I got busted.  I understand that there are little or no consequences to ignoring it.  Still true?

I did not set a court data, ask for extension or contact the court in anyway ....

BUT....

I did log onto PhotoNotice to view the video.  I suspect that it might be too much work for them to link photonotice to the ticket and make the case that I received it, but don't know.

Any legal experts or anyone with experience have an opinion?

My wife got a red light camera ticket about 2 months ago. First, she got a notice showing her car with pictures and a link to the video. That was an interesting conversation, she was guilty as hell but tried to deny it. A few weeks later she received the actual ticket & fine. The ticket was $500 so she she appeared in court last week and the judge dropped it to $200 plus $60 for traffic school. I guess he liked her big boobs but it saved me $300  .





Personally, I wouldn't ignore it. I think its treated like any other ticket so it could go to a bench warrant. I'm not in LA county so they may do things a little different.

 

Get a court date, then ask the judge you would like to cross examine the officer that issued the ticket, case dismised

As far as I know regular mail is still not proof of service and it can be ignored.  I don't know anything about PhotoNotice, but regardless, she didn't log in and nobody can prove that the person who stole your mail isn't the one who logged in.

Not anymore.

Not anymore.

Do you have a source?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Do you have a source?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

what city/dept?  IIRC the LA County Courts won't follow thru with DMV on photo tickets if you ignore them.  Lots of cities have dropped their redlight cameras because of the courts refusal to deal with DMV over the issue.

Baldwin park.  LA county.

That was my understanding too.  An article in October in LA weekly said the same.

Link to LA weekly article about redlight cameras

Unless it has changed very recently LA county courts are somewhat ignoring these tickets.  If you don't show up it may result in a failure to appear being registered in that court, but it's not a normal FTA.  It doesn't get reported to anyone, it stays within that courthouse.  It does't result in a suspended license, bench warrant, or any of the other nasty things of a FTA.  If you get another ticket and appear at that courthouse the camera ticket may come up and you may be forced to deal with it.  They can add a $300 penalty for failing to appear but generally don't, you will have to enter a plea at that moment and either pay or set a court date.  I did some reading up to see if this information is still current and the newest trustworthy info I found is from 10/14 posted by a traffic lawyer.  He specifically states that this is only applicable if the citation is being handled by a court in LA county, others are following through with FTA and other nasty stuff.  I'm not a lawyer and have read enough about this to be confident in ignoring one if I chose to.  Legalities aside one should consider whether it will cause more stress than it's worth; if you think you'll be up at night worrying about 'what if' or will feel like you've cheated and it'll bother you then deal with it.  I've recently learned that I'm sensitive to stresses and would probably go to court and plea my case armed with good information to hopefully win it.

people v. Goldsmith

The redlight camera operator/company sends a technician to testify regarding the camera/photos - on quick scan it looks like Goldsmith is about the officer testifying about the camera system/photos.

According to the new article I linked it still doesn't matter.  

According to that article,  it appears that L.A. superior court may not go after you if you ignore the ticket.   That is not the case in the rest of the state.; but the rest of the state isn't your problem right now.

Maybe you can ignore it.  Hmmm.

So, El Monte court then?

I have a VERY good understanding of how that process works at this particular court, and violations within BP, if it was sent to El Monte court like they usually are. Shoot me a PM if you are not going to ignore it.

This is one of those threads that just makes me shake my head.

A driver violates the vehicle code and is ticketed.  

There is no discussion of the ticket being unwarranted or unjustified.  

Now, the OP wants reassurance from this august body (ARFCOM) that if he ignores the ticket there will be no ramifications for his further violations of the law.


If you did it, pay the fine or go to traffic school.

If you did not do it, go to court and argue your case.

You are wise and knowing and an example to us all.  I am a bad citizen for exploiting loopholes in an amoral civil code. I'm sure I will be punished in the afterlife.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The vast majority of red light camera tickets are BS revenue generators.  A red light ticket for blowing the light by ~3 seconds I'm fine with, 0.18 seconds not so much.

I don't know anything about the software that runs the camera.  It is possible they have a time margin, although the law does not provide for this.  

As you know, the red light is preceded by an appropriately long yellow and followed by a short duration of reds showing in all directions.  So, that is a (safety-related) precedent for including a time "margin" or "buffer" after the red shows and before you are photographed.

Tell it to the judge.  

