and a partial profile, which looked a lot like the defendant but also a looked a little younger (to me) - an "8" on my scale.  The cabbie also presented some paperwork, from his dispatcher, which he said showed that he was not driving that vehicle at the time of the violation.  The judge said he had "Reasonable doubt," and found him not guilty.

During this trial session, all who requested traffic school post-conviction were granted it.

Based upon Comm. Johnson's acceptance of what I think are very blurry photos, I am now making the following recommendation:  If your photo is very blurry, do a Peremptory Challenge to remove him from your case.  See the Challenges page of this website.

Also, Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein, who sat in Div. 1 and handled the arraignments of both Hawthorne and Inglewood tickets,  received a new assignment for 2005.  Information about the new judge in Div. 1 will be found in the Inglewood section of this website.


Hawthorne, Jan. 11, 2005 Trials: 
City Wants to Change It Back to the Way It Was
The Jan. 11 trials were heard by Comm. Johnson, and Officer Mullen represented the Hawthorne police.
At the Tuesday Hawthorne trial sessions, the court calendar  (the list of cases to be heard that day) is typically about half regular old-fashioned traffic tickets, and half red light camera tickets.  The regular tickets are tried first, which provides a time period of an hour or so during which the red light camera team moves to a small room just outside the courtroom and shows the video of their violation to any camera defendant who wishes to view it.  
The last "yellow ticket" trial before the red light camera ticket trials began was of a lady who was accused of running a stop sign.  The Hawthorne motorcycle officer who had ticketed her used the red light camera team's LCD projector to show the court a hand-held video he had made of the alleged violation.  The judge found her not guilty, because while she didn't stop at the limit line, she did almost stop ten or so feet later - she slowed-down to 2 - 4 mph (my estimate).  The judge contrasted that with the fifteen mph threshold for red light camera tickets.
The first camera ticket was dismissed after the defendant asked the judge if he thought the face photo looked like her.  In his reply, the judge's mentioned "poor camera work" and said, "I'm not going to speculate."
The next defendant immediately asked the judge for Second Offender traffic school - which was granted.
When the next defendant came forward, the police immediately make a request for dismissal, which was granted.  His ticket was for a Hindry right turn.  I don't know why it was dismissed.
The next defendant's ticket was for the left turn from westbound Rosecrans.  The officers routinely "freeze frame" the video at the instant the light turns red, and the video for this defendant showed him 4 - 5 feet before the limit line.  (At trial, the Hawthorne police have not been displaying the Late Time, so beginning now I will post estimates of those Late Times based upon the freeze frame distance and a minimum (Threshold) speed of 15 mph, or 22 feet per second.)  I estimate that this defendant was 0.2 late.   He was found guilty and given traffic school.
The next defendant's ticket for also for the same left turn.  The judge said she was no more than ten feet late.  I estimate a 0.4 Late Time.  She was found guilty and given traffic school.
The next case was for a Hindry right turn.  The defendant said his Late Time was 0.14, and the video showed him to have been about five feet late.  His ticket was from before Sept. 29, and he argued that had the yellow been longer (as it was after Sept. 29) he would not have gotten a ticket.   Officer Mullen testified that the City was asking the county (which maintains and sets the signal) to change the northbound Hindry yellow back to 3.0.  (For more details about the northbound Hindry yellow, see the Nov. 10 entry above, and Set # 1 on the
Hawthorne Documents page; and if you would like to let the county know your opinion about the change the City is requesting, contact the members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors listed on the Links page.)  The judge took the case under submission, and directed the officers to submit documentation about the length of the yellow, within one week.  He said, "I will decide on the basis of whether the yellow was in compliance with the law."
The last defendant had a ticket for the northbound left at Hawthorne Blvd. and El Segundo.  He was 6 - 7 feet late.  I estimate a 0.3 Late Time.  He was found guilty.
During this trial session, the Hawthorne red light camera team continued their new practice of not voluntarily showing the judge the face photos.


