OT: Traffic Ticket

[SDowner]

major bummer when i got home from work. got a failure to stop at red light camera traffic ticket. was turning right, stopped in the emergency lane i guess.

i am a good driver, cautious, do not drive rashly. being a little vertically challenged, i have to roll forwards a little bit to see oncoming traffic, before i turn right.

anyone got this kind of ticket and contested it and won?? can someone post a good lawyer’s contact here.

[paramount]

What is an emergency lane?

[SDowner]

its the pedestrian crossing lane across the intersection. the ambulance and fire engines use them to get across the intersection in emergencies.

[SDowner]

its the pedestrian crossing lane across the intersection. the ambulance and fire engines use them to get across the intersection in emergencies.

[SDowner]

its the pedestrian crossing lane across the intersection. the ambulance and fire engines use them to get across the intersection in emergencies.

[SDowner]

its the pedestrian crossing lane across the intersection. the ambulance and fire engines use them to get across the intersection in emergencies.

[SDowner]

its the pedestrian crossing lane across the intersection. the ambulance and fire engines use them to get across the intersection in emergencies.

[paramount]

What is an emergency lane?

[paramount]

What is an emergency lane?

[paramount]

What is an emergency lane?

[paramount]

What is an emergency lane?

[Coronita]

The lawyer route is probably not cost effective if this is just one ticket…The lawyer route is usually the route folks take that have a plethora of tickets from which you are on the verge of getting your license revoked (frankly, if you’re that bad of a driver, your license should be yanked).

4 of 6 tickets that I contested for me or on behalf of a family member was dismissed in CA.

There are some tickets you sort of can’t contest.
Frankly, you might be out of luck.

I never contest these types of tickets:
1) Speeding
2) HOV lane violations
3) Most Camera tickets from which it is clearly you that is driving.

just because these tickets are far less gray area than others.

Yellow/Red light ticket and the CA rolling stop tickets usually can be contested, provided you didn’t blow through the intersection without any cessation of motion, imho. Most of the tickets that I contested for me or family members were tickets for which a ticket was issued for a red light violation from which the driver entered the intersection yellow and the traffic officer cited for a red light or tickets for which the officer cited for not stopping “long enough at the intersection”.

You have two choices basically:

1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.

If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.

2) You could directly go to court and plea your case, see if the judge (seeing your spotless record) will cut you a break.

In all likelihood, you won’t get off completely free…because the state needs money (seriously, I’m not kidding you on this).Also, unlike tickets issued by an officer, there is not a “if the officer doesn’t respond to a trial by declaration/or show up in court” he said/she said scenario…Even though the camera might not have been accurate, the court loves to side with the side of the camera, unless you can prove the camera is inaccurate. Unfortunately, some of the traffic cameras are known to be inaccurate or misconfigured, and in some cases, people get totally screwed. Also, one should add, that most of the traffic camera are run by private companies, which get a percentage of fees collected on the ticket. There are people at these companies whose job is to locate you have a ticket issued to you.

Some cheap information is available from ticketassassin.com (this is not legal advice BTW).

Note: Some folks minimize getting ticketed by traffic cameras altogether by removing their front license plate and placing a “dust cover” on the rear license plate which reflects the flash of the traffic camera off…… Not that I’m suggesting you do that. It’s just that most police officers do not pull you over for either of these violations…..and if you do have bad luck, it is at worse a $15 fix it ticket (which doesn’t go on your driving record) and a trip to the DMV.In some cases, if initially you were pulled over for a traffic violation, sometimes if you have a cool attitude and the officer is acting cool, he’ll just find some other excuse to write you a lesser ticket, and these sorts of “fix it” tickets are prime candidates, particularly if you are a woman.

Just make sure you have these handy excuses available:

1) “I didn’t know I had a front license plate that came with the car”…This actually is a common mistake. If you ever purchased a new car, you’ll notice that sometimes the two plates are so sandwiched together that if you didn’t know better, you would have assumed it was just one plate.”

2) I didn’t know dust covers on the rear license plate aren’t allowed. I just wanted to keep the car and plate clean. Some people really don’t know that it’s illegal to have a cover over your license plate.

I never problem without a front license plate on my car permanently for the past 10 years, mainly because I don’t like having my front bumper drilled with the license plate holder. And there are plenty of auto enthusiast that don’t run a front license plate for the same reason.

Then again, I don’t look menacing. And yes, some of those traffic cameras are way off, and the court doesn’t give a crap because it brings in dollars.

[SDowner]

Thanks for that great reply FLU. hope u r feeling better now.

I underwent the whole colonoscopy and whole nine yards of investigation 2 years ago when i lost 20 pounds over a month or two (without trying for it). i know how de-moralizing the whole experience can be, not knowing the diagnosis is the toughest part of being ill.

this is my second ticket since i started driving. the first one was for speeding in a school zone (no students nearby, the school zone lights were on for about 30 minutes after school had started). didnt contest that one. but i am going to contest this one. the county is just milking everyone dry with the state coffers running on empty.

[temeculaguy]

sdowner, just for future info, the emergency lane are the sides of the freeway that you dont drive in, not the crosswalk. Those are just crosswalks. If you stopped just past the limit line (the first stripe of paint that dilineates the crosswalk) then you have a decent shot at fighting th ticket. You aren’t who they are targeting and flu is right, a good chunk of tickets are dismissed but despite what most think, guilt actually plays a part. If you stopped a foot or two into the crosswalk, I think you will win, If you stopped beyond the crosswalk and well into the intersection after seeing the flash of the camera, just go to traffic school. More than likely there are a few pictures and they sent them to you with the ticket or you can view them by contacting the issuing agency or court. I get that shorter people feel more comfortable stopping further into the intersection but if you ever crossed the road in the crosswalk, you kinda hope people stop at the first white line, then creep forward, otherwise it hurts real bad. I know everyone will accuse the money grubbing municipalities or courts but that rule is really there for protection of the pedestrians. Pedestrians are usually kids and old people, I like both and I’m sure you do too, so stop at the first white line.

[temeculaguy]

sorry, looks like noone was writing the same thing

[temeculaguy]

sorry, looks like noone was writing the same thing

[temeculaguy]

sorry, looks like noone was writing the same thing

[temeculaguy]

sorry, looks like noone was writing the same thing

[temeculaguy]

sorry, looks like noone was writing the same thing

[temeculaguy]

sdowner, just for future info, the emergency lane are the sides of the freeway that you dont drive in, not the crosswalk. Those are just crosswalks. If you stopped just past the limit line (the first stripe of paint that dilineates the crosswalk) then you have a decent shot at fighting th ticket. You aren’t who they are targeting and flu is right, a good chunk of tickets are dismissed but despite what most think, guilt actually plays a part. If you stopped a foot or two into the crosswalk, I think you will win, If you stopped beyond the crosswalk and well into the intersection after seeing the flash of the camera, just go to traffic school. More than likely there are a few pictures and they sent them to you with the ticket or you can view them by contacting the issuing agency or court. I get that shorter people feel more comfortable stopping further into the intersection but if you ever crossed the road in the crosswalk, you kinda hope people stop at the first white line, then creep forward, otherwise it hurts real bad. I know everyone will accuse the money grubbing municipalities or courts but that rule is really there for protection of the pedestrians. Pedestrians are usually kids and old people, I like both and I’m sure you do too, so stop at the first white line.

[temeculaguy]

sdowner, just for future info, the emergency lane are the sides of the freeway that you dont drive in, not the crosswalk. Those are just crosswalks. If you stopped just past the limit line (the first stripe of paint that dilineates the crosswalk) then you have a decent shot at fighting th ticket. You aren’t who they are targeting and flu is right, a good chunk of tickets are dismissed but despite what most think, guilt actually plays a part. If you stopped a foot or two into the crosswalk, I think you will win, If you stopped beyond the crosswalk and well into the intersection after seeing the flash of the camera, just go to traffic school. More than likely there are a few pictures and they sent them to you with the ticket or you can view them by contacting the issuing agency or court. I get that shorter people feel more comfortable stopping further into the intersection but if you ever crossed the road in the crosswalk, you kinda hope people stop at the first white line, then creep forward, otherwise it hurts real bad. I know everyone will accuse the money grubbing municipalities or courts but that rule is really there for protection of the pedestrians. Pedestrians are usually kids and old people, I like both and I’m sure you do too, so stop at the first white line.

