Get Red Light Camera Tickets Dismissed!

Red Light Cameras

Getting Your Red Light Camera Ticket Dismissed

How many of us have faced this situation: You're going with the flow of traffic and the light turns yellow. You're instantly confronted with a problem: hit the brakes and hope the line of cars behind you doesn't slam into you as you screech to a stop (causing a multi-car pile-up); OR maintain your speed and risk running a red. You decide beating the yellow is the safest option for everyone on the road. You run the yellow, but the light turns red just as your front tires cross the limit-line on the other side. You hear the snap, and feel the blinding flash in your rear view mirror ruin your day.

Or perhaps you simply [and safely] pull a "California roll" right turn when no cars are coming from the intersection on your left. Snap. Flash. "F$@&!"

Thanks to California's big-brother red light camera experiment, anyone ticketed by a camera now faces a $480 fine! And a point on your license. And sky-rocketing insurance premiums. (OR, you pay the fine, an additional fee for traffic school, and waste 8 hours of your precious Saturday sitting in a dumpy room watching the clock tick by.)

Most people assume traffic school is the only way out of a red light camera ticket. But wise up: RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKETS ARE ROUTINELY DISMISSED!

History of Red Light Program

A red light camera system (known as an "automated traffic enforcement system") is a situation where a city government contracts with a private company to install a red light camera, and the city pays the red light camera company for use of the camera. Contrary to popular knowledge, these red light camera systems are fraught with legal problems and complications.

For example, the very nature of the program creates a conflict of interest between the city's interest in only issuing tickets for actual violations, and the private contractor's profit-driven interest in issuing as many tickets as possible to increase revenue. Additionally, cities adopting such camera systems are accused of "Big Brother" tactics in over-monitoring public roads. Cities are also accused of using the cameras as a front for revenue raising schemes (which are illegal). Furthermore, there is strong evidence that red light camera systems are ineffective, and actually increase the number of accidents at the subject intersections.

Prerequisites for Red Light Camera Tickets

Despite these considerations, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) was amended to allow cities to issue citations based on photo evidence provided by red light cameras. However, to safeguard against the issues discussed above, the CVC contains many requirements and prerequisites for red light camera tickets to be valid, and failure to satisfy these conditions renders the ticket illegal and unenforceable. Under the CVC, red light camera tickets are defective and can be dismissed on some of the following grounds:

• The signal timing of yellow lights is too short
• The city failed to issue "warning tickets"
• The city failed to make a "public announcement" of the red light camera
• The city failed to post appropriate warning signs
• The city failed to adopt written guidelines governing use of the red light camera system
• The city's contract with the camera vendor contains illegal compensation provisions

Ironically, most cities have failed to comply with many of these requirements, giving motorists an arsenal of defenses to their camera ticket.

However, one of the most common defects with red light camera systems is that many contracts between the city and the camera suppliers are actually illegal!

Illegal "Pay-Per-Ticket" Contracts

CVC section 21455.5(g) provides that "A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include a provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated..."" Basically, the CVC expressly forbids so-called "pay-per-ticket" contract provisions - meaning the compensation paid by a city to a vendor cannot be based on the number of tickets issued. This is because basing compensation on a pay-per-ticket basis provides an incentive to increase the number of tickets issued simply to increase profits (as opposed to legitimate public and safety concerns). [In the words of the actual author of Section 21455.5(g), "Paying red light camera vendors [suppliers] based on the number of tickets issued undermines the public's trust and raises concern that these systems can be manipulated for profit."]

And thanks to a recent California Appellate decision, the vast majority of city contracts are now rendered illegal!

Cost Neutrality Provisions

In a landmark 2011 California Appellate decision, People v. Daugherty, the Court examined a "Cost Neutrality" provision within the contract between the City of Napa and Redflex. [The majority of red light cameras throughout California are supplied by Redflex, and the majority of Redflex contracts contain these "Cost Neutrality" provisions.]  Basically, these cost neutrality provisions specify that the city will never pay Redflex more than a fixed fee, but will pay "to the extent of gross cash received" up to the fixed fee.

The Court found that these Cost Neutrality provisions violated the CVC's restriction against pay-per-ticket provisions. According to the Court, "the contract's cost neutrality provision improperly based the City's payment to Redflex on the number of citations generated, at least to the extent there are not enough citations generated to cover the fixed fee in a given month."  The effect of this ruling is that many city contracts are actually illegal!