Hawthorne, Tuesday Jan. 18, 2005 Trials:  Fifteen Dismissed, Four are Guilty;
 Judge Gives Opinion on Northbound Hindry Yellow Time

For this trial session the Hawthorne red light camera team (Officer Mullen and Ms. Ibarra) arrived at 2:20 p.m., later than usual, and for the first time did not offer defendants a preview of the photos.  And, during the trials they continued their new practice of not voluntarily showing the judge the face photos.
Before any camera ticket trials began, the judge dismissed thirteen camera tickets.  He did not say why, but it was probably at the request of the City.  Later, during the camera ticket trials, he dismissed one more without specifying why.
The first camera ticket defendant to go to trial had a westbound Rosecrans left-turn ticket.  She was found guilty and was granted traffic school.
The next camera ticket defendant had what is in Hawthorne a rare ticket (for going straight-through an intersection), southbound at Hawthorne Blvd. at El Segundo Blvd.  He asked for his face photo to be shown.  Officer Mullen replied that "the machine was down" so that he could not display the face photo on the screen.  He offered a print of the photo.  The judge examined the print, said he could not tell if the pictured driver was the same as the defendant, and dismissed the case.
   The next defendant had a ticket for the right turn from Hindry.  She immediately asked for traffic school, and was granted it.
The next defendant also had a Hindry right-turn ticket.  Hers was on Sept. 14, before the yellow was raised from 3.0 seconds to 4.0 seconds.  When she (briefly) raised the issue of the yellow, Comm. Johnson said, "My understanding is that the three seconds was in compliance with the legal requirement."  The defendant was found guilty, and was granted traffic school.
The last defendant also had a Hindry right-turn ticket.   She asked for the face photo to be shown, and it was an "8" on my
photo grading scale.  The judge said, "It appears to be one and the same person."  The defendant requested Second Offender traffic school, and was granted it.


Hawthorne, Tuesday Jan. 25, 2005 Trials:  Ten Dismissed,  Three are Guilty
The Hawthorne red light camera team  resumed their usual practice of providing a preview of the photos, and was a little over halfway through the previewing when Comm. Johnson announced six camera cases that were to be dismissed.  The camera team stopped the previews, in order to have time to move their equipment and set it up in the courtroom.
The first camera defendant to go to trial had a Hawthorne Blvd. at El Segundo ticket.  Her case was dismissed immediately, at the request of Officer Mullen, due to an unspecified "technical problem."
The next defendant had a Hindry right turn ticket with a Late Time of over thirteen seconds.  She was found guilty and granted traffic school.
The next defendant's ticket was dismissed immediately, at the request of Officer Mullen, with no reason specified.  Later, the defendant explained to me that while he was previewing the photos he had asked to see the if the blown-up face photo was better than the one printed on his ticket, but had been told that he would he would see a better one in the courtroom.
The next defendant had a left-turn ticket at Hawthorne Blvd. at Imperial.  He said he had a brake problem.  He was found guilty and granted traffic school.
The next defendant had a Hindry right-turn ticket with a Late Time of over six seconds.  She said she wasn't sure that it was her in the photo - that she and her family all worked nearby, and that the figure in the photo (about a "5" on my photo grading scale) could be her mother or her sister.  Comm. Johnson told Officer Mullen that he would listen to his argument as to why the photo proved the case against the defendant.  Officer Mullen explained that she was listed as the registered owner, and that to him it looked like the defendant.  The judge said he had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.  He asked the defendant if she was testifying that it was her sister.  The defendant replied that it might have been her sister or her mother.  The judge suggested that if the defendant would sign an affidavit naming the driver, the case would be dismissed.  The defendant repeated that she wasn't sure if it was her mother or her sister.  The judge dismissed the case. 
This trial is an example of how close a judge can come to convicting you - when it may not have been you - and also is an example of what may be improper arm-twisting by a judge.  The transcript of this trial is available here.
The next defendant had a Hindry right-turn ticket.  She was found guilty and granted community service and traffic school.
The last defendant had a Hindry right-turn ticket.  It was dismissed immediately at the request of Officer Mullen.  Rather than leaving, the defendant asked if she could add something.  Permission granted, she complained that her video showed that she had made a complete stop, and that the ticket should have been dismissed at arraignment - or before - instead of forcing her to put up the bail and go to trial.


