RED LIGHT CAMERAS
haven't already done so, please read the Santa
Ana section on
City of Santa Ana
Be sure to read the "Countywide
Information," which is Docs Set # 6, below.
(some months) and
This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official monthly tabulations of citations actually issued.
Official reports, 2005 - 2012 (big file)
Official reports, 2011 - 2012
Official reports, 2009 - 2013
Official reports, Mar & Apr 2013
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 Totals are as provided by the City.
 YTD = Year-to-date total.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated. 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. 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). Due to time limitations data may have been posted to the table only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months or locations will be posted. Full official data has been received and is available at one of the links given above.
 Figures in this row cover June 1, 2003 to Oct. 1, 2004.
 Each column represents one camera.
 Figures in this row cover Jan. 1, 2007 to Sept. 25, 2007.
 Intersection-by-intersection data for this month has been received, is available at the links above, but has not yet been fully posted, due to time limitations.
 The official report for this month was produced a few days before the end of the month, so the number of Notices Printed indicated in the report is an estimated 20% lower than the number that eventually will be printed for the complete month.
 Info requested on:
 Annual totals, or annual projections based upon monthly data shown in table above, are by highwayrobbery.net.
Docs Set # 2
2008 - Two Appellate Cases Won!
2009 - Significant Trial Decision
2010 - Four More Appellate Cases Won!
The first appellant fought her ticket based upon a number of foundational objections, among
them that Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 says, in part: "Prior to issuing citations under this section,
a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence
a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days."
For more details, and case documents, see People v. Anna V.
The second appellant also fought his ticket on the warning ticket issue, and won at appeal.
See People v. Fischetti (2008).
In 2009 there was a trial decision on both the contract issue (Defect # 10-B) and the issue
of the required public announcement (30 days before the commencement of the program).
See People v. Lori A. & Murray
And four more in 2010! (Mustapha, Romero, Khaled, Park)
Docs Set # 3
Santa Ana, Nov. 24, 2004 Trial Session: No Traffic School After Trial
On Nov. 24 I attended the weekly Wednesday afternoon trial session in Div. C-46.
In the hallway before the trial session, the SAPD officers were willing to discuss
their ticket with any defendant who wished to do so. Among the things they told
the defendants was that the judge didn't give traffic school to those who argued
their cases and lost.
The session was presided over by Commissioner Duane Thomas Neary. One defendant,
before trying his case, asked Comm. Neary if he could still get traffic school
if he tried his case. The commissioner replied, "Not very likely. Unless you show me
some wonderful evidence during the trial, you're not going to be able to go to traffic school."
Needless to say, that defendant and all but one of the others grabbed
traffic school and did not try their cases.
(For highwayrobbery.net's opinion about traffic school, see the editorial on the Links page.)
Docs Set # 4
2002 Contract & Contract Renewals 2008, 2009, 2010
In 2008 the city
council extended their 2002 contract one year, to June
2009, at the
Had the Santa Ana
negotiated a $2900 rent like that in Garden
In the 2010 Amendment
the City agreed to pay $3900 per month
for up to twenty existing cameras, for five more
The contract contains no escape clause should a future city council wish to terminate the contract, or if the voters terminate the contract via initiative. A complete contract will include a formula by which the cost of such a Termination for Convenience is to be calculated. For an example of such a formula, see Section 6.2 in Victorville's original contract (available on the Victorville Documents page).
2010 Amendment there is the
prominent use of the term "Fixed Fee"(twice in the
paragraphs of the Compensation section), so a reader
could be left with
the impression that cost neutrality has been
eliminated and the
Contract is now in full conformity with Subsection
conformity is not the case at
all. Rather, a more
careful reading of the Contract and
that in spite of the clear meaning and intent of
City and RedFlex have entered into an arrangement
income is dependent upon, and can fluctuate with, the
amount of City's
from tickets. The methodology of that arrangement is
Paragraph 26(a) of the 2002 Contract, "Miscellaneous
Provisions," which states:
bi-annual review process to ensure received revenue
sufficient cost recovery, the City shall
have the option to renegotiate the Compensation... if
determines it is unable to recover its costs..."
A 2013 public records request, which asked for
any bi-annual reviews done between 2001 and 2013, got
"No documents responsive to your request."
Although there is no evidence that they are doing
the bi-annual reviews, March
2013 invoices show a $20,672 credit
described as "Concession for Performance."
Docs Set # 5
Dec. 2009: City Blinks, Suspends Ticketing for 1-Month Warning Period
On Dec. 1, 2009 the OC Register published an article indicating that the City was suspending ticketing
for a month, to bring itself into compliance with the requirement for a 1-month warning period.
The article did not reveal whether tickets issued prior to the new warning period would be dismissed.
If you have a Santa Ana ticket, please be sure to contact the editor of this site.
Docs Set # 6
The info in Set # 6 is applicable throughout Orange County. But only in Orange County.
Why was revenue down? It could be that OC motorists thought they were in LA County, where in June 2011 it was revealed that paying is optional (because the LA County Superior Court does not report delinquent tickets to the DMV).
Do you have an OLD ticket that you've been meaning
pay? In 2012 there was a statewide amnesty for
tickets, of all kinds. It was a flop, due to
publicity. But the State still can use the
money, so maybe they
will do another amnesty See the big box near the
top of Section # 3, Handling Your Ticket, on
the Your Ticket
Docs Set # 7
The City has been asked for bar
of Late Times, etcetera.
"The City does not have access to
"Your request seeks information that is not maintained by the City."
Bar graphs have been received from
fifty other cities - see the list
in the expanded version of Defect # 9.
Docs Set # 8
There may be some more information posted in the next few weeks. Mark your calendar to remind you
to come back here and look!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS