UPDATE 10/19/2005: 9 months after the ticket, I got the appeal decision in the mail. I won!
Like many cities in California, San Francisco has been using Automated Enforcement Systems (a.k.a. “Red Light Cameras”) at many of its intersections for several years now. Although the stated purpose is (of course) for safety, the real reason is revenue. If you are the unlucky recipient of one of the citations in the mail (as yours truly recently was) then this website is for you. It explains your options and relates my experience with the San Francisco court system.
Your choices:
- The picture isn’t of you. The registered owner is who gets sent the ticket. If the picture is not of you, sign the attached affidavit saying that the picture isn’t of you. Don’t lie — you’re saying under the penalty of purjury that it’s not you in the ticket. DO NOT, however, TELL THEM WHO IS IN THE PICTURE. It’s their job to figure that out, not yours. Don’t rat out your friends and family.
- Pay it. If $371 is worth less to you than a lost morning in court, then just pay the ticket and move on. You may or may not want to do traffic school to keep the points from appearing on your license. While I’ve never done it myself, I hear the on-line version of traffic school is fairly painless.
- Trial + Traffic school. This is probably the best option for most people. Go to the clerk. Post bail (the amount of your ticket) and plead not-guilty.  Get a time for trial. SHOW UP ON TIME. When the court session starts, the clerk will allow you to have your fine reduced to only $50 if you take traffic school (with a $30 fee). For a total of $80, you’re done and the points are not added to your license. NOTE: If you’ve already done traffic school in the past 18 months, you’re not eligible to do it again. Sorry.
- Plead not-guilty. Lots of options here. You can skip the arraignment and demand your right to a speedy trial (within 45 days) by going to the clerk and posting the $371 bond. Sometimes, due to the short notice, the officer isn’t properly subpoenaed and won’t know that he/she needs to testify against you (this happened in my case). If the officer doesn’t appear to testify, your case is dismissed. Or, the officer could already be in court to testify against other people and will realize that she needs to testify against you too, and will testify anyway (yep, this happened to me).Or, you can go to your arraignment and plead not-guilty there. This gives you the chance to make pre-trial motions. This makes the process very drawn-out — expect your trial date to be many months in the future.
Pleading not-guilty
NOTE WELL: This takes a lot of time and will really try your patience. DO NOT EXPECT TO WIN. In fact, you should expect to lose. Sorry, but the trial court for traffic and other infractions in San Francisco assumes GUILT. Moreover, the red light camera systems are considered infallible and therefore beyond reproach. AGAIN, YOU WILL LOSE.
Don’t waste your time
- People often say that with traffic cases you should plead not-guilty and take your chances that the officer won’t show up. (If the officer doesn’t show up, your case is immediately dismissed.) I would agree with this strategy for all non-red light camera tickets. However, from what I can tell, the officers assisting with the red light camera prosecutions do not have normal police “beats”, and instead have a desk job, probably in the same building. This means they have a high liklihood of showing up.
- If you are planning to contend that you don’t run red lights, you are a safe driver, and you’ve never done it before, do not waste your time. (Most murderers haven’t murdered anyone before, either.) You will be found GUILTY. Your fine will be lowered to $300, but they won’t grant you traffic school. You are better off taking the $80 buy-off deal mentioned above.
- If you are planning to contend that the light was really yellow and the camera was wrong or broken, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. You will be found GUILTY. I promise. Don’t forget the the cameras are considered infallible by the trial court judge. Even if it was broken!
Argue the law
While the cameras themselves might be considered infallible, the city has errored in the way they are set up and operated. You should expect to LOSE at trial even if you object to the evidence on these grounds. HOWEVER, these MAY help you get your ticket overturned in appeal. That’s right, if you want any chance of winning, you will have to APPEAL. This takes a lot of time and energy. If you’re fed up and willing to put in the time it takes to appeal, then go ahead and plead not-guilty. Otherwise, don’t waste your time and take the $80 buy-out deal.
What to do:
- Buy the book Fight Your Ticket in California from Nolo Press. Make sure you get thee one specifically for California.