[temeculaguy]

sdowner, just for future info, the emergency lane are the sides of the freeway that you dont drive in, not the crosswalk. Those are just crosswalks. If you stopped just past the limit line (the first stripe of paint that dilineates the crosswalk) then you have a decent shot at fighting th ticket. You aren’t who they are targeting and flu is right, a good chunk of tickets are dismissed but despite what most think, guilt actually plays a part. If you stopped a foot or two into the crosswalk, I think you will win, If you stopped beyond the crosswalk and well into the intersection after seeing the flash of the camera, just go to traffic school. More than likely there are a few pictures and they sent them to you with the ticket or you can view them by contacting the issuing agency or court. I get that shorter people feel more comfortable stopping further into the intersection but if you ever crossed the road in the crosswalk, you kinda hope people stop at the first white line, then creep forward, otherwise it hurts real bad. I know everyone will accuse the money grubbing municipalities or courts but that rule is really there for protection of the pedestrians. Pedestrians are usually kids and old people, I like both and I’m sure you do too, so stop at the first white line.

[temeculaguy]

sdowner, just for future info, the emergency lane are the sides of the freeway that you dont drive in, not the crosswalk. Those are just crosswalks. If you stopped just past the limit line (the first stripe of paint that dilineates the crosswalk) then you have a decent shot at fighting th ticket. You aren’t who they are targeting and flu is right, a good chunk of tickets are dismissed but despite what most think, guilt actually plays a part. If you stopped a foot or two into the crosswalk, I think you will win, If you stopped beyond the crosswalk and well into the intersection after seeing the flash of the camera, just go to traffic school. More than likely there are a few pictures and they sent them to you with the ticket or you can view them by contacting the issuing agency or court. I get that shorter people feel more comfortable stopping further into the intersection but if you ever crossed the road in the crosswalk, you kinda hope people stop at the first white line, then creep forward, otherwise it hurts real bad. I know everyone will accuse the money grubbing municipalities or courts but that rule is really there for protection of the pedestrians. Pedestrians are usually kids and old people, I like both and I’m sure you do too, so stop at the first white line.

[SDowner]

Thanks for that great reply FLU. hope u r feeling better now.

I underwent the whole colonoscopy and whole nine yards of investigation 2 years ago when i lost 20 pounds over a month or two (without trying for it). i know how de-moralizing the whole experience can be, not knowing the diagnosis is the toughest part of being ill.

this is my second ticket since i started driving. the first one was for speeding in a school zone (no students nearby, the school zone lights were on for about 30 minutes after school had started). didnt contest that one. but i am going to contest this one. the county is just milking everyone dry with the state coffers running on empty.

[SDowner]

Thanks for that great reply FLU. hope u r feeling better now.

I underwent the whole colonoscopy and whole nine yards of investigation 2 years ago when i lost 20 pounds over a month or two (without trying for it). i know how de-moralizing the whole experience can be, not knowing the diagnosis is the toughest part of being ill.

this is my second ticket since i started driving. the first one was for speeding in a school zone (no students nearby, the school zone lights were on for about 30 minutes after school had started). didnt contest that one. but i am going to contest this one. the county is just milking everyone dry with the state coffers running on empty.

[SDowner]

Thanks for that great reply FLU. hope u r feeling better now.

I underwent the whole colonoscopy and whole nine yards of investigation 2 years ago when i lost 20 pounds over a month or two (without trying for it). i know how de-moralizing the whole experience can be, not knowing the diagnosis is the toughest part of being ill.

this is my second ticket since i started driving. the first one was for speeding in a school zone (no students nearby, the school zone lights were on for about 30 minutes after school had started). didnt contest that one. but i am going to contest this one. the county is just milking everyone dry with the state coffers running on empty.

[SDowner]

Thanks for that great reply FLU. hope u r feeling better now.

I underwent the whole colonoscopy and whole nine yards of investigation 2 years ago when i lost 20 pounds over a month or two (without trying for it). i know how de-moralizing the whole experience can be, not knowing the diagnosis is the toughest part of being ill.

this is my second ticket since i started driving. the first one was for speeding in a school zone (no students nearby, the school zone lights were on for about 30 minutes after school had started). didnt contest that one. but i am going to contest this one. the county is just milking everyone dry with the state coffers running on empty.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=flu] 1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.[/quote]

Flu: At what point do I ask whether I can still go to traffic school in case I’m found guilty? By phone, or in the same correspondence where I plead non guilty?

[quote=flu] If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.[/quote]

I got a ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign. This was in east Ventura county a couple of weeks ago. More than 5 years ago I went to court in Orange County, and the cop didn’t show up, so I won! I will probably try the trial by declaration this time, but my main concern is that the school option may not be available to me in case I’m found guilty.

I don’t have any accidents, and I’ve been ticket-free since 2003 (no points then: I went to traffic school). I wonder if I should just pay the $206 fine, don’t go to school, and hope that my insurance won’t go up since my record is pretty good.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=flu] 1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.[/quote]

Flu: At what point do I ask whether I can still go to traffic school in case I’m found guilty? By phone, or in the same correspondence where I plead non guilty?

[quote=flu] If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.[/quote]

I got a ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign. This was in east Ventura county a couple of weeks ago. More than 5 years ago I went to court in Orange County, and the cop didn’t show up, so I won! I will probably try the trial by declaration this time, but my main concern is that the school option may not be available to me in case I’m found guilty.

I don’t have any accidents, and I’ve been ticket-free since 2003 (no points then: I went to traffic school). I wonder if I should just pay the $206 fine, don’t go to school, and hope that my insurance won’t go up since my record is pretty good.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=flu] 1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.[/quote]

Flu: At what point do I ask whether I can still go to traffic school in case I’m found guilty? By phone, or in the same correspondence where I plead non guilty?

[quote=flu] If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.[/quote]

I got a ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign. This was in east Ventura county a couple of weeks ago. More than 5 years ago I went to court in Orange County, and the cop didn’t show up, so I won! I will probably try the trial by declaration this time, but my main concern is that the school option may not be available to me in case I’m found guilty.

I don’t have any accidents, and I’ve been ticket-free since 2003 (no points then: I went to traffic school). I wonder if I should just pay the $206 fine, don’t go to school, and hope that my insurance won’t go up since my record is pretty good.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=flu] 1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.[/quote]

Flu: At what point do I ask whether I can still go to traffic school in case I’m found guilty? By phone, or in the same correspondence where I plead non guilty?

[quote=flu] If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.[/quote]

I got a ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign. This was in east Ventura county a couple of weeks ago. More than 5 years ago I went to court in Orange County, and the cop didn’t show up, so I won! I will probably try the trial by declaration this time, but my main concern is that the school option may not be available to me in case I’m found guilty.

I don’t have any accidents, and I’ve been ticket-free since 2003 (no points then: I went to traffic school). I wonder if I should just pay the $206 fine, don’t go to school, and hope that my insurance won’t go up since my record is pretty good.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=flu] 1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.[/quote]

Flu: At what point do I ask whether I can still go to traffic school in case I’m found guilty? By phone, or in the same correspondence where I plead non guilty?

[quote=flu] If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.[/quote]

I got a ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign. This was in east Ventura county a couple of weeks ago. More than 5 years ago I went to court in Orange County, and the cop didn’t show up, so I won! I will probably try the trial by declaration this time, but my main concern is that the school option may not be available to me in case I’m found guilty.

I don’t have any accidents, and I’ve been ticket-free since 2003 (no points then: I went to traffic school). I wonder if I should just pay the $206 fine, don’t go to school, and hope that my insurance won’t go up since my record is pretty good.

[ucodegen]

–deleted–

[ucodegen]

–deleted–

[ucodegen]

–deleted–

[ucodegen]

–deleted–

[ucodegen]

–deleted–

[Coronita]

The lawyer route is probably not cost effective if this is just one ticket…The lawyer route is usually the route folks take that have a plethora of tickets from which you are on the verge of getting your license revoked (frankly, if you’re that bad of a driver, your license should be yanked).

4 of 6 tickets that I contested for me or on behalf of a family member was dismissed in CA.

There are some tickets you sort of can’t contest.
Frankly, you might be out of luck.

I never contest these types of tickets:
1) Speeding
2) HOV lane violations
3) Most Camera tickets from which it is clearly you that is driving.

just because these tickets are far less gray area than others.

Yellow/Red light ticket and the CA rolling stop tickets usually can be contested, provided you didn’t blow through the intersection without any cessation of motion, imho. Most of the tickets that I contested for me or family members were tickets for which a ticket was issued for a red light violation from which the driver entered the intersection yellow and the traffic officer cited for a red light or tickets for which the officer cited for not stopping “long enough at the intersection”.

You have two choices basically:

1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.

If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.

2) You could directly go to court and plea your case, see if the judge (seeing your spotless record) will cut you a break.

