$394 ticket arrived in the mail today.
$394 is outrageous.
SANTA ANA IS A FUCKING JOKE!!!!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
Moderator: Admin
RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
The City of Santa Ana can go to HELL IN A BASKET!!!!
$394 ticket arrived in the mail today.
$394 is outrageous.
SANTA ANA IS A FUCKING JOKE!!!!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
$394 ticket arrived in the mail today.
$394 is outrageous.
SANTA ANA IS A FUCKING JOKE!!!!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
-
The Rizen shloemoe
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:42 am
Wow!...does seem a bit much...since they can't find you
guilty in court unless they can I.D. the Regestered owner
in the photo...I wonder how lucritive selling Groucho Marx
glasses would be?
...that and a baseball cap and you could flip off the camera...
what a fun thought.
guilty in court unless they can I.D. the Regestered owner
in the photo...I wonder how lucritive selling Groucho Marx
glasses would be?
...that and a baseball cap and you could flip off the camera...
what a fun thought.
Having abandoned my search for truth,
I am now looking for a good fantasy.
--Anonymous Internet Sage
...Some men...ya just can't reach...
--The Captain from "Cool Hand Luke"
I am now looking for a good fantasy.
--Anonymous Internet Sage
...Some men...ya just can't reach...
--The Captain from "Cool Hand Luke"
-
The Rizen shloemoe
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:42 am
Tinted windows sufficient to mask your identity are a second violation.Glenn wrote:Well they have a nice clear shot of me up & front. Dosent mean I'm guilty though. Tinted windows???Would that work?
Santa Ana is a hole. The armpit of the world. Fuck that lame city & any others who have those damn shitty cameras.
Although Im not an attorney (but I love giving out useless advice anyways)
I would advise you not to use that in court,
or go to trial. Like so many of our good citizens you have been selected
to enhance the citys coffers....no doubt to pay for more cameras.
...I believe someone (oh I dunno...a Super-Genius) once said that
there is a hellish world on the horizen....Join the revolution!...buy some
groucho marx glasses
Silly....imagine a citizen protest where everyone wore them while driving.
Ah!...real democracy!
in groucho voice...and im not just whisling dixie!
Having abandoned my search for truth,
I am now looking for a good fantasy.
--Anonymous Internet Sage
...Some men...ya just can't reach...
--The Captain from "Cool Hand Luke"
I am now looking for a good fantasy.
--Anonymous Internet Sage
...Some men...ya just can't reach...
--The Captain from "Cool Hand Luke"
-
obiwankobe
- Posts: 2828
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:56 am
- Location: Newbury Park
- Contact:
Step 3: The Not-Guilty Trial - and More about Traffic School
The following advice is about a not-guilty trial, not an arraignment.
Show up! Many cases are dismissed at the trial session, because of bad photos or other technical problems. Or sometimes because the officer didn't show up. But those dismissals don't apply to defendants who don't show up.
Defense: Identity
Don't cave-in and ask for traffic school before the judge has been shown the face photo on your ticket.
(To be prepared in case you are told, "no school after trial" by the bailiff or the judge, please read the traffic school Editorial on the Links page, the materials linked at the end of it, and the traffic school info in the Preparing for Trial section, above.)
After you have been called forward for your trial, the officer will present his evidence (he goes first because the burden is on him, to prove your guilt). He should show the judge the photo of the driver's face, after which the judge might speak up and say that he thinks it's not clear enough, or that it is not you. But if the face photo is blurry (or not you) and the judge hasn't reacted, bring the subject up once the officer has completely finished his presentation and it is your turn to talk. Ask the judge to "dismiss for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were the driver, or simply ask him, "Your Honor, are you sure it's me?" Do not say "It's not me!" if you know that it was you driving, as that would be a lie, which is perjury.
If the judge rules that it was you in the photo, you will have to move on to your next line of questioning.
As part of your preparation to do an identity defense at trial, you should read Defect # 1 on the Home page, and the Fourth Step in the It's Not Me section at the top of this page.
Also read about California's Truth in Evidence law.
Defense: Foundational Requirements
Once the officer has presented his evidence (and you have questioned identity, as above), you (still) have the floor.