- Go to the Hall of Justice (850 Bryant St.) with a copy of your citation many weeks before your trial. Parking hint: You can park on 6th street after 9am. so show up at 8:59 and you’ll have all the free parking you want. Otherwise you might have to pay the garages that charge $6 for the first 1/2 hour. Go to the 5th floor, turn right at the hallway, and go to the end. This is the Police Legal department. Tell the friendly officers (really, they have always been very friendly in this office) that you want to fill out an “Informal discovery request”. They will give you a short form. Fill it out, and the City’s “Photo prosecution packet” will be sent to you. This is exactly what they will present at trial, which is always a good thing to have beforehand.
Issues:
(For a good overview of many of these issues, read Highwayrobbery.net).
- The city has not property issued warning tickets as required by 21455.5. CVC (California vehicle code) 21455.5 allows cities to put up Automated Enforcement Systems if they follow the guidelines set forth in the statue. One of the statutes is that “Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days.” While most cities (I believe San Francisco is included) took this to mean warning tickets only needed to be issued 30 days before the first camera in a city, a recent court ruling in Southern California mandated that EACH camera is succeptible to the 30-day rule. At trial, I suggest asking the prosecution’s witness (the officer) if they issued only warning tickets for the first 30 days of YOUR camera’s operation.
- CVC 21455.5 also has very strict requirement with respect to intersection signage. 21455.5(a) basically says the city has to label an AES-enabled intersection from all sides. There is one exception: if they choose not to label the intersection from all sides, then it can “posts signs at all major entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes.” Note that San Francisco DOES NOT post the required signs on major city entrances like bridges, freeways, and state highway routes. Instead, they choose to label major freeway exits. This is not compliant with the letter or the spirit of the law. While some AES-enforced intersections ARE labeled with signage in all direction, many are completely un-labeled meaning the city is falling back on the fact that they think they’ve labeled the “freeways, bridges, and state highway routes”. If you bring this up at trial (as I did) expect to LOSE. By bringing it up at trial, though, you can use it in your appeal.
- Interesting pre-trial motions. Present them at your arraignment. They probably won’t work, but might be useful ammunition during your appeal.
- Try to subpoena the camera’s “source code”. The camera is more than a camera. It’s a computer. You have the right to question your accuser in court. Your accuser is this computer. You should have the right to know exactly how it is programmed. If this motion is granted, you will probably never see the “source code” (it’s a trade secret) and therefore I would expect the prosecution to drop the charges. It’s worth a shot. It will probably help your case if you know how (ie have the credentials) to interpet any “source code” that you might receive.
- The camera is disallowed under California’s “Speed trap” laws. This is a very interesting one, and will take further research. CVC 40801 forbids speed traps in California. “What does this have to do with Red Light Cameras?” you might ask. Well, let me tell you. CVC 40801 says “No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.” CVS 40802 says “A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.” What does this mean to you? Well, the Red Light Computer decided to take a picture of you because you were headed for the intersection at a rate of speed high enough to assume that you were going to go past the ‘stop line’. It knew this because there are coils of wire in the pavement in each lane that are a set distance apart. It calculated your speed by securing the time it takes your vehicle to travel the known distance. Sound familiar? CVC 40801 now says they can’t use this evidence to prosecute you. But they did anyway, and now you have grounds to fight it. I didn’t try this angle, but I have a feeling you’ll LOSE if you do. But I want to hear about how it went, so write to me.
I’d love to hear from you. Write to me at aren /at/ thesandersens dotcom with your experiences.
I guess an easier way of explaining it was that I would have made it through the intersection in time if the bus did not cut me off and force me to slow down to avoid the collision. The citation says i was doing 17mph. Does that mean through the intersection or what?
Shawn: Without having seen the video, here is what may have happened. For a more detailed description google “safer streets L.A.” where Jay Beeber has a couple articles describing what happens when braking in the dilemma zone:
It sounds like you were proceeding at speed limit when yellow light appeared. You judged you could easily enter the intersection well before the red appeared and since a “hard braking” would be necessary to stop at the line, you were safely proceeding. Then the bus appeared in the intersection. While you judged that you could safely enter the intersection on the yellow, the bus required you to brake. This deceleration changed things. Your slower speed meant that the light turned red prior to your reaching the limit line. You were braking to slow to avoid conflict with the bus and not to stop. That decision had been made.