In all likelihood, you won’t get off completely free…because the state needs money (seriously, I’m not kidding you on this).Also, unlike tickets issued by an officer, there is not a “if the officer doesn’t respond to a trial by declaration/or show up in court” he said/she said scenario…Even though the camera might not have been accurate, the court loves to side with the side of the camera, unless you can prove the camera is inaccurate. Unfortunately, some of the traffic cameras are known to be inaccurate or misconfigured, and in some cases, people get totally screwed. Also, one should add, that most of the traffic camera are run by private companies, which get a percentage of fees collected on the ticket. There are people at these companies whose job is to locate you have a ticket issued to you.

Some cheap information is available from ticketassassin.com (this is not legal advice BTW).

Note: Some folks minimize getting ticketed by traffic cameras altogether by removing their front license plate and placing a “dust cover” on the rear license plate which reflects the flash of the traffic camera off…… Not that I’m suggesting you do that. It’s just that most police officers do not pull you over for either of these violations…..and if you do have bad luck, it is at worse a $15 fix it ticket (which doesn’t go on your driving record) and a trip to the DMV.In some cases, if initially you were pulled over for a traffic violation, sometimes if you have a cool attitude and the officer is acting cool, he’ll just find some other excuse to write you a lesser ticket, and these sorts of “fix it” tickets are prime candidates, particularly if you are a woman.

Just make sure you have these handy excuses available:

1) “I didn’t know I had a front license plate that came with the car”…This actually is a common mistake. If you ever purchased a new car, you’ll notice that sometimes the two plates are so sandwiched together that if you didn’t know better, you would have assumed it was just one plate.”

2) I didn’t know dust covers on the rear license plate aren’t allowed. I just wanted to keep the car and plate clean. Some people really don’t know that it’s illegal to have a cover over your license plate.

I never problem without a front license plate on my car permanently for the past 10 years, mainly because I don’t like having my front bumper drilled with the license plate holder. And there are plenty of auto enthusiast that don’t run a front license plate for the same reason.

Then again, I don’t look menacing. And yes, some of those traffic cameras are way off, and the court doesn’t give a crap because it brings in dollars.

[Coronita]

The lawyer route is probably not cost effective if this is just one ticket…The lawyer route is usually the route folks take that have a plethora of tickets from which you are on the verge of getting your license revoked (frankly, if you’re that bad of a driver, your license should be yanked).

4 of 6 tickets that I contested for me or on behalf of a family member was dismissed in CA.

There are some tickets you sort of can’t contest.
Frankly, you might be out of luck.

I never contest these types of tickets:
1) Speeding
2) HOV lane violations
3) Most Camera tickets from which it is clearly you that is driving.

just because these tickets are far less gray area than others.

Yellow/Red light ticket and the CA rolling stop tickets usually can be contested, provided you didn’t blow through the intersection without any cessation of motion, imho. Most of the tickets that I contested for me or family members were tickets for which a ticket was issued for a red light violation from which the driver entered the intersection yellow and the traffic officer cited for a red light or tickets for which the officer cited for not stopping “long enough at the intersection”.

You have two choices basically:

1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.

If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.

2) You could directly go to court and plea your case, see if the judge (seeing your spotless record) will cut you a break.

In all likelihood, you won’t get off completely free…because the state needs money (seriously, I’m not kidding you on this).Also, unlike tickets issued by an officer, there is not a “if the officer doesn’t respond to a trial by declaration/or show up in court” he said/she said scenario…Even though the camera might not have been accurate, the court loves to side with the side of the camera, unless you can prove the camera is inaccurate. Unfortunately, some of the traffic cameras are known to be inaccurate or misconfigured, and in some cases, people get totally screwed. Also, one should add, that most of the traffic camera are run by private companies, which get a percentage of fees collected on the ticket. There are people at these companies whose job is to locate you have a ticket issued to you.

Some cheap information is available from ticketassassin.com (this is not legal advice BTW).

Note: Some folks minimize getting ticketed by traffic cameras altogether by removing their front license plate and placing a “dust cover” on the rear license plate which reflects the flash of the traffic camera off…… Not that I’m suggesting you do that. It’s just that most police officers do not pull you over for either of these violations…..and if you do have bad luck, it is at worse a $15 fix it ticket (which doesn’t go on your driving record) and a trip to the DMV.In some cases, if initially you were pulled over for a traffic violation, sometimes if you have a cool attitude and the officer is acting cool, he’ll just find some other excuse to write you a lesser ticket, and these sorts of “fix it” tickets are prime candidates, particularly if you are a woman.

Just make sure you have these handy excuses available:

1) “I didn’t know I had a front license plate that came with the car”…This actually is a common mistake. If you ever purchased a new car, you’ll notice that sometimes the two plates are so sandwiched together that if you didn’t know better, you would have assumed it was just one plate.”

2) I didn’t know dust covers on the rear license plate aren’t allowed. I just wanted to keep the car and plate clean. Some people really don’t know that it’s illegal to have a cover over your license plate.

I never problem without a front license plate on my car permanently for the past 10 years, mainly because I don’t like having my front bumper drilled with the license plate holder. And there are plenty of auto enthusiast that don’t run a front license plate for the same reason.

Then again, I don’t look menacing. And yes, some of those traffic cameras are way off, and the court doesn’t give a crap because it brings in dollars.

[Coronita]

The lawyer route is probably not cost effective if this is just one ticket…The lawyer route is usually the route folks take that have a plethora of tickets from which you are on the verge of getting your license revoked (frankly, if you’re that bad of a driver, your license should be yanked).

4 of 6 tickets that I contested for me or on behalf of a family member was dismissed in CA.

There are some tickets you sort of can’t contest.
Frankly, you might be out of luck.

I never contest these types of tickets:
1) Speeding
2) HOV lane violations
3) Most Camera tickets from which it is clearly you that is driving.

just because these tickets are far less gray area than others.

Yellow/Red light ticket and the CA rolling stop tickets usually can be contested, provided you didn’t blow through the intersection without any cessation of motion, imho. Most of the tickets that I contested for me or family members were tickets for which a ticket was issued for a red light violation from which the driver entered the intersection yellow and the traffic officer cited for a red light or tickets for which the officer cited for not stopping “long enough at the intersection”.

You have two choices basically:

1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.

If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.

2) You could directly go to court and plea your case, see if the judge (seeing your spotless record) will cut you a break.

In all likelihood, you won’t get off completely free…because the state needs money (seriously, I’m not kidding you on this).Also, unlike tickets issued by an officer, there is not a “if the officer doesn’t respond to a trial by declaration/or show up in court” he said/she said scenario…Even though the camera might not have been accurate, the court loves to side with the side of the camera, unless you can prove the camera is inaccurate. Unfortunately, some of the traffic cameras are known to be inaccurate or misconfigured, and in some cases, people get totally screwed. Also, one should add, that most of the traffic camera are run by private companies, which get a percentage of fees collected on the ticket. There are people at these companies whose job is to locate you have a ticket issued to you.

Some cheap information is available from ticketassassin.com (this is not legal advice BTW).

Note: Some folks minimize getting ticketed by traffic cameras altogether by removing their front license plate and placing a “dust cover” on the rear license plate which reflects the flash of the traffic camera off…… Not that I’m suggesting you do that. It’s just that most police officers do not pull you over for either of these violations…..and if you do have bad luck, it is at worse a $15 fix it ticket (which doesn’t go on your driving record) and a trip to the DMV.In some cases, if initially you were pulled over for a traffic violation, sometimes if you have a cool attitude and the officer is acting cool, he’ll just find some other excuse to write you a lesser ticket, and these sorts of “fix it” tickets are prime candidates, particularly if you are a woman.

Just make sure you have these handy excuses available:

1) “I didn’t know I had a front license plate that came with the car”…This actually is a common mistake. If you ever purchased a new car, you’ll notice that sometimes the two plates are so sandwiched together that if you didn’t know better, you would have assumed it was just one plate.”

2) I didn’t know dust covers on the rear license plate aren’t allowed. I just wanted to keep the car and plate clean. Some people really don’t know that it’s illegal to have a cover over your license plate.

I never problem without a front license plate on my car permanently for the past 10 years, mainly because I don’t like having my front bumper drilled with the license plate holder. And there are plenty of auto enthusiast that don’t run a front license plate for the same reason.

Then again, I don’t look menacing. And yes, some of those traffic cameras are way off, and the court doesn’t give a crap because it brings in dollars.

[Coronita]

The lawyer route is probably not cost effective if this is just one ticket…The lawyer route is usually the route folks take that have a plethora of tickets from which you are on the verge of getting your license revoked (frankly, if you’re that bad of a driver, your license should be yanked).

4 of 6 tickets that I contested for me or on behalf of a family member was dismissed in CA.

