Lynwood Docs - Main Page - Illegal Red Light Cameras

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

City of Lynwood Documents
(and Information)

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

It may be possible to completely ignore a Lynwood ticket.
1. If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake ticket, which I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details about Snitch Tickets, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.
2. The LA County Superior Court does not report ignored red light camera tickets to the DMV. More info is in "Countywide Information," which is Docs Set # 2 on the LA County Documents page.

Docs Set # 1
Ticket Counts

2008 - 2009 Counts

In April 2009 the City sent me some tables showing the money it received from the court, and the disposition of the tickets.

2004 - 2012 Counts

Total Violations Recorded, Notices Printed, Citations Issued [4]

New 11-30-05, updated 4-2-13

Cam #	IMAT-01	IMLB-01
	Imperial WB @ Atlantic	Imperial @ Long Beach	[3]	Total Notices Printed as % of Violations Recorded	Total Violations Recorded/ Notices Printed/ Citations Issued per Invoices [1] [4]
Nov04					136 67
Dec04					137 79 39
2004
Jan05					126 63 45
Feb05					107 60 47
Mar05					136 76 68
Apr05					110 58 39
May05					42
Jun05					16
Jul05					98 52 35
Aug05					40
Sep05
Oct05
Nov05
Dec05
2005
Jan06					256 111
Feb06
Mar06
Apr06
May06
Jun06
Jul06					379 87
Aug06
Sep06
Oct06
Nov06
Dec06
2006
Jan07
Feb07
Mar07
Apr07
May07
Jun07					396 148
Jul07
Aug07
Sep07
Oct07
Nov07
Dec07
2007
Jan08					328 163
Feb08
Mar08
Apr08
May08
Jun08
Jul08					450 122
Aug08
Sep08
Oct08
Nov08
Dec08
2008
Jan09	226 46	161 43			387 89
Feb09	301 79	119 41			420 120
Mar09	349 83	178 45			527 128
Apr09	393 52	86 4			479 56
May09	372 33	126 36			498 69
Jun09	266 44	122 33			388 77
Jul09	345 109	57 16			402 125
Aug09	385 144	21 0			406 144
Sep09					392 186
Oct09	312 173	123 61			435 234
Nov09					362 193
Dec09					342 190
2009
Jan10	299 158	89 25			388 183
Feb10					399 218
Mar10					420 234
Apr10	273 115	73 26			346 141
May10	292 149	123 72			415 221
Jun10					400 182
Jul10	266 109	85 42			351 151
Aug10	307 140	118 52			425 192
Sep10 [5]	287 95	139 48			426 143
Oct10	124 2	102 39			226 41
Nov10					292 107
Dec10					255 113
2010
Jan11	219 85	105 55			324 140
Feb11	211 78	96 55			307 133
Mar11	597 83	109 42			706 125
Apr11	11 5	2 2			13 7
May11	291 42	187 48			478 90
Jun11	307 39	162 25			469 64
Jul11	294 35	117 25			411 60
Aug11	545 90	147 20			601 110
Sep11	417 190	179 102			596 292
Oct11	466 203	207 87			673 290
Nov11	386 111	162 42			548 153
Dec11	335 155	197 68			532 223
2011
Jan12	336 157	160 58			496 215
Feb12	279 141	217 124			496 265
Mar12	354 153	190 107			544 260
Apr12	406 199	212 98			618 297
May12	335 147	189 75			524 222
Jun12	432 239	198 94			630 333
Jul12	456 246	177 97			633 343
Aug12	451 214	192 93			619 309
Sep12					449 278
Oct12					453 273
Nov12					418 284
Dec12					447 300
2012
Jan13					367 246
Feb13	193 124	207 136			400 260
Mar13
Apr13
May13
Jun13
Jul13
Aug13
Sep13
Oct13
Nov13
Dec13
2013

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official documents obtained under the California Public Records Act.

2010 - 2012 official documents (to Feb. 2012)
2009 - 2012 official documents (to Mar. 2012)
2010 - 2012 official documents (to Aug. 2012)
2004 - 2013 official documents (to Feb. 2013)
2006 - 2012 official documents (to Sep. 2012)

[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] YTD = Year-to-date total.
[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4] Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets). Figures in blue type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, in italic type) are total Cites Issued (filed with the court), per RedFlex's monthly invoices to the City.
[5] Data was received on 9-7-12. Intersection-by-intersection data will be posted to this table as time permits. The official documents are available at the link above.
[6] The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) is not yet available.

Lynwood Docs Set # 2
"Late Time" Graphs

The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for its camera.
These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.)

The picture above is an example from another city.

Lynwood signed a pay-per-ticket contract with RedFlex on Dec. 18, 2003, just before the effective date of CVC 21455.5(g). The contract provided:
"RedFlex will be paid $89 for the first three Citations issued on a single day from a particular Designated Intersection. RedFlex will be paid $80 for the fourth and subsequent Citations issued on a single day from a particular Designated Intersection."

Then, on Dec. 18, 2008 the City signed a new five-year contract including an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.

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

The new contract also says: "Definitions. 'Warning Period' means a period after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach..." (Emphasis added.) See Defect # 6.

Had the council negotiated a $2900 fee like that in the 2007 contract of the City of Garden Grove, it could have saved $2100 per camera per month, or $252,000 for the two cameras over the 60 months of the contract.