It will be hard to explain to a judge and make take some practice. Perhaps a TBWD would be best where you could include some of the physics involved. This could be a case where traffic law cannot trump the laws of physics.
Roger,
Thank you very very much for running this blog.
You are the fountain of information….
Thanks Roger. You referenced the vehicle code and how it interprets an emergency act and when it can allow you to do something other then what the vc says. Do you know which code this is? I can’t seem to locate that.
Shawn.
Try this:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/permits/pdf_documents/policy/tpm/20020114%20Ch06revision.pdf
I was in the left turn lane at Fell and Masonic. A car had triggered the strobe which forced me to look away to the green light to the right for the through traffic. A motorcycle made an illegal left in front of me at this time so I proceeded not having any information not to do otherwise. See: http://www.equalivote.com/aa/index.html
David. I look at your site and emailed you and received no response. Did you have a question?
Hi Roger,
I sincerely appreciate your time and advice given to this site. This is a tremendous resource online.
I’d like to email you a photo of my red light light camera violation and tap your advice of it’s clarity and admissibility in court.
The driver’s side is entirely blurred by window glare. I’ve zoomed to the max size shown on the SFDP’s site and cannot recognize any distinguishable feature aside from a hand on the steering wheel.
Please email me if it’s ok to reply with a jpeg of my violation.
Thank you
Does anyone know if there might be a no right turn on red sign near Hickey turning right onto El Camino?, I didn’t see one and turned and now have a $490 citation. Advise please.
Ben – you did not provide an email address. Better if you give me Pin no and citation no. or whatever I need to view the photos direct….rlouisj@aol.com
Hey
Well I’m in the the one behind the wheel and he’s on the driver side. I’m not sure if that could go agaisnt me. It clearly shows me and him in the car.
Albert again.
I meant to say that in the picture it clearly shows me behind the wheel and him on the passenger side. So do we have a better chance to fight the ticket if he were to go to court?
Also another question. If the ticket were dropped there will be no record on the insurance?
Thanks so much
Albert – You are very fuzzy with details. In whose name is ticket? Are you trying to say the ticket is in the name of the passenger?
Yeah the ticket is in the same name of the passenger.
He keeps saying his insurance will go up if the ticket were dismissed. So now he’s not going to try an fight the ticket.
Albert. Your friend received a ticket. The photo clearly shows he was not the driver, correct? Or do the 2 of you resemble each other. Let’s say the driver’s photo is clearly not a photo of your friend. First, you could arrange for an appt to go to police station and talk with the officer and ask him to dismiss the ticket. Officer may say he can only do so if he “nominates” the driver. This is not true, but he does not have to dismiss the ticket. OR Have your friend do a Trial by Written Declaration. He would include a copy of his driver’s license to prove it was not him driving. Do not “nominate” the driver. If he loses, do a Trial de Novo. OR just go to arraignment and when asked to enter a plea, ask the judge to dismiss the ticket because it is not him driving. Judge will not ask who was driving. Good chance for a dismissal unless you two are like twinsies.
No points go against a driver’s record for insurance or any reason unless one pleads guilty or is found guilty.
Thanks so much sir. I told my friend that was an option and im sure it could be dismissed. But he says he heard someone else that there will be a violation on his vehicle after the ticket were to be dismissed and his insurance will go up. He’s not talking about getting a point on his driving record. He says that it just can’t go away that easily.
ALBERT Do you want me to talk to your friend. He has no idea what he is talking about….If he is not guilty and found to be not guilty he is afraid of having that go on his record? Did I understand that correctly? So what does he want to do? Pay $500 and hope it will not go on his record????
Hey Roger,
First, thanks for running this site.
I got a red light camera ticket, and it seems like the reduce fine + traffic school (I have not taken one in the past 18 months) is the most plausible and practical way to go. I just wanna make sure I’m understanding the process correctly.
In order to get reduced fine, I must go to court, plead NOT-GUILTY with a clerk, post bail, get a trial date, and the option, if available, will be presented during arraignment. Is that correct?
David…You did not say what city issued the ticket. Very few judges will reduce the fine. I have heard of some reductions in SF and in Redwood City and perhaps one judge in Fremont. You can get traffic school without going to court. Just pay the ticket and ask to pay the traffic school fee. Judges do not have to grant Traffic School if you plead NOT guilty but most do. You can reductions in front of some judges if you plead Guilty. Beating the ticket or getting Community Service might be options if you provide more detail.
Hi Roger, I had a weird situation tonight and would like some advice (or peace of mind?). I was at the Octavia/Fell intersection trying to turn left onto Fell from Octavia (coming into the city from the 101). I’m a bit fanatical about avoiding traffic violations, so when the light turned yellow, I immediately stopped well short of the intersection. Then I realized I had stopped in the “Keep Clear” section, which I hadn’t seen initially because it was late at night. There was no one behind me, so I backed up about 15 feet until I was out of that section. I looked up to see this weird blue camera fixed right on me (maybe monitoring the “keep clear” section? or one of the red light cameras?) and I’m really worried I’m going to get a ticket for this – though I’m not sure for what. I didn’t see any lights flash and definitely didn’t run a red light. I do know there are cameras all over that intersection, so I’m worried I may get a ticket for something else. Is this possible? And if I do, do I have a good case here? I don’t really think I did anything illegal (although I should have just gone through the yellow light to avoid the keep clear section).
Hi Roger,
Thanks for running this site, it has great information!
I got a red light camera ticket in SF a week ago, I was turning right (yellow light time 3.5, red light time 0.5).
I’d like to try to reduce the ticket amount, $480 is too much… If I’m understanding correctly, this is what I should do:
1. Request a court appearance date.
2. In court, plead guilty, and hope that they reduce the ticket amount then?
Also, I am eligible for traffic school… is there a chance that going to court will remove my right of traffic school?
Thanks!
Hi Roger (and Aren),
Thank you so much for providing this site. Reading all the questions and replies has been very informative.
The citation I’m concerned about follows this first situation:
I got a red light ticket in Emeryville at 40th St. and Horton, on my way to a job interview (why I thought I would make the long yellow since I was 5 min late already by a wrong turn I made!) Ended up not taking the job, but got a nice big red light ticket with a picture that clearly showed me shrieking my mouth!
I called the Oakland Clerk (where all Alemada County Traffic Tickets are now held), got a 30 day extension, went to court and was scene by a Merciless Judge Geoffrey Carter. No papers are allowed in court, no one without a case allowed in court, basically all you can do is it up right and listen, without looking down or making any kind of noise what so ever. I went in hoping to extend another 30 days (Clerks said “Only the judge could grant this”) and he wasn’t having it. I then ask to take the last day I had to do a TBD (I had one day left on my traffic violation notice – but opted to “drop in court”) and the Judge said since I showed up in court, that was nullified. So I plead not guilty and he flashes the video in front of everyone, and asks whether I denied that was me in the video (I thought this was an arraignment, not a trial) so I just say I can’t afford this ticket (unemployed for two years) so he says how much time do I need… I say 90 days, and miraculously he grants it since he wouldn’t lower anyone’s ticket. About to put my paperwork away, I tell him I’m eligible for traffic school, he looks at my paperwork again and grants it. This whole ordeal left me feeling like I had to keep my mouth shut so as to not incriminate myself without really having the option for a fair fight. In hindsight, glad I got the extra time to pay the $534.00.
But now, on to why I need your help…
A month before that Emeryville red light ticket, I apparently passed the South VanNess & 14th intersection almost at 1:00am and ran the red light straight through. I have no recollection of ever running this light and was in shock upon receiving the ticket in the mail. (It is my car and I could have been in that neighborhood at that time.) I’m typically a very good driver (although these circumstances show the contrary) but to have gotten two tickets back to back like this is a disgraceful and has left me in quite a predicament. As you can see I’m not eligible for traffic school, although I have read that I can request a motion for second traffic school? I’m really worried about getting a point on my record – having two infractions for the same thing (I can’t believe it).