There are plenty of cases where yellow light timing has not met the fed (and/or state) standards - either by intentional manipulation or ignorance.  I'm not a fan of removing officer discretion when issuing a citation - there may be legitimate reasons for running a red light that may not be caught on the camera and the camera is the only thing the citing officer/services specialist is reviewing.

And at least in CA the legislature has made red light tickets absolutely ridiculously expensive - ~$200 for a straight lane/right turn lane violation, ~$500 for a left turn lane violation from what I've seen.

I agree, that is why there is always an option to tell your story to a judge.  Safety is an excellent reason to run a red light.  "I was going to fast to stop", is not.

Don't think I'm a crazy lunatic driver who wants to thumb his nose at cops at 100 mph.  We all make mistakes and I've paid for my fair share and don't have a problem with it.  If a cop let me go for speeding I wouldn't beg to pay the fine - guilty or not.  

There are reasons beyond the $$$$ that I do not wish to comply with this type of enforcement.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Have you spent any time in a traffic court with red light camera tickets?  It's a fucking revenue generating machine.  When citations are issued and the defendant takes the time to attend court only to hear the officer/services specialist ask the judge to dismiss the citation due to a "gender discrepancy" between the person in the picture and the cited registered owner I'd say there is a problem with the process of reviewing the camera footage & issuing citations.  I've seen plenty of tickets dismissed due to gender discrepancy or the photo is simply a blob and you can't what color the driver is.........

I've written plenty of stop sign & red light tickets - I get legitimate safety issues.  Missing a red light by 0.18 seconds shouldn't be a $500 ticket for someone that hasn't had a ticket in 17 years.  I might stop the driver but I wouldn't write the citation - it's just too fine a line for me to cut.

LOL!  

Thankfully, no, I have never been in court with a red light camera ticket, or any other ticket in a long time.  I have been in traffic court, just not recently.

The  judge says "that'll be $200 plus 60 for...."
I had a ticket back in the early 80's. A friend pointed out that the fine you send in by mail, is BAIL. And the purpose of bail is to guarantee your appearance....Except for traffic, which, if you do not contest it, becomes forfeited, and becomes your fine.

My friend stated that if I went to court, the judge would reduce the fine, and it would be wayyy less that the forfeited bail.

I went to court, for that $110 ticket. Plead guilty, the judge asked me why I was there, and I basically repeated the above.

Judge rolls her eyes, and says "your fine is $40 dollars".....Of course I was glad, but wondered about that eye roll.....I soon found out!

I go to the payment window, and the clerk says "that'll be $110 dollars".

I say "WHAT"?? The judge said the fine was $40"!

He then educated me on the 100% tax levied by the State of Cali, and the other "court costs", which I do not remember. Total equaled the original ticket amount of $110!

The moral for me was to accept the convenience of paying by mail.

If the judge dropped your wife's ticket to $200, I wonder if THAT was your total amount, or did the accessory costs tacked on, equaled the original $500?

The total amount was $260, we paid it as soon as we walked out of the courtroom. $200 for the fine and $60 for the traffic court fee. She will have to pay for the traffic school separately, its a small amount.  About a year ago she got a ticket for following too close and they cut the ticket in half when she appeared in court just like this ticket. While we waited for her name to be called, the other people in court had the same experience with their fines. The judge would ask are you guilty or not, everyone plead guilty and the judge told them the original amount then told them the new amount which was around half. He never asked anyone why they were there. I never heard of anything like your experience, that sucks.





 
 
 

Gotta love the "penalty assessment." The extra money the state tacks on a fine which is used to fund the courts, police, and other matters under the justification of public safety. This merely demonstrates what a scam the traffic court system is. I remember living in California at a time when you could just pay for traffic school on minor infractions - then the state decided to make you pay the fine and traffic school to keep it off your record. When it comes to photo citations, I agree with other posters who argue quite rightly that there's a lack of discretion that's not applied at the time of the alleged violation. As for telling it to the judge - that should always be the course of last resort. The traffic trial system overwhelmingly favors the state, the burden of proof is by the "preponderance of evidence" to all intents and purposes, the ticket in your hand makes you guilty as charged! Good luck trying to convince a judge of your innocence using a subjective argument, or putting the judge in a position of who he has to believe - you will simply not get the benefit of the doubt. If you can use a technicality to get the case dismissed, or have a solid point of law that will do the same, go for it. Otherwise feel free to tell it to the judge, as Dirty Harry would say "Do you feel lucky?"