Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum  

Go Back   Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum > Speed Trap & Traffic Enforcement > Economics & Politics
Radar Detectors Forum Logon:


Economics & Politics Discussion of the economic and political market driving factors of automated enforcement technology.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 2009-01-21
NMA Reporter NMA Reporter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2008 Feb
Posts: 125
NMA Reporter is on a distinguished road
Exclamation California Appellate Court Overturns Conviction for Running a Green Light

Article: California Appellate Court Overturns Conviction for Running a Green Light

Red light and green lightAn appellate court last Wednesday vindicated a woman who had been convicted by a Santa Monica, California trial court after a red light camera ticketed her for running traffic lights that showed both red and green signals. The motorist, who asked only to be identified by her last name, Williams, had been driving her Chrysler in Culver City on the morning of March 29, 2007. When she looked at the signal nearest her at the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Helms Avenue, she saw the light was green and proceeded. She was then surprised by the flashing of a red light camera and further confused days later when she received a letter mailed by Redflex Traffic Systems that contained a photograph showing her running a red light and a demand for $380.

Knowing something must be wrong, Williams looked more closely at the photos taken by the red light camera system that day. She soon discovered that the light closest to her line of vision was green, but the overhead traffic signal was red (view uncropped image). Regardless, Culver City Police Sergeant Allan Azran insisted that both lights were red.

"We've had our traffic engineers check it," Azran testified. "It's just because the flash goes off at this instant. Sometimes it may appear that the lights are doing different things."

Williams asked Sergeant Azran why the video evidence she was shown before the trial did not show the second traffic signal.

"The video camera in order to capture the necessary footage, does not have coverage for that particular, uh, for that particular signal," Azran replied.

That was good enough for court Commissioner Pamela Davis who quickly found the driver guilty.

"Based on the evidence presented today, um, and notwithstanding your presentation or I guess the copies of the copy of the, you know the, the evidence that you presented in the court's opinion isn't the best evidence of this specific date and time and the violation itself," Davis ruled. "I understand what you're trying to, uh, explain after the fact, however, with all due respect, it's clear to the court from the evidence presented that the light phase is red... The court believes based on the totality of the evidence presented, that the light phasing phased to red on this date and time, clearly red not green and red, or green on one light and red on the other. The court does find you guilty as charged ma'am."

Davis, who is notorious for siding against drivers in traffic court, refused to certify the verbatim court transcript that the defendant had commissioned at her own expense. Davis knew that it would be next to impossible to have her decision overturned on appeal without a certified transcript as part of the record.

The photos themselves, submitted as part of a motion to augment the record on appeal, were enough for the Los Angeles County Superior Court Appellate Division to decide that this case had been mishandled.

"When defendant approached the intersection, there were two inconsistent traffic signals: one that was green, directing her to proceed, and one that was red, directing her to stop," the unanimous three-judge appellate panel concluded. "Not surprisingly, traffic signals facing in the same direction must display the same information for through traffic in order to avoid driver confusion and the likelihood of accidents... The prosecution therefore failed to prove the essential elements of a violation... that defendant failed to stop when 'facing a steady circular red signal alone,' and on this basis, we must reverse defendant's conviction."

The appellate decision does not affect the cases of several other motorists convicted by Davis at that same intersection while one of the traffic lights showed green. A full copy of the appellate court decision is available in a 3.5mb PDF file at the source link below. Source
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2009-03-15 22:06
California Appeals Court Rejects Attempt to Unpublish Red Light Camera Decision NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2009-02-14 14:07
California Appellate Court Publishes Anti-Camera Decision NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2009-01-30 14:50
California Appellate Court Declares Red Light Camera Contracts Illegal NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-12-12 15:57
California Appeals Court Defends Red Light Cameras NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-06-16 10:22


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20.


©2019 SpeedTrapHunter