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)