Ask the officer what date the contract with the camera vendor was signed. If he replys that it was after Jan. 1, 2004, ask him if the city is paying the vendor at a flat-rate rent per month. Any kind of sliding scale that depends upon the quantity of tickets issued or the amount of revenue received by the city would be a violation of CVC 21455.5(g). Bring a copy of the contract with you, so you won't have to depend upon the officer's memory. (Defect # 10 - Cost Neutrality.)
Ask the officer what date "your" camera was activated. (If the judge questions the relevance of your question, tell him about CVC 21455.5.) Ask the officer for the dates he gave warning tickets to drivers at your camera, and any document proving same. (Defect # 6, Defect # 10.)
Ask him if there was a public announcement - mentioning your camera. Ask for proof of that announcement - such as a newspaper "tear sheet."(CVC 21455.5, Defect # 10.)
Ask the officer to show you and the court the written guidelines - both kinds - and the "...procedures to ensure compliance." (CVC 21455.5, Defect # 10.)
Ask for proof the warning signs were posted - make the officer provide evidence that they were up (facing all directions) at the subject intersection at the time the ticket was issued. (CVC 21455.5, Defect # 4.)
If the city has failed to meet any one of the foundational requirements above, make a motion to dismiss for "lack of foundation."
About Cross-Examining the Officer
David Brown says:
"More often than not, when you ask the officer a good question - one to which a truthful answer might be damaging to the prosecution - the officer will avoid answering directly. Another frequent annoyance is where the officer properly answers your question but then starts to give a speech. This can be unnerving - and it is improper. You may want to 'rein in' the officer..."
(Brown tells you how to do that, in the section "Cross-Examining the Officer - Basic Strategy" in his book Fight Your Ticket.)
About Lies
"You don't tell deliberate lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive."
Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, 1925 -
"That's not a lie, it's a terminological inexactitude. Also, a tactical misrepresentation."
Alexander Haig, Nixon's Chief of Staff, Secretary of State to Reagan, 1924 -
"If you cannot convince them, confuse them."
Harry S. Truman, American President, 1884 - 1972
"We payt a person the compliment of acknowledging his superiority whenever we lie to him."
Samuel Butler, British satirist, 1835 - 1902
"Falsehood is invariably the child of fear in one form or another."
Aleister Crowley, English poet, 1875 - 1947
"There are people who exaggerate so much they can't tell the truth without lying."
Mark Twain, American writer, 1835 - 1910
"Half the truth is often a great lie."
Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790
"A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies."
Alfred Lord Tennyson, English playwright, Poet Laureate, 1809 - 1892 (wrote "Charge of the Light Brigade")
"There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it."
William James, American M.D., teacher, philosopher, 1842 - 1910 (brother of Henry James)
"Let us remember that justice must be observed even to the lowest."
Cicero, Roman lawyer, politician, philosopher, 106 - 43 BC
"If it doesn't make sense, you should find for the defense."
Johnnie Cochran, 1937 - 2005
Compiled by highwayrobbery.net
About Your Judge -
Many judges are not familiar with CVC 21455.5. When you start arguing the fine points of 21455.5, your judge may pull out his copy of the Vehicle Code and review it. That's a good sign, but make sure his copy is 2004 or later, as 21455.5 was heavily revised effective Jan. 1, 2004.
If the judge denies your motion (or if you didn't make one), argue your other defenses, if you have some. If your other defenses involve photos that you have taken, or documents you have found, bring three (3) copies of each with you - one for the judge, one for the officer, one for you.
(As part of your preparation, you should read about California's Truth in Evidence law.)
If nothing works and you are found guilty, remember to ask for traffic school, if you want it. If you forget to ask for it while you were in front of the judge, ask the courtroom clerk. And if necessary, ask to re-appear before the judge to ask for it.
Here is a checklist, a condensed version of Step 3, above. Note: In a murder trial, the expert lawyer might switch items C. and D. below, asking the foundational questions first - to keep the jury from ever seeing the face photo, no matter how blurry. But for a non-jury traffic trial, I suggest using the sequence as given.
Abbreviated Trial Checklist
A. Don't panic and ask for traffic school before you're called forward for your trial.
B. Once you have been called forward, make your Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6) if you need to (if the judge is convicting everyone, won't give either regular or Second Offender traffic school, etcetera).
