- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Messages
- 35,137
- Reaction score
- 13,105
Questioning legality of red-light cameras
Comments 110 | Recommend 6
Red-light camera controversy heats up
June 26, 2010 5:14 PM
Tomoya Shimura
Orange County Appellate Court judges rule red-light camera images are inadmissible in court. Motorist says local judges twist arms to extract testimony.
“When they send (citations) out, they’re designed to get people to incriminate the driver, and the registered owner doesn’t have to do that,†— Allen Baylis, traffic attorney
VICTORVILLE • As Victorville tries to take out some of its unpopular red-light cameras, some defense attorneys say they infringe on people’s Constitutional rights.
Allen Baylis, a Huntington Beach traffic attorney, said the way the red-light cameras are used as evidence in court often violates the Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness.
An appellate panel of Orange County Superior Court judges recently ruled that photos and video submitted by police to prove a 2008 red-light ticket were inadmissible as evidence, the Orange County Register reported. The panel said the photo and video were just hearsay because no police officer actually saw the incident.
“You should be able to cross examine (red-light camera operator) Redflex to make sure they did their job properly,†said Baylis, who handled the case. “I have never had a witness testify that knew which Redflex employee processed the violation.â€
Baylis said it’s the third time the Orange County Appellate Court turned down red-light camera photos and video as evidence. Even though the rulings may not be binding in other counties, they should influence San Bernardino County court decisions, Baylis said.
“It’s certainly persuasive authority,†he said. “It’s simply applying California evidence code. There’s no new law here.â€
Kirk Riding of Apple Valley recently received a citation from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Victorville station, asking him to identify the driver of his car when it was caught on a camera running through a red light.
When he appeared in the Victorville traffic court, a judge and sheriff’s deputies told him that he would be charged with obstruction of justice if he didn’t identify the driver, Riding said. Following his attorney’s advice, Riding kept refusing and the citation was dismissed.
“They threatened me with a criminal charge if I didn’t disclose who it was,†Riding said. “My lawyer told me that under the law, I was not required to be the state’s witness.â€
Baylis said he has also been pressured by judges, deputies and clerks to identify drivers in red-light camera photos.
“When they send (citations) out, they’re designed to get people to incriminate the driver, and the registered owner doesn’t have to do that,†Baylis said.
Victorville sheriff’s spokeswoman Karen Hunt said red-light tickets will be dismissed if they can’t identify the driver’s face.
Baylis encourages anyone who received a red-light ticket, which costs nearly $450, to do some research on the Internet or talk to an attorney before paying the fine.
Comments 110 | Recommend 6
Red-light camera controversy heats up
June 26, 2010 5:14 PM
Tomoya Shimura
Orange County Appellate Court judges rule red-light camera images are inadmissible in court. Motorist says local judges twist arms to extract testimony.
“When they send (citations) out, they’re designed to get people to incriminate the driver, and the registered owner doesn’t have to do that,†— Allen Baylis, traffic attorney
VICTORVILLE • As Victorville tries to take out some of its unpopular red-light cameras, some defense attorneys say they infringe on people’s Constitutional rights.
Allen Baylis, a Huntington Beach traffic attorney, said the way the red-light cameras are used as evidence in court often violates the Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness.
An appellate panel of Orange County Superior Court judges recently ruled that photos and video submitted by police to prove a 2008 red-light ticket were inadmissible as evidence, the Orange County Register reported. The panel said the photo and video were just hearsay because no police officer actually saw the incident.
“You should be able to cross examine (red-light camera operator) Redflex to make sure they did their job properly,†said Baylis, who handled the case. “I have never had a witness testify that knew which Redflex employee processed the violation.â€
Baylis said it’s the third time the Orange County Appellate Court turned down red-light camera photos and video as evidence. Even though the rulings may not be binding in other counties, they should influence San Bernardino County court decisions, Baylis said.
“It’s certainly persuasive authority,†he said. “It’s simply applying California evidence code. There’s no new law here.â€
Kirk Riding of Apple Valley recently received a citation from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Victorville station, asking him to identify the driver of his car when it was caught on a camera running through a red light.
When he appeared in the Victorville traffic court, a judge and sheriff’s deputies told him that he would be charged with obstruction of justice if he didn’t identify the driver, Riding said. Following his attorney’s advice, Riding kept refusing and the citation was dismissed.
“They threatened me with a criminal charge if I didn’t disclose who it was,†Riding said. “My lawyer told me that under the law, I was not required to be the state’s witness.â€
Baylis said he has also been pressured by judges, deputies and clerks to identify drivers in red-light camera photos.
“When they send (citations) out, they’re designed to get people to incriminate the driver, and the registered owner doesn’t have to do that,†Baylis said.
Victorville sheriff’s spokeswoman Karen Hunt said red-light tickets will be dismissed if they can’t identify the driver’s face.
Baylis encourages anyone who received a red-light ticket, which costs nearly $450, to do some research on the Internet or talk to an attorney before paying the fine.