Hawthorne, Tuesday Feb. 1, 2005 Trials:  All Dismissed
Comm. Johnson was downstairs presiding in Div. 1 so Comm. Torres handled the Feb. 1 trials in Dept. N. 
This report is based on my observations from the hallway.
There were 21 camera tickets on the calendar, of which two were Trials by Declaration.
After Officer Mullen gave him a preview of the video,  one gentleman elected to take traffic school without waiting for Comm. Torres to come in.  His face photo was blurry, but he did not wish to challenge it.
When the judge began hearing the cases, Officer Mullen immediately asked for the dismissal of six cases.  One of the six was an "It's not me."  In another of the six, the defendant's car was legally 10 - 15 feet into the intersection - the ticket should have been issued to the driver behind her.  The remaining four tickets had blurry face photos or other technical defects.

The first camera trial lasted 25 minutes.  It was a ticket for a Hindry right turn before Sept. 29.  The defendant asked Officer Mullen why the yellow had been increased.  Officer Mullen could not explain why, to the judge's satisfaction.  The judge dismissed this case and four others at the same intersection.
The last defendant had a ticket at Hawthorne Blvd. at El Segundo Blvd.  The face photo showed only the nose and chin of the driver.  He asked the judge if he was sure it was him.  The judge dismissed the case.
Doing the math, it appears that six defendants didn't show up for their trial.  When a defendant doesn't show up, their case is marked "guilty" and they don't even get traffic school. 
Moral of the story:
Show up for your trial !


Hawthorne, Tuesday Feb. 8, 2005 Trials:  Eleven Dismissed, Six are Guilty
Comm. Torres handled the Feb. 8 trials.  Officer Mullen represented the City of Hawthorne.  This report is based upon my observations from the hallway.  There were 34 camera tickets on the calendar, of which eight were Trials by Declaration.
When the judge began hearing the cases, he immediately dismissed ten cases, at least four of which were northbound Hindry tickets.  One more case was dismissed because the file was not available. 
After the dismissals, two defendants grabbed traffic school without trying their cases.
The first two defendants to try their cases had post-Sept. 29 tickets for right turns from northbound Hindry, with large Late Times.  They were found guilty and were granted traffic school.
The next defendant had a ticket for a left from westbound Rosecrans, with a Late Time of 1.02.  He may have argued that the face photo was not sufficient clear.  He was found guilty and was granted traffic school.
The last defendant had a ticket for a right turn from northbound Hindry.  The photos showed that he had actually come to a full stop, but with the front wheels of the car just past the second line of the crosswalk.  Comm. Torres ruled that the stop was too late, and found the defendant guilty.  The defendant told me that when (earlier) he went to view the photos at the police department, Officer Mullen told him that had it been up to him, the ticket would not have been issued.
Doing the math, it appears that nine defendants didn't show up for their trial.  When a defendant doesn't show up, their case is marked "guilty" and they don't even get traffic school.  Moral of the story:
Show up for your trial !


Hawthorne:  Feb. 2005 Appellate Decision May Apply
A February 2005 appellate court decision (
People vs. Fischetti) could affect thousands of tickets issued in Hawthorne.  It has already
forced another city to suspend the operation of most of its cameras, for 30 days.  See
 Defect # 6 and Defect # 10, on the Home page.


Hawthorne:  Feb. 15, 2005 Trials:  No Report
I was not able to attend the Feb. 15 trials.


Hawthorne, Tuesday Feb. 22, 2005 Trials:  Most Cases Dismissed - Traffic School Availability in Question
The trials were heard by the Hon. John J. Lynch, a retired judge, who noted that the last time he had handled traffic cases was in 1993. 
Officer Mullen represented the City of Hawthorne.  There were 32 camera tickets on the calendar, of which four were Trials by Declaration.
Just before he began hearing the camera cases Judge Lynch announced, several times, that defendants who wanted traffic school should ask for it "when your name is called instead of waiting until all the testimony is given."
  When he began hearing the camera cases, he immediately dismissed eleven cases all at once, at the request of the police.
He then read out the names of all the remaining defendants, and asked each to indicate if they wanted traffic school.  The first two defendants asked for school.  The third asked, "If I go to trial and lose can I still get traffic school?"  The judge said, "Maybe.  It is at my discretion."  That defendant decided not to request school.  The judge then read out the names of twelve more defendants, two of whom asked for school.
He then called the first case for trial, an Imperial / Freeman right turn ticket.  While it did not affect the case, it was interesting that the 12-second video showed that there was a police car right behind the violator's car.  After Officer Mullen displayed the photos, the defendant asked him if the City had issued warning tickets for 30 days when it started the camera.  Officer Mullen said, "No."  The defendant did not follow that admission with a motion to dismiss.  He said nothing.  Officer Mullen then displayed the face photo, which to this observer looked a lot like the defendant.  The judge then said, "I haven't seen any evidence of the license plate number."  Officer Mullen responded by displaying the photo of the license plate.  Then there was fast-paced discussion between the judge and Officer Mullen as to how the officer had connected the license plate to the defendant.  I think that I heard Officer Mullen tell the judge that he had done a look-up on the DMV data base;  I also think I heard the judge ask the officer if he had a copy of the information from the DMV with him in court, and that the officer said he did not.  The judge then said, "There being no further evidence that this license plate is his... dismissed."
The defendant also had a second ticket, at the same intersection, also for a right turn (no police car behind him this time, though).  Judge Lynch dismissed it very quickly.
Judge Lynch then called the next camera defendant and began hearing the case, but it quickly became evident that the same problem would apply to the new ticket.  He dismissed the case, and thirteen more, four of which were Trials by Declaration.


Hawthorne, Tuesday March 1, 2005 Trials:  Eleven Grab School, Seven Dismissed, Two Guilty
The 1:30 p.m. trial session was heard by Judge Lynch.  It began with a number of non-camera trials, which were completed by 2:30 p.m.
For the camera ticket trials, Officers Mullen and Escalante represented the City of Hawthorne.  There were 26 camera tickets on the calendar, of which five were Trials by Declaration.
In the hallway before the session, all of the camera tickets I saw were from Rosecrans / Hindry, mostly for the northbound right turn.
Just before Judge Lynch began hearing the camera cases, he announced, "I'm going to call some names.  If you want to go to traffic school say so when your name is called."  Eleven defendants told him "Yes," they would like to go to traffic school.  They were told they could leave.
Officer Mullen then began to give his standard foundational testimony, but the judge told him that he did not need to do so unless he had something to add to the testimony he had given the previous Tuesday, or if a defendant requested it.
Officer Mullen then  requested that five cases be dismissed.  Included in the five was one defendant who had just asked for school.  It appears that her case was dismissed, anyway.
Officer Mullen then  gave some foundational testimony apparently related to the judge's question the previous week about the source of the DMV information.  He told the court that RedFlex was authorized by the Hawthorne Police Department to view a limited "R.O." (that's what it sounded like - registered owner?) via the DMV.
Judge Lynch then called the first case for trial.   He immediately asked the officers to display the face photo.  It was not very clear.  He asked the officers how the defendant had been identified.  They told him that the registered owner, a leasing company, had filed an affidavit naming her.   The judge asked if the registered owner was present, to testify.  The officers said they were not.  The judge asked if the officers had the affidavit with them.  They said they did not.  The judge found the defendant not guilty.
The next case was very similar.  A rental car.  No affidavit brought to court.   Not guilty.
The next defendant had a northbound Hindry right turn ticket.  The judge looked at the face photo, which was somewhat better than the first defendant's photo, and said, "That's enough to get started - there's a similarity."  The defendant's defense was that drivers behind him went through the light, too - maybe the green arrow was still on.  He was found guilty.  He asked for traffic school.  The judge said, "I'll authorize it - a right turn doesn't seem to be a particular danger."
The  last defendant to be tried also had a Hindry right turn ticket.   The judge said, of the face photo, that there was "enough similarity to proceed."  The defendant asked whether the camera had malfunctioned.  Officer Escalante said he had an affidavit, signed by a RedFlex employee, saying that it had not.  The defendant asked if he could question that employee (who was not present).  The defendant testified that the cameras sometimes fail.  He was found guilty.  Later, he came back to ask for Second Offender traffic school, but it was not granted.
Next, one of the defendants who earlier had elected to grab traffic school without going to trial, asked if he could change his mind and have a trial.  The judge said, "He took traffic school and that's what he got."
One defendant didn't show up for trial, so his case was forfeit.
The session concluded at 3:07 p.m.