C. Identity: If the face photo is blurry, or clearly not you (or the officer didn't show it to the judge), tell the judge you're not testifying, then ask for dismissal for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving the vehicle. (See Defect # 1 on the Home page, and the Fourth Step of the It's Not Me section, at the top of this page.) In the heat of trial, most defendants forget to ask this question; so, I suggest that you write it on your hand or on a Post-It that you will stick to the defense table.
D. If the judge rules that it was you driving, and you have not prepared any other defenses/questions, ask for traffic school.
E. Foundational Questions (ask for "yes" or "no" answers) -
(1) Ask the date the contract was signed, and if after 1-1-04, if it is totally "flat rate." (CVC 21455.5(g), Defect # 10.)
(2) Ask for dates of, and proof of, warning tickets and also public announcements, for your camera. (CVC 21455.5(b), Defect # 6, Defect # 10.)
(3) Ask to see written guidelines - two kinds - "screening and issuing" (CVC 21455.5(c)(1), Defect # 10) and "selection of location." (CVC 21455.5(c)(2)(A), Defect # 10.) And ask for the "procedures to ensure compliance" with those guidelines.
(4) Ask for proof the signs were posted. (CVC 21455.5(a)(1), Defect # 4.)
(5) If appropriate, make a motion to dismiss for lack of foundation.
F. Argue your other defenses, if you have some.
G. If you lose, ask for traffic school.
'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE
If all these Code sections are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there. That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory. I use it too!
Appealing
If you've already been found guilty, and that guilty was entered not more than 30 days ago, file a notice of appeal now. The book Fight Your Ticket tells how.
Action
If you've already been found guilty and that verdict was entered more than 30 days ago, or if you pled guilty at any time and the ticket had a 0.15 (or less) Late Time, or a very blurry face photo, or was for a left turn where the yellow was less than for the straight through traffic, please send me an email. (See the Action page for email details.) According to one of the attorneys who handled the San Diego cases, the habeas corpus process usually used to reverse unjust convictions is too expensive to use on a traffic ticket. However, we may be able to get some kind of action in the court of public opinion, if we have a large united group. Thus the request to email me.
Trial Examples, More Actions to Take
To read some sample trial transcripts, see: WeHo Trial Transcript , Culver City Documents , and Sacramento Left Yellow Brief.
Even if your ticket is not from Culver City, Hawthorne or Inglewood, you may find the information in those cities' chronologies (on the Camera Towns page) to be useful.
Other resources: David Brown's book Fight Your Ticket, and Help! I got a ticket!
Finally, please send information about your illegal intersection, so it can be posted on the Camera Towns page. You can use the questionnaire on the Action page, if you wish.
Continue to fight your ticket. Alert your local press. And contact your legislators/auto club about the Hot Legislation (on the Action page).
Trial by Declaration ( "TBD" ) / Trial de Novo ( "TDN" )
Revised 4-10-06
While some other ticket advisors have been strongly recommending Trial by Declaration (trying a ticket by mail), I have not been. But I can see at least three situations, discussed below, where Trial by Declaration ("TBD") could be the best way to dispose of the ticket. I have also provided pre-written declarations for two of those situations. See "Filing a TBD," below.
Even though it is likely that you will have been required to post the full bail amount in advance in order to have a TBD, if you want to retrieve some of that money through Community Service or a reduced fine, you could include a request in your TBD!
TBD Situation # 1 - No Warning Tickets
In late Jan. 2005 an appellate court found, in People vs. Fischetti, that the City of Costa Mesa should have issued warning tickets for 30 days upon the installation of each new camera but didn't. That appeals decision has not been published so cannot be cited in court (except possibly in Orange County), but its logic is applicable to all the tickets issued thus far at those three Costa Mesa intersections, and thousands of tickets in other cities, too.
While the Fischetti decision is quite clear that warning tickets should be issued upon each new installation, it doesn't say if the "public announcements" also required by CVC 21455.5 have to be repeated before each new installation. I believe that the decision supports an approach that would maximize the warning provided to motorists - including a repeat of the public announcements.
See Defect # 6 and Defect # 10 on the Home page.
