October 1, 2023 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Red Light Camera Fate Now Uncertain In California:

There are few worse feelings for a driver than receiving a letter purporting to show that person in the act of running a red light.

But not many legal items are less enforceable or reliable, despite what the California Supreme Court said in an early summer ruling which held red light camera photos and videos have “a presumption of authenticity.”

There’s a reason traffic cops routinely demand that drivers sign the bottom of every ticket they write: That signature constitutes a promise either to pay a fine or appear in court on a specified date. Drivers make no such promise on red light tickets, which normally carry fines of about $480.

That was one reason the city of Los Angeles abandoned red light cameras in 2012. The decision came about a year after that city’s police chief, Charlie Beck, candidly admitted that no actions were being taken against drivers who simply ignored red light camera violation notices. Because they’re not routinely sent as certified or registered mail (too costly), prosecutors cannot prove drivers are lying if they say they never got the mailed tickets.

This in effect creates two classes of citizens, in apparent violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment: drivers who dutifully pay up the almost $500 fines on demand and scofflaws who don’t, and pay nothing. There could hardly be more unequal treatment.

There’s also the issue of red light camera reliability. The nub of the case against cited drivers is usually a videotape which drivers can often see via an Internet link provided in the mailed violation notice.

Since the vast bulk of red light camera tickets involve drivers making rolling stops rather than full stops before right turns, the accuracy of videos is critical. A still photo may place a driver in the middle of a turn during a red light, but doesn’t establish that he or she didn’t stop before proceeding with the turn.

If the video camera doesn’t run precisely at life-speed, but is a little faster, a vehicle can appear to be rolling through the stop, when it fact it made a full stop. In several cases where police have been cross-examined about how often their video cameras are calibrated, they testified they didn’t know, that it was up to the camera operator – usually Redflex Traffic Systems or American Traffic Solutions, both based in Arizona. But those firms are never available for cross-examination in court and the Supreme Court said they don’t have to be.

So while drivers contesting red light camera tickets can usually question a cop, they can’t cross-examine the ultimate witness against them, an egregious violation of a basic constitutional right, no matter what the state justices may say.

But legal reasons are not the main cause for removal of red light cameras in Poway, Oakland and most other cities that have gotten rid of them: finances are. Because more than half the take from each $480 fine goes to the state or the operating companies, cities often don’t make much profit from the cameras, while annoying thousands of their citizens and visitors.

There’s disagreement in Oakland, for one example, over how much the city made last year from the 11 red light cameras it then had operating: The city says it netted just $280,000, while Redflex said the city share came to about $1.1 million. Oakland police are now auditing paid fines to see which figure is closest to correct.

In Poway, near San Diego, cameras at three intersections netted between $100,000 and $218,000 per year. Apparently, those smallish receipts were not enough for either city to put up with complaints about cameras violating privacy and the exorbitantly high fines for rolling stops before right turns.

All of which means red light cameras are at a different kind of crossroad: The state’s highest court says drivers don’t have the right to cross-examine camera operations because of the presumption of accuracy in their findings, while some of the state’s largest cities have shut their cameras down.

The upshot is that unfair as the cameras may be if they’re not properly calibrated, their fate in many places will hang not on traffic safety, but on the city budget dollars they produce, regardless of anyone’s constitutional rights.

in Opinion
Related Posts

S.M.a.r.t Column: Civic Center Debate

September 24, 2023

September 24, 2023

Civic Center Debate Last year, the City declared the Civic Center Auditorium surplus property after a decade of neglect and...

SMa.r.t.Column: THE ONCE AND FUTURE SANTA MONICA CIVIC AUDITORIUM

September 18, 2023

September 18, 2023

This week SMa.r.t. is focusing on the historic Civic Center Auditorium and residents’ efforts to save it from a misdirected...

S.M.a.r.t Column: The Battle for the Planning Commission: A Circus of Political Maneuvers

September 10, 2023

September 10, 2023

Ah, the wonderful world of city politics! Ladies and gentlemen hold on to your hats as we delve into the...

S.M.a.r.t Column: The 30 MPH City Part 2

September 4, 2023

September 4, 2023

Last week’s article discussed why we need to continue our program to slow down our streets to save lives, given...

S.M.a.r.t Column: The 30 MPH City Part One

August 27, 2023

August 27, 2023

Some ideas sound extreme when first presented but acquire more credibility when you think about it, and particularly when conditions...

Open Letter On the California Voting Rights Case Against the City of Santa Monica

August 25, 2023

August 25, 2023

By Oscar de la Torre Like many Santa Monicans and Californians who care about fair elections, I watched the California...

S.M.a.r.t article: Save the Civic – Keep it Alive

August 6, 2023

August 6, 2023

Santa Monica Civic Auditorium: A Historic Gem That Shaped Our City’s Cultural Legacy. Save Santa Monica’s Heritage The Santa Monica...

SMa.r.t. Column: Counseling The City Council

July 28, 2023

July 28, 2023

This week, our SMa.r.t. column is authored by concerned resident Nikki Kolhoff. Nikki has been an active voice in the...

SMa.r.t. column: The Impact of Private Companies on Our City Streets: A Call for Safety

July 21, 2023

July 21, 2023

As someone who’s always out and about, whether walking, biking, or driving, this writer has noticed a worrying trend that...

A Seismic Duality

July 21, 2023

July 21, 2023

Last month the City issued a follow-up report on its success in complying with its Seismic Retrofit Program. This 2017...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Future Of Santa Monica Airport (SMO)

July 4, 2023

July 4, 2023

On January 1, 2029, the City Council will be given the legal right to vote on whether to maintain the...

A Comfortable City for All

June 23, 2023

June 23, 2023

Picture this: a concerned citizen takes to Facebook to ask about the mysteriously vanishing benches and chairs on the Promenade....

An Open Letter To Santa Monica

June 16, 2023

June 16, 2023

Declining Business Climate in Downtown Santa Monica By Jennifer Rush, Blue Plate Restaurant Group To all that do business, live,...

Thirsty Santa Monica: Running Dry

June 11, 2023

June 11, 2023

The thirst is real, and Santa Monica is feeling it. The problem? Santa Monica relies on the Metropolitan Water District...

Landmarks Commission Back From the Dead

June 2, 2023

June 2, 2023

For over three years, SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) has consistently warned that recently increased intense development...