There are some tickets you sort of can’t contest.
Frankly, you might be out of luck.

I never contest these types of tickets:
1) Speeding
2) HOV lane violations
3) Most Camera tickets from which it is clearly you that is driving.

just because these tickets are far less gray area than others.

Yellow/Red light ticket and the CA rolling stop tickets usually can be contested, provided you didn’t blow through the intersection without any cessation of motion, imho. Most of the tickets that I contested for me or family members were tickets for which a ticket was issued for a red light violation from which the driver entered the intersection yellow and the traffic officer cited for a red light or tickets for which the officer cited for not stopping “long enough at the intersection”.

You have two choices basically:

1) Do a trial by declaration, plead not guilty, make the argument that you did stopped short in the intersection and moved forward after stopping short. Ask if your are still found guilty, if you could request a reduction in fine and remanded to traffic school. You should be able to do this all via mail, so you don’t need to waste time in court.

If your trial by declaration turns out to be guilty and you didn’t get a fine reduction, you can then choose to appear in court and ask the judge in person.

2) You could directly go to court and plea your case, see if the judge (seeing your spotless record) will cut you a break.

In all likelihood, you won’t get off completely free…because the state needs money (seriously, I’m not kidding you on this).Also, unlike tickets issued by an officer, there is not a “if the officer doesn’t respond to a trial by declaration/or show up in court” he said/she said scenario…Even though the camera might not have been accurate, the court loves to side with the side of the camera, unless you can prove the camera is inaccurate. Unfortunately, some of the traffic cameras are known to be inaccurate or misconfigured, and in some cases, people get totally screwed. Also, one should add, that most of the traffic camera are run by private companies, which get a percentage of fees collected on the ticket. There are people at these companies whose job is to locate you have a ticket issued to you.

Some cheap information is available from ticketassassin.com (this is not legal advice BTW).

Note: Some folks minimize getting ticketed by traffic cameras altogether by removing their front license plate and placing a “dust cover” on the rear license plate which reflects the flash of the traffic camera off…… Not that I’m suggesting you do that. It’s just that most police officers do not pull you over for either of these violations…..and if you do have bad luck, it is at worse a $15 fix it ticket (which doesn’t go on your driving record) and a trip to the DMV.In some cases, if initially you were pulled over for a traffic violation, sometimes if you have a cool attitude and the officer is acting cool, he’ll just find some other excuse to write you a lesser ticket, and these sorts of “fix it” tickets are prime candidates, particularly if you are a woman.

Just make sure you have these handy excuses available:

1) “I didn’t know I had a front license plate that came with the car”…This actually is a common mistake. If you ever purchased a new car, you’ll notice that sometimes the two plates are so sandwiched together that if you didn’t know better, you would have assumed it was just one plate.”

2) I didn’t know dust covers on the rear license plate aren’t allowed. I just wanted to keep the car and plate clean. Some people really don’t know that it’s illegal to have a cover over your license plate.

I never problem without a front license plate on my car permanently for the past 10 years, mainly because I don’t like having my front bumper drilled with the license plate holder. And there are plenty of auto enthusiast that don’t run a front license plate for the same reason.

Then again, I don’t look menacing. And yes, some of those traffic cameras are way off, and the court doesn’t give a crap because it brings in dollars.

[noone]

Sorry SDownler, but it sounds like you deserve the ticket. There’s no such thing as an “emergency lane.” What you describe is called a crosswalk and it’s intended for pedestrians. Sounds like you don’t do much walking. It’s fine to roll forward after you stop, but you must come to a complete stop before the crosswalk first, then creep forward. If you’ve ever been a pedestrian, especially while trying to push a baby stroller, walk with an elderly person, or walk a dog, you would learn to hate those who do not stop before the crosswalk too.

[SDowner]

TG
yup, its the crosswalk. what i was trying to say was it doubles up as emergency lane for the fireengines and ambulance.

noone
i am from asia and we walk there to everywhere, to school, work, shops, etc. traffic is a nightmare. i have a very healthy respect and concern for pedestrians. as i mentioned earlier, i stopped short, rolled forward into the lane, stopped again to watch for oncoming traffic, which is when the camera caught me.

anyways, i will try contesting it, knowing fully well that i will just have to pay the fine in the end.

[Casca]

You’re Oriental?

GUILTY!

Next!

[partypup]

SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

Now, when a motorist is pulled over by a traffic cop for a violation, the event always concludes with the officer giving the motorist a citation that (a) specifically states the infraction that occurred and (b) is signed by the motorist so they can acknowledge the infraction that they are accused of.

What’s the difference with a red light camera violation? There is no system in place to guarantee that the motorist has been told of the crime with which they are being charged. Yes, you apparently received a citation in the mail. But the citation could have easily been lost, especially given the limited resources of the U.S. Postal office these days. Our judicial system is based on the concept that there must be a system in place that puts people on notice that they have been charged with a crime or infraction. If there is no way to guarantee that you ever received that notice, then due process is lacking.

But most people don’t realize this. And they simply respond to the citation. And in doing so, they explicitly acknowledge that they have been served, thereby fulfilling the due process requirement.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

The same analysis applies to jury duty. If you never respond to a jury summons – and I never have because my business schedule simply does not permit long or even short absences from work – there is no punishment, no one knocks on your door, you don’t get fined, nothing happens. However, once you respond, you have acknowledged receipt of the summons, due process has been fulfilled, and you will now have an obligation to appear in court. If you never acknowledge receipt of the summons, no further action can be taken.

If you think about it, due process makes sense. Suppose you ran a red light a week before you moved out of state. And let’s suppose that your citation was inadvertently delivered to the ols address. And then, months later, a warrant is issued for your arrest for failure to respond to the citation. Would it be fair or reasonable to arrest someone based on a crime or infraction they had no knowledge of?

There’s also the issue of identity. I have appeared in traffic court MANY times for other infractions, and in the vast majority of instances the motorists I saw who appeared for red light camera violations could not be prosecuted because it was impossible to tell who was driving the car.

Here’s an interesting article from the OC register that addresses this issue. Now, curiously enough, the article acknowledges that people who fail to respond to these citations are never prosecuted, but the article blames this failure on a lack of resources. I think that’s b.s. I think the courts know that they CAN’T prosecute someone who doesn’t acknowledge receipt of a red light camera citation, but they are loathe to admit this. It would put an end to the revenue they manage to collect from these cameras.

“Thousands of drivers who ignore their red light camera tickets are receiving an unusual gift from Orange County courts:
Their cases disappear.
No fine. No points on their driving records.
Meanwhile, the drivers who face up to their mistake and respond to their tickets face a $346 fine, driving school and sometimes, a spike in their insurance rates..

A red light camera company hired by each city uses the license plate number on the car that ran the light to pull DMV records for the car’s owner. A police officer reviews the photo or video to determine whether a crime occurred before the citation is sent to the car’s owner and filed in court.
Some courts, such as San Diego, require an additional step before an officer can file the case. Police must verify that the age and gender of the person ticketed is the same as the person caught running the red light.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-police-light-1977074-red-tickets

And here’s a view from Missouri:

“Because most red-light cameras take a picture only of the car — not the driver — it’s difficult for cities here and around the country to make people pay.

Some cities have sought to address the shortcomings by employing a creative definition of what it means to run a red light, or making it a separate crime to ignore the violations notice.

Meanwhile, hundreds of area drivers each month dutifully pay the tickets when they are caught running a red light.

Those who don’t?

Officials acknowledge that, for now, there’s little they can do.

“If you threw it in the trash,” says St. Louis Alderman Freeman Bosley Sr., chairman of the aldermanic Traffic Committee, “nothing would happen.”

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingtraffic/story/C0CEFF1D4FF92A1D86257437001CB107?OpenDocument

Anyway, I leave it to you and your conscience to decide how to proceed. But for the record, I think you can skate – until the city decides to pass legislation that makes the failure to respond a violation, in and of itself. I think there are serious constitutional problems with any such legislation, but for the moment that’s not something you have to worry about.

[equalizer]

[quote=partypup]SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

[/quote]

Well you got one part right, the traffic court system designed by city and police have ZERO respect for due process because they don’t have to worry about silly like things like the BAR code. Even traffic judges violate due process because 99.9% of the time a lawyer is not present and they have the “you little guilty people” attitude.