TBD Situation # 2 - Missing Warning Signs
At Prairie and 111th in Inglewood, the City forgot to put up all the required warning signs (see Defect # 4 on the Home page, and the Inglewood section on the Camera Towns page). They finally had all the signs up on Aug. 19, 2004, but by that time they had issued hundreds, perhaps thousands, of tickets there. When this same thing happened in Bakersfield, the City (eventually) decided to dismiss all the tickets. But in Inglewood there has been no general dismissal, even though it has been months since the problem was revealed. As a result, each defendant with a Prairie / 111th ticket that occurred prior to Aug. 19 will have to have to take it to court, if they want to beat it.
TBD Situation # 3 - "It's Not Me!" / Wrong Defendant
If the ticket is in your name but it's not you in the photo AND the photo is sufficiently clear that a comparison between it and your driver's license photo would raise a strong doubt that it was you driving the car, or if it is inconvenient for you to come to court in person, you may want to do a Trial by Declaration on the question of the identity of the driver. You could submit a color copy of your driver's license photo plus other photo ID if suitable, and a color copy of your ticket (or the original). Just keep in mind that identity is subjective, and if the judge decides that it's too close to call, he might send you a note saying that in order for him to rule on the case, you will need to come in so he can see your face.
Filing a Trial by Declaration
To avoid repeated (or all) visits to the courthouse, you could file one of the suggested TBD forms that will be found in the wallpaper area at the end of this web page. Excellent directions on how to file a TBD are in Attorney David Brown's book Fight Your Ticket. Information is also available on the web site Help! I got a ticket! If you just need blank forms, there is a traffic ticket lawyer who provides them on his website.
If you do decide to submit a TBD, make sure that you include a TR-205 (even though it might be redundant), and be sure to get an extra copy of your declaration date-stamped by the court clerk, so that you will have solid proof that the court received it. If you want to submit your declaration through the mail, simply enclose an extra copy of the declaration (marked "copy"), a stamped self-addressed envelope, and a note asking the clerk to date-stamp the copy and return it to you. I am a "belt and suspenders" person, so if I was going to mail a declaration to the court, I would send it by Certified Mail, return receipt requested. And I would still ask the clerk to return a stamped copy to me. I also recommend that you type your TBD paperwork - handwritten TBD's seem to be less successful.
Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 40902 and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 828 govern TBD and provide that a defendant who has lost his TBD is entitled to a new trial in court, called a Trial de Novo. Again, see Brown's book Fight Your Ticket.
The Filing Deadline
A reader pointed out:
"I'm just now filing for a "trial by written declaration." The ticket contained one set of instructions ON the ticket in small print, saying you must file for a trial by written declaration FIVE DAYS before your appearance date. But the instructions sent on a separate sheet WITH the ticket said you simply must file by the appearance date. The court took the liberty of using the 5-day rule and marked my case as "bail forfeiture." After going down there, showing them the instructions sent WITH the ticket and proof that I followed those instructions, they removed the bail forfeiture and are allowing me to file the trial by declaration paperwork. Just a problem your website readers might want to watch out for."
Following-Up on a TBD
A very useful website (hosted by "alphasubzero 949") gives this warning:
ADVISORY: It is imperative that you follow up on your trial by declaration. Some courts sit on these cases. They are also aware that if you know how to fight by TBD (remember, less than 1% of those ticketed actually fight [[On red light cameras it's more like 10% - editor, highwayrobbery.net]], and even a smaller percentage request TBD's), you also know how to request a Trial de Novo. You have 20 days from the trial by declaration verdict to request a Trial de Novo. By withholding case disposition information from you, they hope that the odds of you continuing the fight will be nil. It happened to me in one of my cases; I had to personally drive to the traffic court to get the guilty letter in my hand 14 days after the verdict because they never updated my case disposition. Call the court once a week if you have to. Get their direct number as they deliberately mask it to keep you from calling them. Also read Chapter 10 in Atty. Brown's Fight Your Ticket in California. (From Section VI. at alphasubzero949's fight your ticket.)
The following advice is about a not-guilty trial, not an arraignment.
Show up! Many cases are dismissed at the trial session, because of bad photos or other technical problems. Or sometimes because the officer didn't show up. But those dismissals don't apply to defendants who don't show up.
