So How Did It Go Down At Trial?

I'm glad you asked. I won on pretrial motions, but it didn't happen as I imagined it would. The trials for red light camera tickets are all done together in Beverly Hills. Everyone in the court was on trial for the same thing. Before court was in session the officer called me out and explained that I was going to get a break. He pulled me aside and showed me the photographs. In the first photograph he explained that he couldn't clearly read the yellow light time. The time is supposed to be 3.5 seconds. The three was readable, but the tenth of a second wasn't. He thought it was only fair to ask that my case be dismissed. He said I could leave right then and he would go ahead and make the motion. I was relieved although somewhat disappointed because I had put so much work into preparing for my defense. It seemed like a bit of a hollow victory. I decided to wait until my case was called and dismissed before I left. It was a good thing I did. Before the officer gave his testimony the judge asked if there were any motions on behalf of the prosecution to dismiss. He called mine. The judge looked at the photo. He said that while it couldn't be determined exactly what the tenth of a second was he could tell that it wasn't 1, 2, 3 or 4. According to the law it must be at least 5. He denied the prosecutions own motion to dismiss. At this point the weight came crashing back down. If I had left like the officer had suggested I would thought I had won only to never get my bail money back and find my insurance rates raise because of the point on my DMV record.

To expedite the trials the judge explained how the court procedure would go and informed us of our rights and expressed some bit of pity on us because, save an act of god, we would be found guilty. Actually he told us that unless we were not the driver there were next to no defenses to these tickets. This all seemed disheartening and a bit intimidating. The officer then gave his testimony in the form of a presentation to all of us at the same time. The judge told us that our objections would be preserved until our case was called.

When my case was called the judge asked me if I understood the charges against me, if I heard the officers testimony, and if I would like him to repeat any or all of it. I asked him to repeat his testimony about the city requirements under California Vehicle Codes 21455.5 (a) through 21455.7. He testified that the City of Beverly Hills:

I asked him if he had any copies of the public notices that were mailed to residents. He said he didn't. I asked him if he mailed them out himself or if he had any certified mail receipts or other proof of mailing. He said he did not. I then asked him if he had personally attended the public hearing. He said he had not. I then asked him if he had any documentation of the public hearing such as recorded minutes from the city clerks office. He said he did not. I asked him if he had any copies of the newspaper articles that the public notices were published in prior to the tickets being issued. He said he didn't. After this I objected to all of his testimony regarding city requirements being hearsay. The judge looked surprised and then snickered a bit and looked at the prosecutor who also looked surprised. If this part of his testimony is excluded the prosecution wouldn't have been able to show that they first met statutory requirements to use the photo enforcement system. Without a showing that the system was being operated according to the laws of California the case should have been dismissed.

The prosecutor then asked the officer how long he had been involved with the photo enforcement program. He testified he had been involved when all of the things he testified about happened. The judge ruled that although he didn't personally perform or witness or have documentation of any of the events he testified to that being involved with the" program" gave him sufficient personal knowledge of such facts.

I then told the judge I would like to discuss my pretrial motions. He said that he had read them, along with the prosecutions opposition to my motions. He then asked if I would like to put anything on the record about them. We started by discussing my Speed Trap motion. I brought up the officer's testimony about the enforcement detecting a minimum speed. At my intersection the minimum is 17 mph. I asked the officer if a vehicle traveled through the intersection at 16 mph if the camera would record a violation. He said no. I argued that this makes the speed evidence the only reason I was in court. If my speed had not been detected no evidence would have been secured.

The prosecution rebutted that speed trap laws only apply to charges "involving" speed. I argued that "involving" doesn't have the same meaning as 'limited" and that if it was the legislatures intention that speed trap laws be limited to speeding charges that the language would have said "limited to" or "exclusive to" charges of speed. I then referred the judge to case law where a judge wrote in his opinion that speed trap laws apply to all prosecutions under the vehicle code. The judge then asked me if I was a lawyer or law student. I told him I was a self-employed artist. He started laughing and said he was very surprised. The prosecutor acted a little more surprised.

I explained to the judge that I have some experience negotiating contracts on my own behalf, and because of this I have a enough experience to know when I am getting the shaft, and I am not really uncomfortable when it comes to legal issues. The judge then asked to see the photographs again. As he was reviewing the photos he told me that he agreed with me. He believes that these devices are speed traps by the legal definition. However the appellate decisions in his jurisdiction have ruled that they are not speed traps and that the speed traps do not apply. He said he was bound by the appellate rulings, however he could reverse his own ruling on the prosecution's motion to dismiss, and that's what he did.

The judge then shamed the prosecutor jokingly. "What do you have to say for yourself". We then spent some time chatting about my other motions and other legal issues surrounding the rules of court and evidence and the sort. But I had won, and I could finally quit annoying my friends and everyone else I came into contact with talking about how I was fighting this ticket.