Cal Appellate Courts Continue to Toss Red Light Camera Tickets

OFF THE WIRE
California Appellate Courts Continue to Toss Red Light Camera Tickets
 Appellate courts in Kern and Orange Counties, California throw out photo
 tickets as hearsay.
 California courts continue to find the evidence provided by photo
 enforcement citations to be lacking. In both Orange, and San Mateo Counties,
 appellate division judges found the images presented in court by private
 vendors to be inadmissible hearsay. Late last month, Kern County joined the
 growing number of jurisdictions troubled by the quality of traffic camera
 evidence packages.
 On January 19, 2010, Judge Charles R. Brehmer found a motorist guilty after
 reviewing the material provided by Redflex Traffic Systems, the for-profit
 company in charge of automated ticketing in America. The evidence consisted
 of a video, photographs and a declaration from Redflex regarding the manner
 in which the material was collected. The appellate judge was not impressed
 by its trustworthiness as the exception to the hearsay rule only applies to
 government employees.
 "The custodian of records works for a private company, which installs and
 services red light cameras," Judge Colette Humphrey wrote in a December 23
 ruling. "The witness who testified at trial was unable to establish the
 method and time of preparation of the evidence offered so as to indicate its
 trustworthiness. Therefore, the people failed to establish the foundation
 necessary for the admission of the video and photographs."

 Because the lower court improperly admitted the evidence, Judge Humphrey
 overturned the decision and barred the state from attempting to refile
 charges on the grounds that there had been "significant prejudice to the
 appellant." Similarly, a three-judge panel of the appellate division of the
 Orange County Superior Court strengthened its decision on December 27. The
 court considered a case where a police officer offered expert testimony more
 comprehensive than previously attempted.

 Nonetheless, citing the Melendez-Diaz case from the US Supreme Court, the
 Orange County judges found that motorists had not relinquished their right
 to confront their accuser. The actual accuser, a Redflex employee, did not
 appear in court,
 "Section 1553 sets forth a presumption that a printed representation of a
 digitally stored image is an accurate representation of the image it
 purports to represent, but that presumption is rebutted in this case as to
 exhibit 1 by the people's own evidence that the photos in that exhibit were
 derived from' (i.e., were enhanced/altered/modified from) the photos
 contained in Exhibit 3," Presiding Judge Gregory H. Lewis wrote.


 Because the evidence was not admissible the charges were thrown out. A copy
 the Bakersfield decision is available in a 220k PDF file at the source
 link below.

 Source: California v. Bevacqua (California Superior Court, Appellate
 Divison, 12/23/2010)