Defense: Identity
Don't cave-in and ask for traffic school before the judge has been shown the face photo on your ticket.
(To be prepared in case you are told, "no school after trial" by the bailiff or the judge, please read the traffic school Editorial on the Links page, the materials linked at the end of it, and the traffic school info in the Preparing for Trial section, above.)
After you have been called forward for your trial, the officer will present his evidence (he goes first because the burden is on him, to prove your guilt). He should show the judge the photo of the driver's face, after which the judge might speak up and say that he thinks it's not clear enough, or that it is not you. But if the face photo is blurry (or not you) and the judge hasn't reacted, bring the subject up once the officer has completely finished his presentation and it is your turn to talk. Ask the judge to "dismiss for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were the driver, or simply ask him, "Your Honor, are you sure it's me?" Do not say "It's not me!" if you know that it was you driving, as that would be a lie, which is perjury.
If the judge rules that it was you in the photo, you will have to move on to your next line of questioning.
As part of your preparation to do an identity defense at trial, you should read Defect # 1 on the Home page, and the Fourth Step in the It's Not Me section at the top of this page.
Also read about California's Truth in Evidence law.
Defense: Foundational Requirements
Once the officer has presented his evidence (and you have questioned identity, as above), you (still) have the floor.
Ask the officer what date the contract with the camera vendor was signed. If he replys that it was after Jan. 1, 2004, ask him if the city is paying the vendor at a flat-rate rent per month. Any kind of sliding scale that depends upon the quantity of tickets issued or the amount of revenue received by the city would be a violation of CVC 21455.5(g). Bring a copy of the contract with you, so you won't have to depend upon the officer's memory. (Defect # 10 - Cost Neutrality.)
Ask the officer what date "your" camera was activated. (If the judge questions the relevance of your question, tell him about CVC 21455.5.) Ask the officer for the dates he gave warning tickets to drivers at your camera, and any document proving same. (Defect # 6, Defect # 10.)
Ask him if there was a public announcement - mentioning your camera. Ask for proof of that announcement - such as a newspaper "tear sheet."(CVC 21455.5, Defect # 10.)
Ask the officer to show you and the court the written guidelines - both kinds - and the "...procedures to ensure compliance." (CVC 21455.5, Defect # 10.)
Ask for proof the warning signs were posted - make the officer provide evidence that they were up (facing all directions) at the subject intersection at the time the ticket was issued. (CVC 21455.5, Defect # 4.)
If the city has failed to meet any one of the foundational requirements above, make a motion to dismiss for "lack of foundation."
About Cross-Examining the Officer
David Brown says:
"More often than not, when you ask the officer a good question - one to which a truthful answer might be damaging to the prosecution - the officer will avoid answering directly. Another frequent annoyance is where the officer properly answers your question but then starts to give a speech. This can be unnerving - and it is improper. You may want to 'rein in' the officer..."
(Brown tells you how to do that, in the section "Cross-Examining the Officer - Basic Strategy" in his book Fight Your Ticket.)
About Lies
"You don't tell deliberate lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive."
Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, 1925 -
"That's not a lie, it's a terminological inexactitude. Also, a tactical misrepresentation."
Alexander Haig, Nixon's Chief of Staff, Secretary of State to Reagan, 1924 -
"If you cannot convince them, confuse them."
Harry S. Truman, American President, 1884 - 1972
"We payt a person the compliment of acknowledging his superiority whenever we lie to him."
Samuel Butler, British satirist, 1835 - 1902
"Falsehood is invariably the child of fear in one form or another."
Aleister Crowley, English poet, 1875 - 1947
"There are people who exaggerate so much they can't tell the truth without lying."
Mark Twain, American writer, 1835 - 1910
"Half the truth is often a great lie."
Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790
"A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies."
Alfred Lord Tennyson, English playwright, Poet Laureate, 1809 - 1892 (wrote "Charge of the Light Brigade")
"There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it."
William James, American M.D., teacher, philosopher, 1842 - 1910 (brother of Henry James)
"Let us remember that justice must be observed even to the lowest."