Here’s how this criminal conspiracy hurts people. Friend got a letter from his insurance company informing him that they canceled his policy because his CA driver’s license was revoked. Luckily they did not put out a bench warrant. Turns out there was a red light violation in Sacramento and the police or court transposed number, sent ticket to right person but recorded violation on my friend’s license. My friend has never been to Sacramento and was able to getting the mistake fixed without going to Sacramento for the trial, but he was lucky to get it resolved without paying $300/hr for a lawyer. The police could have said tough luck. The DMV could have said ok, but we are still going to show suspension on your file. The insurance company could still say your license was revoked and not insure him. When you fill out form that asks if your license has ever been revoked how do you answer?

Know another person who got a ticket for infraction in Orange County. The officer either didn’t get a DL or good ID, license plate, but my colleague got the ticket here in San Diego. So he has to go to court for appearance and declare not guilty and then judge thinking that “everyone lies and all those Asian gang bangers in Santa Ana are guilty”, scheduled a court date. My colleague was able to get a note from employer stating he was working in San Diego that day and bring that to second appearance for actual trial. And of course the judge was rude again for “wasting his time”, but did dismiss the case. So two days wasted and treated like a criminal by the court system. Had he not shown up for court he would have had a bench warrant. So don’t ever ignore citations, especially the one you don’t get!

[equalizer]

[quote=partypup]SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

[/quote]

Well you got one part right, the traffic court system designed by city and police have ZERO respect for due process because they don’t have to worry about silly like things like the BAR code. Even traffic judges violate due process because 99.9% of the time a lawyer is not present and they have the “you little guilty people” attitude.

Here’s how this criminal conspiracy hurts people. Friend got a letter from his insurance company informing him that they canceled his policy because his CA driver’s license was revoked. Luckily they did not put out a bench warrant. Turns out there was a red light violation in Sacramento and the police or court transposed number, sent ticket to right person but recorded violation on my friend’s license. My friend has never been to Sacramento and was able to getting the mistake fixed without going to Sacramento for the trial, but he was lucky to get it resolved without paying $300/hr for a lawyer. The police could have said tough luck. The DMV could have said ok, but we are still going to show suspension on your file. The insurance company could still say your license was revoked and not insure him. When you fill out form that asks if your license has ever been revoked how do you answer?

Know another person who got a ticket for infraction in Orange County. The officer either didn’t get a DL or good ID, license plate, but my colleague got the ticket here in San Diego. So he has to go to court for appearance and declare not guilty and then judge thinking that “everyone lies and all those Asian gang bangers in Santa Ana are guilty”, scheduled a court date. My colleague was able to get a note from employer stating he was working in San Diego that day and bring that to second appearance for actual trial. And of course the judge was rude again for “wasting his time”, but did dismiss the case. So two days wasted and treated like a criminal by the court system. Had he not shown up for court he would have had a bench warrant. So don’t ever ignore citations, especially the one you don’t get!

[equalizer]

[quote=partypup]SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

[/quote]

Well you got one part right, the traffic court system designed by city and police have ZERO respect for due process because they don’t have to worry about silly like things like the BAR code. Even traffic judges violate due process because 99.9% of the time a lawyer is not present and they have the “you little guilty people” attitude.

Here’s how this criminal conspiracy hurts people. Friend got a letter from his insurance company informing him that they canceled his policy because his CA driver’s license was revoked. Luckily they did not put out a bench warrant. Turns out there was a red light violation in Sacramento and the police or court transposed number, sent ticket to right person but recorded violation on my friend’s license. My friend has never been to Sacramento and was able to getting the mistake fixed without going to Sacramento for the trial, but he was lucky to get it resolved without paying $300/hr for a lawyer. The police could have said tough luck. The DMV could have said ok, but we are still going to show suspension on your file. The insurance company could still say your license was revoked and not insure him. When you fill out form that asks if your license has ever been revoked how do you answer?

Know another person who got a ticket for infraction in Orange County. The officer either didn’t get a DL or good ID, license plate, but my colleague got the ticket here in San Diego. So he has to go to court for appearance and declare not guilty and then judge thinking that “everyone lies and all those Asian gang bangers in Santa Ana are guilty”, scheduled a court date. My colleague was able to get a note from employer stating he was working in San Diego that day and bring that to second appearance for actual trial. And of course the judge was rude again for “wasting his time”, but did dismiss the case. So two days wasted and treated like a criminal by the court system. Had he not shown up for court he would have had a bench warrant. So don’t ever ignore citations, especially the one you don’t get!

[equalizer]

[quote=partypup]SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

[/quote]

Well you got one part right, the traffic court system designed by city and police have ZERO respect for due process because they don’t have to worry about silly like things like the BAR code. Even traffic judges violate due process because 99.9% of the time a lawyer is not present and they have the “you little guilty people” attitude.

Here’s how this criminal conspiracy hurts people. Friend got a letter from his insurance company informing him that they canceled his policy because his CA driver’s license was revoked. Luckily they did not put out a bench warrant. Turns out there was a red light violation in Sacramento and the police or court transposed number, sent ticket to right person but recorded violation on my friend’s license. My friend has never been to Sacramento and was able to getting the mistake fixed without going to Sacramento for the trial, but he was lucky to get it resolved without paying $300/hr for a lawyer. The police could have said tough luck. The DMV could have said ok, but we are still going to show suspension on your file. The insurance company could still say your license was revoked and not insure him. When you fill out form that asks if your license has ever been revoked how do you answer?

Know another person who got a ticket for infraction in Orange County. The officer either didn’t get a DL or good ID, license plate, but my colleague got the ticket here in San Diego. So he has to go to court for appearance and declare not guilty and then judge thinking that “everyone lies and all those Asian gang bangers in Santa Ana are guilty”, scheduled a court date. My colleague was able to get a note from employer stating he was working in San Diego that day and bring that to second appearance for actual trial. And of course the judge was rude again for “wasting his time”, but did dismiss the case. So two days wasted and treated like a criminal by the court system. Had he not shown up for court he would have had a bench warrant. So don’t ever ignore citations, especially the one you don’t get!

[equalizer]

[quote=partypup]SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

[/quote]

Well you got one part right, the traffic court system designed by city and police have ZERO respect for due process because they don’t have to worry about silly like things like the BAR code. Even traffic judges violate due process because 99.9% of the time a lawyer is not present and they have the “you little guilty people” attitude.

Here’s how this criminal conspiracy hurts people. Friend got a letter from his insurance company informing him that they canceled his policy because his CA driver’s license was revoked. Luckily they did not put out a bench warrant. Turns out there was a red light violation in Sacramento and the police or court transposed number, sent ticket to right person but recorded violation on my friend’s license. My friend has never been to Sacramento and was able to getting the mistake fixed without going to Sacramento for the trial, but he was lucky to get it resolved without paying $300/hr for a lawyer. The police could have said tough luck. The DMV could have said ok, but we are still going to show suspension on your file. The insurance company could still say your license was revoked and not insure him. When you fill out form that asks if your license has ever been revoked how do you answer?

Know another person who got a ticket for infraction in Orange County. The officer either didn’t get a DL or good ID, license plate, but my colleague got the ticket here in San Diego. So he has to go to court for appearance and declare not guilty and then judge thinking that “everyone lies and all those Asian gang bangers in Santa Ana are guilty”, scheduled a court date. My colleague was able to get a note from employer stating he was working in San Diego that day and bring that to second appearance for actual trial. And of course the judge was rude again for “wasting his time”, but did dismiss the case. So two days wasted and treated like a criminal by the court system. Had he not shown up for court he would have had a bench warrant. So don’t ever ignore citations, especially the one you don’t get!

[partypup]

SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

Now, when a motorist is pulled over by a traffic cop for a violation, the event always concludes with the officer giving the motorist a citation that (a) specifically states the infraction that occurred and (b) is signed by the motorist so they can acknowledge the infraction that they are accused of.

What’s the difference with a red light camera violation? There is no system in place to guarantee that the motorist has been told of the crime with which they are being charged. Yes, you apparently received a citation in the mail. But the citation could have easily been lost, especially given the limited resources of the U.S. Postal office these days. Our judicial system is based on the concept that there must be a system in place that puts people on notice that they have been charged with a crime or infraction. If there is no way to guarantee that you ever received that notice, then due process is lacking.

But most people don’t realize this. And they simply respond to the citation. And in doing so, they explicitly acknowledge that they have been served, thereby fulfilling the due process requirement.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

The same analysis applies to jury duty. If you never respond to a jury summons – and I never have because my business schedule simply does not permit long or even short absences from work – there is no punishment, no one knocks on your door, you don’t get fined, nothing happens. However, once you respond, you have acknowledged receipt of the summons, due process has been fulfilled, and you will now have an obligation to appear in court. If you never acknowledge receipt of the summons, no further action can be taken.