I went to the arraignment in November and the clerk in the courtroom gave me a “general time waiver” as I told her I had no means to pay this ticket at that time; She also advised if I requested a trial, the option to have my fee ever reduced would be highly unlikely if not impossible. (They were offering the standard deduction people have referenced above.) Now my time is up again and after further review, I think the picture is blurry…that intersection does not have any signs posted, and the camera is the old ACS type (only front end photos and there is no video that I could pull up). I thought these were all valid reasons to ask for a dismissal but after reading Aren’s first blogs, it sounds like a lost case?
I really can’t afford another ticket (although I am temping now, yay, but still not making much) and am more worried about the point on my record – is that the only ramification for pleading Guilty?. Is there a possibility that I have any options? (Ugghh, that sounds so criminal) Do I even have an option for a TBD with this general waiver? (There is a stamp with a trial date of 05-03-12 as well.)
Please Help.
Katie – I hate to hear of the stress this causing you. To receive a valid ticket you (or registered owner) must receive ticket in the mail within 15 days of the violation. Mark this on your calendar and repost whether or not you received a ticket
Sonia….Look through previous posts. I believe the SF Commissioner/judge reduces the fine for a guilty plea. Find out the amount from previous posts. Pleading Guilty guarantees your right to go to Traffic School as long as you have more than 18 months since attending (date of infraction to next date of infraction). I believe you can get this reduction at arraignment without having to go to trial. Try a conditional plea at arraignment or just sit and listen to previous cases.
Hi,
I received a citation on 12/05/2011 for running a red light camera citation. I have completed the written declaration that was due by february 24th, and today, may 1st, i am yet to receive a ruling letter…I though there is a “deadline” law that states that a ruling must be made within 21 days or it is automatically dismissed….I may be wrong…..I called the court and the wonderfully nice lady (THAT BELONGS IN THE ZOO) said “politely” that no such law exists and it can take however long for the judge to make a ruling. Is this true? Is there anything I can do but to wait? I have loaded up on all the ammo (information) from your site, thanks for everything you guys do….
Dimitri – I am not aware of any law that a ruling must be issued within a certain amount of time.
Thank you Roger, I will report of the verdict once it comes.
Roger,
An update on my case. I felt like i had a pretty good chance of beating it by TBWD, however (5 months later), got a letter back recently saying guilty and can request trial de novo.
I am convinced they did not even read my letter, as the city is hurting for money … when i contested earlier tickets they would at least lower the amount a little.
I have a few questions:
1) Sounds like my only options are either Trial De Novo or basically letting it go and let that be the end of it. Any other options?
2) in the letter for trial de novo (TR 220 form) it says: “I request a new trial (trial de novo) for the following violations (Specify)” … this is confusing what should i write in here, should i just write my violation number here or argue why i feel i was treated unjustly …. i have no clue what to write in here?
3) what is the downside if i am found guilty?…. will they charge me additional costs or basically just forfeit my original $480 bail?
Thanks a lot for the help, this blog is very helpful.
Serge
I forgot to ask….
What should I do to prepare myself for the trial de novo?
Violation is based on photographic evidence for running a red light
Any advice is much appreciated.
Serge
Serge
If you want a trial complete the form. List the citation number and the vehicle code infraction, I guess, 21453 …were you cited under subsection (a) or (c).
I don’t have any experience with this defense, but you did not violate (c) since you went straight through the intersection which had a green light. You made an illegal lane change to do so but you were not cited for an illegal lane change. An illegal lane change is not an infraction for which photo evidence is allowed.
Quote Quoting VC 21453. Circular Red or Red Arrow
(c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.
Roger,
I think i have a strong case, I want to see this through (will let you know how it goes)
Are there any downsides to trial de novo? Can they slap me with some additional fees or other bureaucratic crap if they find me guilty?