Cicero, Roman lawyer, politician, philosopher, 106 - 43 BC
"If it doesn't make sense, you should find for the defense."
Johnnie Cochran, 1937 - 2005
Compiled by highwayrobbery.net
About Your Judge -
Many judges are not familiar with CVC 21455.5. When you start arguing the fine points of 21455.5, your judge may pull out his copy of the Vehicle Code and review it. That's a good sign, but make sure his copy is 2004 or later, as 21455.5 was heavily revised effective Jan. 1, 2004.
If the judge denies your motion (or if you didn't make one), argue your other defenses, if you have some. If your other defenses involve photos that you have taken, or documents you have found, bring three (3) copies of each with you - one for the judge, one for the officer, one for you.
(As part of your preparation, you should read about California's Truth in Evidence law.)
If nothing works and you are found guilty, remember to ask for traffic school, if you want it. If you forget to ask for it while you were in front of the judge, ask the courtroom clerk. And if necessary, ask to re-appear before the judge to ask for it.
Here is a checklist, a condensed version of Step 3, above. Note: In a murder trial, the expert lawyer might switch items C. and D. below, asking the foundational questions first - to keep the jury from ever seeing the face photo, no matter how blurry. But for a non-jury traffic trial, I suggest using the sequence as given.
Abbreviated Trial Checklist
A. Don't panic and ask for traffic school before you're called forward for your trial.
B. Once you have been called forward, make your Peremptory Challenge (CCP 170.6) if you need to (if the judge is convicting everyone, won't give either regular or Second Offender traffic school, etcetera).
C. Identity: If the face photo is blurry, or clearly not you (or the officer didn't show it to the judge), tell the judge you're not testifying, then ask for dismissal for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving the vehicle. (See Defect # 1 on the Home page, and the Fourth Step of the It's Not Me section, at the top of this page.) In the heat of trial, most defendants forget to ask this question; so, I suggest that you write it on your hand or on a Post-It that you will stick to the defense table.
D. If the judge rules that it was you driving, and you have not prepared any other defenses/questions, ask for traffic school.
E. Foundational Questions (ask for "yes" or "no" answers) -
(1) Ask the date the contract was signed, and if after 1-1-04, if it is totally "flat rate." (CVC 21455.5(g), Defect # 10.)
(2) Ask for dates of, and proof of, warning tickets and also public announcements, for your camera. (CVC 21455.5(b), Defect # 6, Defect # 10.)
(3) Ask to see written guidelines - two kinds - "screening and issuing" (CVC 21455.5(c)(1), Defect # 10) and "selection of location." (CVC 21455.5(c)(2)(A), Defect # 10.) And ask for the "procedures to ensure compliance" with those guidelines.
(4) Ask for proof the signs were posted. (CVC 21455.5(a)(1), Defect # 4.)
(5) If appropriate, make a motion to dismiss for lack of foundation.
F. Argue your other defenses, if you have some.
G. If you lose, ask for traffic school.
'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE
If all these Code sections are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there. That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory. I use it too!
Appealing
If you've already been found guilty, and that guilty was entered not more than 30 days ago, file a notice of appeal now. The book Fight Your Ticket tells how.
Action
If you've already been found guilty and that verdict was entered more than 30 days ago, or if you pled guilty at any time and the ticket had a 0.15 (or less) Late Time, or a very blurry face photo, or was for a left turn where the yellow was less than for the straight through traffic, please send me an email. (See the Action page for email details.) According to one of the attorneys who handled the San Diego cases, the habeas corpus process usually used to reverse unjust convictions is too expensive to use on a traffic ticket. However, we may be able to get some kind of action in the court of public opinion, if we have a large united group. Thus the request to email me.
Trial Examples, More Actions to Take
To read some sample trial transcripts, see: WeHo Trial Transcript , Culver City Documents , and Sacramento Left Yellow Brief.
Even if your ticket is not from Culver City, Hawthorne or Inglewood, you may find the information in those cities' chronologies (on the Camera Towns page) to be useful.
Other resources: David Brown's book Fight Your Ticket, and Help! I got a ticket!
Finally, please send information about your illegal intersection, so it can be posted on the Camera Towns page. You can use the questionnaire on the Action page, if you wish.
