I just had my day in court after getting a red light camera ticket. Here's the sort-of brief I handed the judge, along with copies of several judgments justifying my position:
Re: Case No. XXXXXX in Superior Court of
People of
I plead not guilty. I decline to testify. Acting in pro per, however, this is my case:
The city's case against me is based entirely on evidence obtained illegally, because the city's contract with Redflex violates state law by giving Redflex financial incentive to issue more tickets; and while the state law doesn't specify the remedy to this, the U.S. Supreme Court has supported the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle on several occasions as a fundamental feature of American jurisprudence, obviating the necessity of invoking it explicitly in every law.
While no published appellate ruling currently supports this interpretation of state law vis-à-vis the Redflex contract, several unpublished rulings (appellate and otherwise) support this interpretation and the logic of those rulings could certainly be used by the commissioner in this case. Also, several adverse appellate rulings either do not apply or contravene the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle, thus running a considerable likelihood of being overturned on appeal.
Specifics:
"In interpreting other statutory language of Vehicle Code Section 21455.5, it has been held that the statute must be construed to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent; and to give the words of the statute their usual and ordinary meaning….Notwithstanding any facts to the contrary, this is a revenue driven pricing system, in direct violation of Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g)(1).
"Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 is to be strictly construed. The statutory requirements are intended to provide protection to the motorist public, and a conviction cannot result from a violation of its statutory provisions. Accordingly, the defendant in case number LA007022PE must be found not guilty."
"Appellant contends evidence from the City of
Two contrary appellant decisions are often cited in finding against defendants in comparable cases. These are
Neither of these judgments find that the red light camera contracts of the cities involved were legal. They sidestep that issue. Instead, both judgments claim that the legality of the contracts is irrelevant to the cases being considered.
Such findings flout the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle first confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939), and then further in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963).
The "Fruit of the Poisonous" tree doctrine holds that evidence discovered through illegal search or other unconstitutional means may not be introduced by a prosecutor. An illegal contract between a city and a red light camera operator that incentivizes the private, for-profit operator to write more tickets is just such a poison tree.
Both of these appellate judgments, by excusing governments' illegal conduct, foster disrespect for the law, which has far-reaching effects. I have traveled in countries where the law is for sale and no one in their right mind would go to the police for help unless they belonged to the ruling elite. I don't want that to happen here. Yet red light camera operations are starting to be seen as a sophisticated update of the good old speed trap, due in part to illegal contracts like Menlo Park's one with Redflex systems, compounded by some judicial authorities failing to hold cities accountable for such behavior. In a just system the perpetrator must not be allowed to retain the profits of his illegal conduct. Allowing cities to retain the monies collected from such modern-day "speed traps" violates this principle.
In the case at hand, the city of
And in putting a red light camera on a left turn such as the one at Bayfront Expressway and
Studies conducted by impartial institutions (as opposed to those by the insurance industry, which has a powerful financial incentive involved) show that nearly all accidents caused by red light runners are caused by drivers barreling straight through an intersection—not turning. In fact, installing red light cameras on left turns increases rear end crashes substantially while doing little or nothing to reduce other crashes, since those are caused by drivers going straight through the intersection.
[I have brought copies of legitimate studies substantiating my assertions, which I’d be glad to provide the court; and I could show in detail why the insurance and red light camera studies are bogus. I have a BA in Sociology from UCLA and am trained in assessing such studies.]
Moreover, when red light cameras are installed on turns, they're almost always coupled with timing the yellow lights to the state minimum of 3.0 seconds, as is the case for the left turn at Bayfront Expressway and
Moreover, nearly half the monies collected from such red light camera traps goes out of state, and much of that out of country (since Redflex is an Australian company0. City government profits immediately, but that money comes out of citizens' discretionary income, and will not be spent on local businesses. This in turn decreases taxes paid to city government.
But using red light cameras primarily for revenue is immoral, corrupting, and ultimately self-defeating. There's a reason why
Two additional points: researchers in
And I have found that as a reasonably fit bicyclist I often find myself facing oncoming traffic that has a green light while I'm still crossing an intersection, even when I start across promptly when the light turns green. Stoplight timings are based on the reflexes and mobility of a 30 year old driver in a late-model car. Bicyclists and the elderly are on their own.
Instead of churning innumerable citizens through a red light camera operation for money,