Thanks a lot Roger
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the quick reply!
Just wanted to give an update on my red light ticket case that I asked about a couple of days ago.
This morning, I went to the SF court. Got there 8:15 am, the line was about 20 people. It went fast, I was out at 8:45. I told the clerk I wanted to know if I could reduce my ticket amount by going to arraignment… He said that what I needed to do was to sign a “Own recognizance agreement to appear in lieu of posting bail”, and choose a court date. I asked if he knew how much the reduction was and he said “Can’t tell you exactly, but it is definitely worth it”. He was a very nice guy (I had read they weren’t that nice, but my experience was different). My court date is in August, I will post back here about what happens then!
Thanks!
Sonia….Your posting should be very valuable to many. Make sure to let us know in August what happened with your ticket as well as any general observations that may help others. The name of the judge is important. It is good to know that people who go to the window are allowed to sign an “Own recognizance agreement” in lieu of posting bail. Many window clerks are sympathetic to your situation. Many, by now, have gotten their own tickets or have had close family members or friends receive RLC tickets.
Hi Roger,
Thanks for doing this — huge help. My daughter drove through a red light at Bush and Van Ness. Picture is blurry, but pretty clearly the driver is younger than I am so I plan to plead not guilty with “it’s not me.” My question is, it was postmarked 11 days after she ran the light and had to be forwarded from my old address, so arrived 16 days after she ran it. Since it’s supposed to be delivered within 15 days, is this a reason for dismissal? Thanks,
MJ
MJ – Since you are supposed to update your address with DMV, I am not sure that since the ticket did not arrive by day 15 is a viable defense. Certainly does not hurt to ask for a dismissal. Your best defense is that the photo clearly shows that it is not you driving. I suspect the police could search the data base to find your daughter since she probably had her address on her license the same as yours fairly recently. Therefor, I would not go to the police station and ask to have the officer to dismiss your ticket since he may just look up the history and find your daughter and reissue the ticket even if you do not give that information.
The best way to get rid of this ticket is to get before a judge at arraignment and ask for a dismissal based photo evidence. The judge should not ask you who was driving and you are not required to say since this is not a trial. If judge does not dismiss the ticket, plead Not Guilty and do the same thing at trial.
Thanks Roger, I’ll proceed as you suggest and let you know how it goes!
So I kinda deserve a red light ticket and can’t believe what I did. I was driving the other morning at 6:30am on a Sunday through SF to my volunteer gig in the North Bay. I came to Van Ness and Bush and stopped in plenty of time for the red light. I waited maybe 2 mins and thought the light had turned green. So I went through the intersection and pulled over at PEETS coffee. Looking behind me I saw all the other cars still stopped at the intersection and cross traffic.
I think I was driving too tired and I’m lucky no one got hurt. I’m curious to find out if I’ll get a ticket. No flashes and I don’t think I speed up to more then 10mph going through the intersection. According to the SF website:
“When the computer detects the signal has been red for 0.3 seconds or longer, and the vehicle speed is greater than 15 mph, the computer will activate the camera to take two photographs of the vehicle.”
Regardless this posting is a lesson to people. Don’t drive tired and PEETs coffee is not worth $500.
Heather – Your vehicle must be traveling at 15 mph or more when crossing the loops about 12 feet before the limit line to activate the camera. If there are any photos, they will show your car at a complete stop. Not to worry.
Hi Roger,
I went to the SF Hall of Justice, Rm. 145 today to request a trial (based on “it’s not me”). The clerk immediately asked me if I was driving, and when I said no she said “you have to fill this out and tell who it was.” I told her I didn’t want to do that and that I wanted a trial. “You can’t have a trial unless you tell who it was,” which I knew wasn’t true. I said, “I believe I’m not obliged to say who it was, and I can have a trial.” She said, “They’re just gonna make you tell them at the trial” and I said “I believe I am not legally required to say.” At that she more or less threw a sheet at me and told me to pick a trial date. After the paperwork was complete I said “Don’t I have to submit bail today?” She told me no, I didn’t have to. But on the ticket it says quite clearly that you have to pay the bail before your due date, so I can’t help but wonder if she’s trying to catch me. I’ll try to get an answer by phone. I stopped at Bush and Van Ness and there are NO SIGNS regarding red light cameras AT ALL. Isn’t this grounds for dismissal on its own? I now have pictures. If I lose at trial, can I base an appeal on this? I used to have some (very small) worries that trying to beat this ticket wasn’t right, but now I feel that the SF system is just plain crooked. I am going to fight!