Continue to fight your ticket. Alert your local press. And contact your legislators/auto club about the Hot Legislation (on the Action page).
Trial by Declaration ( "TBD" ) / Trial de Novo ( "TDN" )
Revised 4-10-06
While some other ticket advisors have been strongly recommending Trial by Declaration (trying a ticket by mail), I have not been. But I can see at least three situations, discussed below, where Trial by Declaration ("TBD") could be the best way to dispose of the ticket. I have also provided pre-written declarations for two of those situations. See "Filing a TBD," below.
Even though it is likely that you will have been required to post the full bail amount in advance in order to have a TBD, if you want to retrieve some of that money through Community Service or a reduced fine, you could include a request in your TBD!
TBD Situation # 1 - No Warning Tickets
In late Jan. 2005 an appellate court found, in People vs. Fischetti, that the City of Costa Mesa should have issued warning tickets for 30 days upon the installation of each new camera but didn't. That appeals decision has not been published so cannot be cited in court (except possibly in Orange County), but its logic is applicable to all the tickets issued thus far at those three Costa Mesa intersections, and thousands of tickets in other cities, too.
While the Fischetti decision is quite clear that warning tickets should be issued upon each new installation, it doesn't say if the "public announcements" also required by CVC 21455.5 have to be repeated before each new installation. I believe that the decision supports an approach that would maximize the warning provided to motorists - including a repeat of the public announcements.
See Defect # 6 and Defect # 10 on the Home page.
TBD Situation # 2 - Missing Warning Signs
At Prairie and 111th in Inglewood, the City forgot to put up all the required warning signs (see Defect # 4 on the Home page, and the Inglewood section on the Camera Towns page). They finally had all the signs up on Aug. 19, 2004, but by that time they had issued hundreds, perhaps thousands, of tickets there. When this same thing happened in Bakersfield, the City (eventually) decided to dismiss all the tickets. But in Inglewood there has been no general dismissal, even though it has been months since the problem was revealed. As a result, each defendant with a Prairie / 111th ticket that occurred prior to Aug. 19 will have to have to take it to court, if they want to beat it.
TBD Situation # 3 - "It's Not Me!" / Wrong Defendant
If the ticket is in your name but it's not you in the photo AND the photo is sufficiently clear that a comparison between it and your driver's license photo would raise a strong doubt that it was you driving the car, or if it is inconvenient for you to come to court in person, you may want to do a Trial by Declaration on the question of the identity of the driver. You could submit a color copy of your driver's license photo plus other photo ID if suitable, and a color copy of your ticket (or the original). Just keep in mind that identity is subjective, and if the judge decides that it's too close to call, he might send you a note saying that in order for him to rule on the case, you will need to come in so he can see your face.
Filing a Trial by Declaration
To avoid repeated (or all) visits to the courthouse, you could file one of the suggested TBD forms that will be found in the wallpaper area at the end of this web page. Excellent directions on how to file a TBD are in Attorney David Brown's book Fight Your Ticket. Information is also available on the web site Help! I got a ticket! If you just need blank forms, there is a traffic ticket lawyer who provides them on his website.
If you do decide to submit a TBD, make sure that you include a TR-205 (even though it might be redundant), and be sure to get an extra copy of your declaration date-stamped by the court clerk, so that you will have solid proof that the court received it. If you want to submit your declaration through the mail, simply enclose an extra copy of the declaration (marked "copy"), a stamped self-addressed envelope, and a note asking the clerk to date-stamp the copy and return it to you. I am a "belt and suspenders" person, so if I was going to mail a declaration to the court, I would send it by Certified Mail, return receipt requested. And I would still ask the clerk to return a stamped copy to me. I also recommend that you type your TBD paperwork - handwritten TBD's seem to be less successful.
Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 40902 and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 828 govern TBD and provide that a defendant who has lost his TBD is entitled to a new trial in court, called a Trial de Novo. Again, see Brown's book Fight Your Ticket.