Hawthorne, Tuesday March 8, 2005 Trials:  Four Grab School, Three Dismissed (Two More Could Have Been), Six Guilty

The 1:30 p.m. trial session was heard by the Hon. James Satt, a judge who retired in 1988.  (Judge Satt is the fourth judge to sit  in Dept. N since December!  Does no one want the job?)  The session began with a number of non-camera trials, which were completed by 2:55 p.m.
For the camera ticket trials, Officers Mullen and Escalante represented the City of Hawthorne.  There were approx. 22 camera tickets on the calendar, of which three were Trials by Declaration.
(In a hallway raise of hands before the session, all but two of the camera tickets were from Rosecrans / Hindry.  Of the Rosecrans / Hindry tickets the majority were for the right turn from Hindry onto Rosecrans.)
Judge Satt began by reading the names on five cases where the police had requested dismissal.  However, only three were dismissed, as two of the defendants had failed to show up for the trial session.  The judge ordered a license suspension for one of the two, as that defendant had not posted any bail.   The other simply forfeited his bail.  During the remainder of the trial session there were four more "forfeits," and four defendants grabbed traffic school before trying their cases. 
The six remaining defendants were found guilty; all asked for traffic school.  The two who were eligible for regular traffic school were granted it.   The only question the judge asked those who asked for Second Offender school ("2TS") was how long it had been since their last attendance.  The one person who was granted 2TS had last attended nearly 18 months previously.  The other three had three, twelve, and fourteen months since their last attendance.
Based upon multiple factors, I am now making the following recommendation:  If your camera ticket comes to trial before Judge Satt, and your case is not one of those dismissed at the request of the police (either in the group at the beginning of the session or later, immediately upon you being called forward for the trial of your case), make a Peremptory Challenge to move your case to another judge.  See the Challenges page of this website.


Hawthorne, Tuesday March 22, 2005 Trials:  All Cases Dismissed

The session was heard by Judge Lynch, who also presided in late February and early March. 
There were 31 camera cases on the calendar, including six Trials by Declaration.
No one elected to change their plea to guilty and take traffic school, without waiting for the judge to come in.
Immediately after Judge Lynch came in, he announced that the Hawthorne PD red light camera team had not arrived and that he would be dismissing the camera cases.  He then dismissed all 31 cases.
This was the third time the HPD team did not show up for a trial session.


Hawthorne, Tuesday November 22, 2005 Trials:  New Judge, No Traffic School

Despite the lack of posts since March, I have attended all but one of the Hawthorne trials since then.
Dept. N has had many different judges, and the current judge is the Hon. Kenneth Vassie, a retired judge.  He started his current stint in Dept. N. on Nov. 15, and I believe that he will be there for a total of six weeks, with his last red light camera trial session probably being Dec. 20.
With just the occasional exception, Judge Vassie will not grant traffic school to you, even if you ask for it immediately after entering his courtroom, or right when you have been come forward for your case to be heard.  When a defendant asks for it, he
explains that he cannot give it, that the defendant was offered it "before" and that the defendant declined the offer.
If your camera ticket comes to trial before Judge Vassie, and your case is not one of those dismissed at the request of the police (either in the group at the beginning of the session or later, immediately upon you being called forward for the trial of your case), and you want to get traffic school, make a Peremptory Challenge to move your case to another judge.  See the Challenges page of this website.


Hawthorne, Tuesday January 10, 2006 Trials:  New Judge (again!), Lost Keys
I did not attend this session, but received the following report.
I just wanted to let you know what happened yesterday 1/10/2006 in the court room.
Comm. Torres was presiding.
There were approx. 40 people with red light camera tickets. Just before the trial session began, Officer Escalante gave us each a private preview of the video of our violations.  After  we reviewed the video, Officer Escalante, in a very private, friendly tone of voice advised each person to ask for traffic school and not to go to trial because it is obvious that you are "guilty" and you will have a better chance to get traffic school if you do not go to trial.
Needless to say about 30 people decided to do that.  They should be sorry they decided to do so.
After listening to all speeding, etc. cases, the time came to listen to Red Light Camera cases. What happened is unbelievable.
Friendly Officer Escalante, with regret, moved to dismiss all remaining cases because they can not find the key to the room with all their equipment and evidence and they are unable to present those cases.
It was pure luck but luck was on our side.



****


For more discussion about the appropriateness of camera enforcement on left turns, see the Churning Left Turns section of Defect # 9 on the Home page.


Footnotes:  Footnotes are explained on the main Camera Towns page.


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