Question — I was given a trial date but no mention was made of arraignment. Does San Francisco just skip this step, or does it happen the day of trial? Thanks,
Marty
MJ — Thank you for telling your story. Too bad the clerks are not being truthful about what is required but way to know your rights and stand your ground.
In regards to the signage: the law requires a sign at each approach to a photo-enforced intersection, UNLESS the city labels all entrances to the city. San Francisco has attempted to do the latter, so it doesn’t label each intersection.
I believe you have pled “not guilty” via the clerk and you have therefore skipped your arraignment.
Aren
MJ – You have a trial date it appears and not an arraignment date. At trial, the officer will testify first. When it is your turn you have 2 separate and distinct phases: a. You may ask the officer questions, and b. You may present evidence and testimony on your own behalf. When it is your turn, ask the officer questions like, how old is the person driving in your opinion, weight, etc. (even hair length can be important – how long can hair grow since date of infraction until today, for example) Did you compare my photo and details on my license before issuing the citation? Did you research any other licensed drivers at any of the vehicle owner’s address or previous addresses. You settled on the first photo you came across? That being the registered owner?
After some questioning – ask the judge to dismiss. Not only was there not probably cause to have issued the ticket (under penalty of perjury as it says on the citation) but the the burden of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” has not been met. Maybe remind the court that it the state must show you as the driver beyond a reasonable doubt and NOT that you show that it was NOT you beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am not clear whether you can be compelled to ID the driver once you have called yourself to the stand (i.e. gave your own testimony) but clearly, if you do not take the stand, you cannot be compelled to do so.
If the judge asks you “Who was driving?” Answer that by saying you are not testifying as a witness.
On the other matter, I have talked with a couple people who had their arms twisted by window clerks into ID’ing the actual driver (another family member usually). I have written a letter of complaint to the presiding judge, but I could not provide the window clerk’s name nor the name of the defendant. If you could go back and get the window clerk’s name I would be more than happy to alert the presiding judge to something wholly inappropriate. Or I could help you write the letter on your own behalf. Even a letter without the clerk’s name would be better than nothing. If you have the time, you could also, ask to speak to a supervisor of window clerks. Get names and take detailed notes.
Also, some courts will allow you to combine arraignment and trial without even posting bail. I believe they ask you to sign an “own recognizance” form promising to show up. If, by chance, your court date is just for arraignment, be sure to ask the judge to dismiss the case and have your photo ticket ready to pass up to the judge.
Thank you for keeping us up to date. When is your trial date? Usually the courts have a way to find your trial date on line – just in case you want to verify the particulars.
Roger and Aren, you two are amazing. Thank you for helping to defend Bay Area folk from these massive fines and insurance-inflating DMV points.
I’d like to send you my citation/pin# so you can take a quick peek at the camera’s picture (14th and Van Ness; I’ll also send along pictures of two guys in my house with access to my car, for comparison). My email is 0330003@gmail.
RE: Ben Says:
April 24th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Hi Roger and interested readers,
I just finished my court appearance and elected for a reduced fine with traffic school. Here is my timeline and the options given to me in court.
– 4/2012: Received red light camera violation
– Posted on this site and sent Roger my ticket images for some advice. My windshield was glared over completely with no evidence of identity. I briefly considered fighting it based on that fact alone but talked myself out of it.
– 5/2012: Went to SF Courthouse at 7:30am (Get there early!), waited in security line and then the clerk’s line at room 145 until open at 8:30am. By 9am I spoke to a clerk who set me up for a court appearance a week later. I could have elected to make a court appearance 3 months later.