If you think about it, due process makes sense. Suppose you ran a red light a week before you moved out of state. And let’s suppose that your citation was inadvertently delivered to the ols address. And then, months later, a warrant is issued for your arrest for failure to respond to the citation. Would it be fair or reasonable to arrest someone based on a crime or infraction they had no knowledge of?

There’s also the issue of identity. I have appeared in traffic court MANY times for other infractions, and in the vast majority of instances the motorists I saw who appeared for red light camera violations could not be prosecuted because it was impossible to tell who was driving the car.

Here’s an interesting article from the OC register that addresses this issue. Now, curiously enough, the article acknowledges that people who fail to respond to these citations are never prosecuted, but the article blames this failure on a lack of resources. I think that’s b.s. I think the courts know that they CAN’T prosecute someone who doesn’t acknowledge receipt of a red light camera citation, but they are loathe to admit this. It would put an end to the revenue they manage to collect from these cameras.

“Thousands of drivers who ignore their red light camera tickets are receiving an unusual gift from Orange County courts:
Their cases disappear.
No fine. No points on their driving records.
Meanwhile, the drivers who face up to their mistake and respond to their tickets face a $346 fine, driving school and sometimes, a spike in their insurance rates..

A red light camera company hired by each city uses the license plate number on the car that ran the light to pull DMV records for the car’s owner. A police officer reviews the photo or video to determine whether a crime occurred before the citation is sent to the car’s owner and filed in court.
Some courts, such as San Diego, require an additional step before an officer can file the case. Police must verify that the age and gender of the person ticketed is the same as the person caught running the red light.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-police-light-1977074-red-tickets

And here’s a view from Missouri:

“Because most red-light cameras take a picture only of the car — not the driver — it’s difficult for cities here and around the country to make people pay.

Some cities have sought to address the shortcomings by employing a creative definition of what it means to run a red light, or making it a separate crime to ignore the violations notice.

Meanwhile, hundreds of area drivers each month dutifully pay the tickets when they are caught running a red light.

Those who don’t?

Officials acknowledge that, for now, there’s little they can do.

“If you threw it in the trash,” says St. Louis Alderman Freeman Bosley Sr., chairman of the aldermanic Traffic Committee, “nothing would happen.”

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingtraffic/story/C0CEFF1D4FF92A1D86257437001CB107?OpenDocument

Anyway, I leave it to you and your conscience to decide how to proceed. But for the record, I think you can skate – until the city decides to pass legislation that makes the failure to respond a violation, in and of itself. I think there are serious constitutional problems with any such legislation, but for the moment that’s not something you have to worry about.

[partypup]

SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

Now, when a motorist is pulled over by a traffic cop for a violation, the event always concludes with the officer giving the motorist a citation that (a) specifically states the infraction that occurred and (b) is signed by the motorist so they can acknowledge the infraction that they are accused of.

What’s the difference with a red light camera violation? There is no system in place to guarantee that the motorist has been told of the crime with which they are being charged. Yes, you apparently received a citation in the mail. But the citation could have easily been lost, especially given the limited resources of the U.S. Postal office these days. Our judicial system is based on the concept that there must be a system in place that puts people on notice that they have been charged with a crime or infraction. If there is no way to guarantee that you ever received that notice, then due process is lacking.

But most people don’t realize this. And they simply respond to the citation. And in doing so, they explicitly acknowledge that they have been served, thereby fulfilling the due process requirement.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

The same analysis applies to jury duty. If you never respond to a jury summons – and I never have because my business schedule simply does not permit long or even short absences from work – there is no punishment, no one knocks on your door, you don’t get fined, nothing happens. However, once you respond, you have acknowledged receipt of the summons, due process has been fulfilled, and you will now have an obligation to appear in court. If you never acknowledge receipt of the summons, no further action can be taken.

If you think about it, due process makes sense. Suppose you ran a red light a week before you moved out of state. And let’s suppose that your citation was inadvertently delivered to the ols address. And then, months later, a warrant is issued for your arrest for failure to respond to the citation. Would it be fair or reasonable to arrest someone based on a crime or infraction they had no knowledge of?

There’s also the issue of identity. I have appeared in traffic court MANY times for other infractions, and in the vast majority of instances the motorists I saw who appeared for red light camera violations could not be prosecuted because it was impossible to tell who was driving the car.

Here’s an interesting article from the OC register that addresses this issue. Now, curiously enough, the article acknowledges that people who fail to respond to these citations are never prosecuted, but the article blames this failure on a lack of resources. I think that’s b.s. I think the courts know that they CAN’T prosecute someone who doesn’t acknowledge receipt of a red light camera citation, but they are loathe to admit this. It would put an end to the revenue they manage to collect from these cameras.

“Thousands of drivers who ignore their red light camera tickets are receiving an unusual gift from Orange County courts:
Their cases disappear.
No fine. No points on their driving records.
Meanwhile, the drivers who face up to their mistake and respond to their tickets face a $346 fine, driving school and sometimes, a spike in their insurance rates..

A red light camera company hired by each city uses the license plate number on the car that ran the light to pull DMV records for the car’s owner. A police officer reviews the photo or video to determine whether a crime occurred before the citation is sent to the car’s owner and filed in court.
Some courts, such as San Diego, require an additional step before an officer can file the case. Police must verify that the age and gender of the person ticketed is the same as the person caught running the red light.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-police-light-1977074-red-tickets

And here’s a view from Missouri:

“Because most red-light cameras take a picture only of the car — not the driver — it’s difficult for cities here and around the country to make people pay.

Some cities have sought to address the shortcomings by employing a creative definition of what it means to run a red light, or making it a separate crime to ignore the violations notice.

Meanwhile, hundreds of area drivers each month dutifully pay the tickets when they are caught running a red light.

Those who don’t?

Officials acknowledge that, for now, there’s little they can do.

“If you threw it in the trash,” says St. Louis Alderman Freeman Bosley Sr., chairman of the aldermanic Traffic Committee, “nothing would happen.”

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingtraffic/story/C0CEFF1D4FF92A1D86257437001CB107?OpenDocument

Anyway, I leave it to you and your conscience to decide how to proceed. But for the record, I think you can skate – until the city decides to pass legislation that makes the failure to respond a violation, in and of itself. I think there are serious constitutional problems with any such legislation, but for the moment that’s not something you have to worry about.

[partypup]

SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

Now, when a motorist is pulled over by a traffic cop for a violation, the event always concludes with the officer giving the motorist a citation that (a) specifically states the infraction that occurred and (b) is signed by the motorist so they can acknowledge the infraction that they are accused of.

What’s the difference with a red light camera violation? There is no system in place to guarantee that the motorist has been told of the crime with which they are being charged. Yes, you apparently received a citation in the mail. But the citation could have easily been lost, especially given the limited resources of the U.S. Postal office these days. Our judicial system is based on the concept that there must be a system in place that puts people on notice that they have been charged with a crime or infraction. If there is no way to guarantee that you ever received that notice, then due process is lacking.

But most people don’t realize this. And they simply respond to the citation. And in doing so, they explicitly acknowledge that they have been served, thereby fulfilling the due process requirement.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

The same analysis applies to jury duty. If you never respond to a jury summons – and I never have because my business schedule simply does not permit long or even short absences from work – there is no punishment, no one knocks on your door, you don’t get fined, nothing happens. However, once you respond, you have acknowledged receipt of the summons, due process has been fulfilled, and you will now have an obligation to appear in court. If you never acknowledge receipt of the summons, no further action can be taken.

If you think about it, due process makes sense. Suppose you ran a red light a week before you moved out of state. And let’s suppose that your citation was inadvertently delivered to the ols address. And then, months later, a warrant is issued for your arrest for failure to respond to the citation. Would it be fair or reasonable to arrest someone based on a crime or infraction they had no knowledge of?

There’s also the issue of identity. I have appeared in traffic court MANY times for other infractions, and in the vast majority of instances the motorists I saw who appeared for red light camera violations could not be prosecuted because it was impossible to tell who was driving the car.

Here’s an interesting article from the OC register that addresses this issue. Now, curiously enough, the article acknowledges that people who fail to respond to these citations are never prosecuted, but the article blames this failure on a lack of resources. I think that’s b.s. I think the courts know that they CAN’T prosecute someone who doesn’t acknowledge receipt of a red light camera citation, but they are loathe to admit this. It would put an end to the revenue they manage to collect from these cameras.

“Thousands of drivers who ignore their red light camera tickets are receiving an unusual gift from Orange County courts:
Their cases disappear.
No fine. No points on their driving records.
Meanwhile, the drivers who face up to their mistake and respond to their tickets face a $346 fine, driving school and sometimes, a spike in their insurance rates..