The Filing Deadline
A reader pointed out:
"I'm just now filing for a "trial by written declaration." The ticket contained one set of instructions ON the ticket in small print, saying you must file for a trial by written declaration FIVE DAYS before your appearance date. But the instructions sent on a separate sheet WITH the ticket said you simply must file by the appearance date. The court took the liberty of using the 5-day rule and marked my case as "bail forfeiture." After going down there, showing them the instructions sent WITH the ticket and proof that I followed those instructions, they removed the bail forfeiture and are allowing me to file the trial by declaration paperwork. Just a problem your website readers might want to watch out for."
Following-Up on a TBD
A very useful website (hosted by "alphasubzero 949") gives this warning:
ADVISORY: It is imperative that you follow up on your trial by declaration. Some courts sit on these cases. They are also aware that if you know how to fight by TBD (remember, less than 1% of those ticketed actually fight [[On red light cameras it's more like 10% - editor, highwayrobbery.net]], and even a smaller percentage request TBD's), you also know how to request a Trial de Novo. You have 20 days from the trial by declaration verdict to request a Trial de Novo. By withholding case disposition information from you, they hope that the odds of you continuing the fight will be nil. It happened to me in one of my cases; I had to personally drive to the traffic court to get the guilty letter in my hand 14 days after the verdict because they never updated my case disposition. Call the court once a week if you have to. Get their direct number as they deliberately mask it to keep you from calling them. Also read Chapter 10 in Atty. Brown's Fight Your Ticket in California. (From Section VI. at alphasubzero949's fight your ticket.)
-tom
~"Let there be no conflict in America, if you bother me, I whup yo' ass."~Charles Barkley
~"Let there be no conflict in America, if you bother me, I whup yo' ass."~Charles Barkley
-
The Rizen shloemoe
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:42 am
Yeah all what he said there...and then get some groucho glasses...but dont wear em to court.....
...that's probably a LOT 'o' good advice Tom, but some judges dont
like defendants in traffic court to be contencious...I did traffic school
about 6 months ago and they said go ahead try all those things...
the judge will let you know right away if he has to(or is gonna) listen to it.
there gonna have the i's dotted and the t's crossed...but hey
traffic school is kinda fun anyways
...that's probably a LOT 'o' good advice Tom, but some judges dont
like defendants in traffic court to be contencious...I did traffic school
about 6 months ago and they said go ahead try all those things...
the judge will let you know right away if he has to(or is gonna) listen to it.
there gonna have the i's dotted and the t's crossed...but hey
traffic school is kinda fun anyways
Having abandoned my search for truth,
I am now looking for a good fantasy.
--Anonymous Internet Sage
...Some men...ya just can't reach...
--The Captain from "Cool Hand Luke"
I am now looking for a good fantasy.
--Anonymous Internet Sage
...Some men...ya just can't reach...
--The Captain from "Cool Hand Luke"
Re: RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
shit.....that sucks man.....Thats a lot of fuckin bones!Glenn wrote:The City of Santa Ana can go to HELL IN A BASKET!!!!
$394 ticket arrived in the mail today.
$394 is outrageous.
SANTA ANA IS A FUCKING JOKE!!!!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
-
assholitis
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:22 pm
- Location: Orange County
Re: RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
Sorry to hear it, Glenn. That's freaking steep for a red light! My friend had her car towed while visiting me a few weeks ago and left nearly $200 lighter.rotter wrote:shit.....that sucks man.....Thats a lot of fuckin bones!Glenn wrote:The City of Santa Ana can go to HELL IN A BASKET!!!!
$394 ticket arrived in the mail today.
$394 is outrageous.
SANTA ANA IS A FUCKING JOKE!!!!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!!!!
"Police on my back!"
Alone we stand, together we fall apart.
*sireofwilshire*
*sireofwilshire*
glenn
make sure that it is posted on the street you got the ticket on that the camera is used on that intersection... i know that sounds dumb, but it has to be posted as a warning to drivers in order for it to be legal. it even has to be within so many feet of the lights.
good luck
i say fight it
sorry
jr
make sure that it is posted on the street you got the ticket on that the camera is used on that intersection... i know that sounds dumb, but it has to be posted as a warning to drivers in order for it to be legal. it even has to be within so many feet of the lights.
good luck
i say fight it
sorry
jr
12 bellz... YOU DO UNDERSTAND??!!
-
gidgetgoestohell
- Posts: 4942
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:57 am
- Location: Guada La Habra, CA