– Showed up to court at 12:45pm for a 1:30pm appearance
– The Bailiff gave the room the following options:
(1) Plead guilty/no contest with reduced fine (depending on your violation) and option of traffic school (if you haven’t taken it in last 18 months) and community service in lieu of the fine ($10/hr awarded against fine).
(2) Plead not guilty and get assigned a court date 45 days later
(3) Speak to the judge in court that day to plead your court.
– I elected to take option (1) with traffic school. We were the first group in line for the bailiff and he swiftly processed everyone through. My reduced fine from a $480 ticket came down to $294 + $55 admin fee for traffic school. I have 3 months to pay and complete traffic school.
I thought about community service but at $10/hr I would be putting in 48 hours of work and the time and actual cost would have far exceeded my ticket. I should have asked for more detail on their program but I’m assuming it’s funneled through their government agencies and very strict in terms of what and when you can do your time.
I still feel there was some possibility in fighting my ticket based on visual evidence but the process would have become a lot longer and more stressful in fighting it. I would have had a minimum of 3 court appearances at around 6+ hours of my time and if found guilty, would not have the option of traffic school and would be given a point on my record.
My final advice is to weigh your bank account vs your time account vs the evidence presented against you. Don’t lie and don’t simply pay the fine at the maximum amount. In the end, I took the easy, middle of the road option.
All the best!
P.S. Thanks Roger for your time and advice to this site!
Hi Roger,
I just got a ticket in the mail for “fail to stop at red signal” – I made a right turn on Howard & 9th. They sent two picture (beginning of violation and as I made the turn). They also have a picture of me and my license plate. And a video. I recall driving thinking I can make the yellow. The date and time of the pictures are totally off (dated in January 2012), but the incident happened on May 4. The video shows May 4. According to the picture, the time into red is .6 The video shows me making a right turn slightly after the the light turned red.
I actually did traffic school last December for doing a “california rolling stop” through a stop sign. I thought I had stopped, but the officer gave me a ticket, and I didn’t bother fighting, just did traffic school. In hindsight, I should have fought that one!
I cannot do traffic school anymore since I just did one within the last 18 months. I’m also afraid that I might be getting a similar ticket for making a right turn off Presidio onto Geary when the light just turned red about a week ago (I thought I saw a flash)…
What should i do? I’m most concerned about my points….
Please help!!
I got flashed today riding a motorcycle on S Van Ness at 14th going northbound. From what I can tell the camera is north of this intersection and can only take a picture of the front (no plate). I don’t see a camera south of the intersection that could get a picture of the plate. Only a flash south of the intersection, not a camera.
To complicate manners, the current owner of the motorcycle bought it earlier this year and has not registered it in his name with the DMV, meaning if a ticket is generated, it will go to the previous owner. The current owner DOES however have insurance tied to the plate, not sure if that has an affect.
What should be done here? Should the current owner contact the former owner? Should he just forget about it if there’s no camera that could have photographed the license plate? What might the former owner do if he is sent a ticket with a picture that is not him?
thanks so much, this has been really helpful. Looks like it’s an intersection without a rear-camera, so it’s probably a no-go, but I’m still wondering.
Just forget about it. Small chance of a ticket due to a) likelihood of front-facing camera only, and b) helmet will likely obscure the driver’s face.
NT – So how clearly does the photograph depict that it was you driving? Who is the worst judge of that? You. Why? Because you know it was you. Anyway, would an independent observer (judge) find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was you. Want to show the photo to friends or share? I have talked with people with the poorest of photos who cannot bring themselves to ask for a dismissal.
I was in SF driving my boyfriends rental car. I did not know the light was photo enforced, but as soon as I crossed the light on yellow, it turned red and the camera flashed, but the tail of my car was just crossing the white line.
I am listed as the second driver on the car.
What do you think my options are? Do you think I will still get the ticket?
What can I do?
Amirah – Have your boyfriend and yourself keep an eye on the mailbox. There is nothing to do until someone receives a ticket. If the boyfriend gets the ticket in his name, repost. Ask him NOT to put your name on the back and mail it in.