A red light camera company hired by each city uses the license plate number on the car that ran the light to pull DMV records for the car’s owner. A police officer reviews the photo or video to determine whether a crime occurred before the citation is sent to the car’s owner and filed in court.
Some courts, such as San Diego, require an additional step before an officer can file the case. Police must verify that the age and gender of the person ticketed is the same as the person caught running the red light.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-police-light-1977074-red-tickets

And here’s a view from Missouri:

“Because most red-light cameras take a picture only of the car — not the driver — it’s difficult for cities here and around the country to make people pay.

Some cities have sought to address the shortcomings by employing a creative definition of what it means to run a red light, or making it a separate crime to ignore the violations notice.

Meanwhile, hundreds of area drivers each month dutifully pay the tickets when they are caught running a red light.

Those who don’t?

Officials acknowledge that, for now, there’s little they can do.

“If you threw it in the trash,” says St. Louis Alderman Freeman Bosley Sr., chairman of the aldermanic Traffic Committee, “nothing would happen.”

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingtraffic/story/C0CEFF1D4FF92A1D86257437001CB107?OpenDocument

Anyway, I leave it to you and your conscience to decide how to proceed. But for the record, I think you can skate – until the city decides to pass legislation that makes the failure to respond a violation, in and of itself. I think there are serious constitutional problems with any such legislation, but for the moment that’s not something you have to worry about.

[partypup]

SDowner: I am a lawyer, but I am not going to dispense legal advice in this matter. I will, however, give you some food for thought.

There is no due process whatsoever when you receive a citation based on a red light camera. What do I mean by this? Due process requires an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. That necessarily implies the the right to be told of the crime being charged.

Now, when a motorist is pulled over by a traffic cop for a violation, the event always concludes with the officer giving the motorist a citation that (a) specifically states the infraction that occurred and (b) is signed by the motorist so they can acknowledge the infraction that they are accused of.

What’s the difference with a red light camera violation? There is no system in place to guarantee that the motorist has been told of the crime with which they are being charged. Yes, you apparently received a citation in the mail. But the citation could have easily been lost, especially given the limited resources of the U.S. Postal office these days. Our judicial system is based on the concept that there must be a system in place that puts people on notice that they have been charged with a crime or infraction. If there is no way to guarantee that you ever received that notice, then due process is lacking.

But most people don’t realize this. And they simply respond to the citation. And in doing so, they explicitly acknowledge that they have been served, thereby fulfilling the due process requirement.

However, if you never respond to the citation, due process is lacking and you cannot, therefore, be prosecuted for this infraction. Law enforcement agencies and courts are aware of this basic and fundamental legal fact. But they choose not to share it with the motoring public. Instead, most people receive a citation, instantly get nervous and respond, thereby guaranteeing that they will be prosecuted.

The same analysis applies to jury duty. If you never respond to a jury summons – and I never have because my business schedule simply does not permit long or even short absences from work – there is no punishment, no one knocks on your door, you don’t get fined, nothing happens. However, once you respond, you have acknowledged receipt of the summons, due process has been fulfilled, and you will now have an obligation to appear in court. If you never acknowledge receipt of the summons, no further action can be taken.

If you think about it, due process makes sense. Suppose you ran a red light a week before you moved out of state. And let’s suppose that your citation was inadvertently delivered to the ols address. And then, months later, a warrant is issued for your arrest for failure to respond to the citation. Would it be fair or reasonable to arrest someone based on a crime or infraction they had no knowledge of?

There’s also the issue of identity. I have appeared in traffic court MANY times for other infractions, and in the vast majority of instances the motorists I saw who appeared for red light camera violations could not be prosecuted because it was impossible to tell who was driving the car.

Here’s an interesting article from the OC register that addresses this issue. Now, curiously enough, the article acknowledges that people who fail to respond to these citations are never prosecuted, but the article blames this failure on a lack of resources. I think that’s b.s. I think the courts know that they CAN’T prosecute someone who doesn’t acknowledge receipt of a red light camera citation, but they are loathe to admit this. It would put an end to the revenue they manage to collect from these cameras.

“Thousands of drivers who ignore their red light camera tickets are receiving an unusual gift from Orange County courts:
Their cases disappear.
No fine. No points on their driving records.
Meanwhile, the drivers who face up to their mistake and respond to their tickets face a $346 fine, driving school and sometimes, a spike in their insurance rates..

A red light camera company hired by each city uses the license plate number on the car that ran the light to pull DMV records for the car’s owner. A police officer reviews the photo or video to determine whether a crime occurred before the citation is sent to the car’s owner and filed in court.
Some courts, such as San Diego, require an additional step before an officer can file the case. Police must verify that the age and gender of the person ticketed is the same as the person caught running the red light.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-police-light-1977074-red-tickets

And here’s a view from Missouri:

“Because most red-light cameras take a picture only of the car — not the driver — it’s difficult for cities here and around the country to make people pay.

Some cities have sought to address the shortcomings by employing a creative definition of what it means to run a red light, or making it a separate crime to ignore the violations notice.

Meanwhile, hundreds of area drivers each month dutifully pay the tickets when they are caught running a red light.

Those who don’t?

Officials acknowledge that, for now, there’s little they can do.

“If you threw it in the trash,” says St. Louis Alderman Freeman Bosley Sr., chairman of the aldermanic Traffic Committee, “nothing would happen.”

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/commutingtraffic/story/C0CEFF1D4FF92A1D86257437001CB107?OpenDocument

Anyway, I leave it to you and your conscience to decide how to proceed. But for the record, I think you can skate – until the city decides to pass legislation that makes the failure to respond a violation, in and of itself. I think there are serious constitutional problems with any such legislation, but for the moment that’s not something you have to worry about.

[Casca]

You’re Oriental?

GUILTY!

Next!

[Casca]

You’re Oriental?

GUILTY!

Next!

[Casca]

You’re Oriental?

GUILTY!

Next!

[Casca]

You’re Oriental?

GUILTY!

Next!

[SDowner]

TG
yup, its the crosswalk. what i was trying to say was it doubles up as emergency lane for the fireengines and ambulance.

noone
i am from asia and we walk there to everywhere, to school, work, shops, etc. traffic is a nightmare. i have a very healthy respect and concern for pedestrians. as i mentioned earlier, i stopped short, rolled forward into the lane, stopped again to watch for oncoming traffic, which is when the camera caught me.

anyways, i will try contesting it, knowing fully well that i will just have to pay the fine in the end.

[SDowner]

TG
yup, its the crosswalk. what i was trying to say was it doubles up as emergency lane for the fireengines and ambulance.

noone
i am from asia and we walk there to everywhere, to school, work, shops, etc. traffic is a nightmare. i have a very healthy respect and concern for pedestrians. as i mentioned earlier, i stopped short, rolled forward into the lane, stopped again to watch for oncoming traffic, which is when the camera caught me.

anyways, i will try contesting it, knowing fully well that i will just have to pay the fine in the end.

[SDowner]

TG
yup, its the crosswalk. what i was trying to say was it doubles up as emergency lane for the fireengines and ambulance.

noone
i am from asia and we walk there to everywhere, to school, work, shops, etc. traffic is a nightmare. i have a very healthy respect and concern for pedestrians. as i mentioned earlier, i stopped short, rolled forward into the lane, stopped again to watch for oncoming traffic, which is when the camera caught me.

anyways, i will try contesting it, knowing fully well that i will just have to pay the fine in the end.

[SDowner]

TG
yup, its the crosswalk. what i was trying to say was it doubles up as emergency lane for the fireengines and ambulance.

noone
i am from asia and we walk there to everywhere, to school, work, shops, etc. traffic is a nightmare. i have a very healthy respect and concern for pedestrians. as i mentioned earlier, i stopped short, rolled forward into the lane, stopped again to watch for oncoming traffic, which is when the camera caught me.

anyways, i will try contesting it, knowing fully well that i will just have to pay the fine in the end.

[noone]

Sorry SDownler, but it sounds like you deserve the ticket. There’s no such thing as an “emergency lane.” What you describe is called a crosswalk and it’s intended for pedestrians. Sounds like you don’t do much walking. It’s fine to roll forward after you stop, but you must come to a complete stop before the crosswalk first, then creep forward. If you’ve ever been a pedestrian, especially while trying to push a baby stroller, walk with an elderly person, or walk a dog, you would learn to hate those who do not stop before the crosswalk too.

[noone]

Sorry SDownler, but it sounds like you deserve the ticket. There’s no such thing as an “emergency lane.” What you describe is called a crosswalk and it’s intended for pedestrians. Sounds like you don’t do much walking. It’s fine to roll forward after you stop, but you must come to a complete stop before the crosswalk first, then creep forward. If you’ve ever been a pedestrian, especially while trying to push a baby stroller, walk with an elderly person, or walk a dog, you would learn to hate those who do not stop before the crosswalk too.

