2010 Court Decision Could Result in Significant Number of Red Light Camera Tickets Being Dismissed
People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9, is a recently published case that can be cited and used as precedent (pre-decided cases on the same subject) for all future red light camera tickets, and luckily courts are to adhere to precedent under the legal principle of Stare decisis (not unsettle things which are settled).
Park addresses the issue of warning requirements.
In Park, the defendant was ultimately found not guilty of violating VC§21453 because the photographs depicting the defendant’s vehicle moving through a red light were gathered through an automated enforcement system whereby the issuing City of Santa Ana had not issued warning notices for “each new camera” installed in the city. This published court decision stands for the rule that the issuance of warning notices for the first camera installed in the City, and not for subsequent new cameras, does not satisfy the requirements set forth in VC§21455.5 (b). Typically cities are required to issue a thirty-day warning period which apparently did not happen.
If it comes up at your trial that the city that issued your ticket did not send warning notices for the camera which took your picture or for each new camera installed in the city, only the first one, then be sure to cite this case (case cite is People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9) as the reason why the case against you should be dropped. - blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.
Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.
People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9, is a recently published case that can be cited and used as precedent (pre-decided cases on the same subject) for all future red light camera tickets, and luckily courts are to adhere to precedent under the legal principle of Stare decisis (not unsettle things which are settled).Park addresses the issue of warning requirements.
In Park, the defendant was ultimately found not guilty of violating VC§21453 because the photographs depicting the defendant’s vehicle moving through a red light were gathered through an automated enforcement system whereby the issuing City of Santa Ana had not issued warning notices for “each new camera” installed in the city. This published court decision stands for the rule that the issuance of warning notices for the first camera installed in the City, and not for subsequent new cameras, does not satisfy the requirements set forth in VC§21455.5 (b). Typically cities are required to issue a thirty-day warning period which apparently did not happen.
If it comes up at your trial that the city that issued your ticket did not send warning notices for the camera which took your picture or for each new camera installed in the city, only the first one, then be sure to cite this case (case cite is People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9) as the reason why the case against you should be dropped. - blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.
Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.