This illegality of the city contract is an example of just one of many procedural and foundational grounds used to get red light camera tickets thrown out.

Conclusion

So, if you've been slapped with a red light ticket, don't get a second credit card to pay the fine.  Remember, the legality of red light cameras is seriously suspect, and most cities have failed to comply with the prerequisites necessary for such tickets to even be legally enforceable.  Check out our new Red Light Camera Program and its 100% Money-Back Guaranty, and contact us to see if your ticket can be dismissed.

DISCLAIMER

PLEASE NOTE, THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE COURSE OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP AND IS NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR TO SUBSTITUTE FOR OBTAINING LEGAL ADVICE FROM AN ATTORNEY LICENSED IN THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION.  PLEASE CONTACT US FOR A FULL EVALUATION OF YOUR CASE. 

Breathalyzer "Science" Shown Defective

Breathalyzer “Science” Shown Defective

Accuracy of science behind Breathalyzer tests provides defense in DUI cases

In the landmark case, People v. Timmie Lance McNeal, the California Supreme Court recognized that Breathalyzer tests produce variable [and inaccurate] results for different people, and unanimously ruled that juries can consider the accuracy of Breathalyzer tests to rebut the presumption of intoxication in DUI cases.  This ruling represents a major victory for California DUI defense attorneys, who have long-held the “science” used in Breathalyzer tests is highly questionable. 

Henry’s Law

Breathalyzer devices measure the amount of alcohol vapor in a person’s breath (presumably representing the level of alcohol contained in the person’s lungs, after being consumed, absorbed in the blood, and circulated throughout the body), and use a breath-to-blood ratio to convert the breath-alcohol level to an estimated blood-alcohol level.  Currently, a nationally accepted scientific formula, known as “Henry’s law,” is used to accomplish this breath-to-blood conversion.  However, the problem is that breath-to-blood ratios vary greatly from person to person, and are influenced by many factors which are not taken into account by the Breathalyzer devices – such as body temperature, atmospheric pressure, medical conditions (such as the person having a lung condition, like asthma, or only having one lung) and the precision of the measuring device.  In other words, the same Breathalyzer result for one person could show severe intoxication, while for another person it could show complete sobriety! 

California’s DUI Law

The Supreme Court’s holding in McNeal resolved inconsistencies between California’s two different DUI laws, where results from Breathalyzer tests under one law simply establish a presumption of intoxication, whereas in the other law, those same results define legal intoxication (essentially creating an irrebuttable presumption). 

Law 1 – Presumption of Intoxication.  California’s first DUI law requires proof that a driver was intoxicated, such as slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, and Breathalyzer tests may be used to establish a legal presumption of intoxication – jurors may presume someone is drunk if the Breathalyzer test shows a blood-alcohol level of at least 0.08 percent. 

Law 2 – Definition of Intoxication.  California’s second DUI law, passed by the Legislature in 1981 and updated in 1989, defined a drunk driver as someone with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent, regardless of the person’s behavior or appearance.  Then, a 1994 Supreme Court decision extended that definition to include Breathalyzer results – meaning Breathalyzer tests showing a blood-alcohol level of at least 0.08 percent provide definitive evidence of legal intoxication.  The effect of this 1994 ruling was to bar drivers charged with this second law from attacking the accuracy and variability of Breathalyzer tests. 

Since this ruling, DUI defense attorneys have been unable to dispute Henry’s law as a basis for challenging the breath-test results or defending against DUI charges. 

McNeal Decision

In its unanimous decision, Justice Carol Corrigan explained that “defense evidence is relevant to rebut the presumption that the defendant was intoxicated, but not to remove the presumption altogether.”  Prosecutors believe this ruling will seriously hamper their ability to win convictions in DUI cases. 

The takeaway is that the Supreme Court’s decision in McNeal essentially overrules previous laws restricting DUI defense strategies, and provides drivers with an extremely strong weapon in their arsenal to combat DUI convictions.  If you’ve been charged with a DUI based on a Breathalyzer test, especially if your test results are very near the legal limit (0.08-1.00 percent), don’t wait – contact us today!