[noone]

Sorry SDownler, but it sounds like you deserve the ticket. There’s no such thing as an “emergency lane.” What you describe is called a crosswalk and it’s intended for pedestrians. Sounds like you don’t do much walking. It’s fine to roll forward after you stop, but you must come to a complete stop before the crosswalk first, then creep forward. If you’ve ever been a pedestrian, especially while trying to push a baby stroller, walk with an elderly person, or walk a dog, you would learn to hate those who do not stop before the crosswalk too.

[noone]

Sorry SDownler, but it sounds like you deserve the ticket. There’s no such thing as an “emergency lane.” What you describe is called a crosswalk and it’s intended for pedestrians. Sounds like you don’t do much walking. It’s fine to roll forward after you stop, but you must come to a complete stop before the crosswalk first, then creep forward. If you’ve ever been a pedestrian, especially while trying to push a baby stroller, walk with an elderly person, or walk a dog, you would learn to hate those who do not stop before the crosswalk too.

[Anonymous]

Try ticketassassin.com

[Anonymous]

Try ticketassassin.com

[Anonymous]

Try ticketassassin.com

[Anonymous]

Try ticketassassin.com

[Anonymous]

Try ticketassassin.com

[Doofrat]

My take on it is that it’s just a system run on laziness by both parties. The city knows red light cameras are BS, but it just wants you to get scared and pay the ticket so they and their accomplices (the companies who build these automatic cash machines) can get their money. Send out an official looking notice with photographic evidence and scare the mark into paying up. The victims of this scam just want to pay it and get it over with and are afraid of ignoring the notice and/or appearing in court.
This is not legal advice, just me bitching.
And no I’ve never gotten a red light ticket.

[Doofrat]

My take on it is that it’s just a system run on laziness by both parties. The city knows red light cameras are BS, but it just wants you to get scared and pay the ticket so they and their accomplices (the companies who build these automatic cash machines) can get their money. Send out an official looking notice with photographic evidence and scare the mark into paying up. The victims of this scam just want to pay it and get it over with and are afraid of ignoring the notice and/or appearing in court.
This is not legal advice, just me bitching.
And no I’ve never gotten a red light ticket.

[Doofrat]

My take on it is that it’s just a system run on laziness by both parties. The city knows red light cameras are BS, but it just wants you to get scared and pay the ticket so they and their accomplices (the companies who build these automatic cash machines) can get their money. Send out an official looking notice with photographic evidence and scare the mark into paying up. The victims of this scam just want to pay it and get it over with and are afraid of ignoring the notice and/or appearing in court.
This is not legal advice, just me bitching.
And no I’ve never gotten a red light ticket.

[Doofrat]

My take on it is that it’s just a system run on laziness by both parties. The city knows red light cameras are BS, but it just wants you to get scared and pay the ticket so they and their accomplices (the companies who build these automatic cash machines) can get their money. Send out an official looking notice with photographic evidence and scare the mark into paying up. The victims of this scam just want to pay it and get it over with and are afraid of ignoring the notice and/or appearing in court.
This is not legal advice, just me bitching.
And no I’ve never gotten a red light ticket.

[Doofrat]

My take on it is that it’s just a system run on laziness by both parties. The city knows red light cameras are BS, but it just wants you to get scared and pay the ticket so they and their accomplices (the companies who build these automatic cash machines) can get their money. Send out an official looking notice with photographic evidence and scare the mark into paying up. The victims of this scam just want to pay it and get it over with and are afraid of ignoring the notice and/or appearing in court.
This is not legal advice, just me bitching.
And no I’ve never gotten a red light ticket.

[sd_bear]

Speaking of red light cameras… tonight I was turning left onto Mira Mesa Blvd from Scranton Rd with a full on green light arrow when the red light camera flashed me. Should I be expecting a citation in the mail? Would that be easy to contest since I obviously did not even come close to running a red light?

I’ve seen it happen a million times before. Those red light cameras flashing when cars are turning left with green left arrows, sometimes 5 in a row. It finally nabbed me.

[jpinpb]

partypup is right. I had a red light ticket. It got mailed to my old place. I never got it b/c I moved. I moved like 3 different times since I got the ticket. I didn’t even know I got the ticket.

I didn’t find out until like 5 years later when I got pulled over for something else. The cop said I had a failure to appear on a ticket. There was no warrant. I took care of it only b/c I was scared that it would go to collections. I heard they can send it to collections and it could affect your credit.

But looking back, they had 5 years to send it to collections and they didn’t. Probably the only reason to pay it would be if you didn’t want to be bothered by a bored cop running plates that may need an excuse to pull you over.

[NeetaT]

http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html

[sd_bear]

[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]

Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode73

[garysears]

Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.

[Zeitgeist]

This is an old case, but it might give you some insight into the camera or scameras as some people call them.

Subject: IP: Judge dismisses 290 red light camera tickets in San Diego

* From: David Farber
* Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:01:44 -0400

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200109/msg00033.html

[Zeitgeist]

This is an old case, but it might give you some insight into the camera or scameras as some people call them.

Subject: IP: Judge dismisses 290 red light camera tickets in San Diego

* From: David Farber
* Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:01:44 -0400

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200109/msg00033.html

[Zeitgeist]

This is an old case, but it might give you some insight into the camera or scameras as some people call them.

Subject: IP: Judge dismisses 290 red light camera tickets in San Diego

* From: David Farber
* Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:01:44 -0400

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200109/msg00033.html

[Zeitgeist]

This is an old case, but it might give you some insight into the camera or scameras as some people call them.

Subject: IP: Judge dismisses 290 red light camera tickets in San Diego

* From: David Farber
* Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:01:44 -0400

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200109/msg00033.html

[Zeitgeist]

This is an old case, but it might give you some insight into the camera or scameras as some people call them.

Subject: IP: Judge dismisses 290 red light camera tickets in San Diego

* From: David Farber
* Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:01:44 -0400

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200109/msg00033.html

[djc]

[quote=garysears]Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.[/quote]

This DID happen in SD, which is why the camera went dormant for years. Instead of getting paid per ticket, the camera company gets a flat rate no matter how many tickets they issue.

The stop red light runners, however rear end accidents have reportedly gone up!

[djc]

[quote=garysears]Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.[/quote]

This DID happen in SD, which is why the camera went dormant for years. Instead of getting paid per ticket, the camera company gets a flat rate no matter how many tickets they issue.

The stop red light runners, however rear end accidents have reportedly gone up!

[djc]

[quote=garysears]Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.[/quote]

This DID happen in SD, which is why the camera went dormant for years. Instead of getting paid per ticket, the camera company gets a flat rate no matter how many tickets they issue.

The stop red light runners, however rear end accidents have reportedly gone up!

[djc]

[quote=garysears]Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.[/quote]

This DID happen in SD, which is why the camera went dormant for years. Instead of getting paid per ticket, the camera company gets a flat rate no matter how many tickets they issue.

The stop red light runners, however rear end accidents have reportedly gone up!

[djc]

[quote=garysears]Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.[/quote]

This DID happen in SD, which is why the camera went dormant for years. Instead of getting paid per ticket, the camera company gets a flat rate no matter how many tickets they issue.

The stop red light runners, however rear end accidents have reportedly gone up!

[garysears]

Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.

[garysears]

Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.

[garysears]

Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.

[garysears]

Here is another problem with the red light cameras :

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

I remembered reading about Washington D.C. shortening the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections several years ago to increase revenue from red light runners. So I googled it and came up with the above article about other cities. I believe it was around 2000 or 2001 that I read about the case in Washington. Apparently, the company promised a certain amount of revenue would be generated for the city of D.C if they bought the camera system. The problem was that after it was installed D.C. was either making less than planned or actually losing money because people were obeying the law more than expected. So they dramatically shortened the yellow lights to force more violations of the law. That’s right. They sacrificed public safety and made red light violators out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Don’t think that can’t happen in S.D. Keep an eye on the length of the yellow lights at camera controlled intersections.

[sd_bear]

[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]

Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode73

[sd_bear]

[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]

Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode73

[sd_bear]

[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]

Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode73

[sd_bear]

[quote=NeetaT]http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html[/quote]

Doesn’t work. I saw a mythbusters episode on speed cameras and NONE of the products were able to stop it.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode73

[NeetaT]

http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html

[NeetaT]

http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html

[NeetaT]

http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html

[NeetaT]

http://www.phantomalert.com/PhotoBlocker-and-License-Plate-Cover/PhotoBlocker.html

[jpinpb]

partypup is right. I had a red light ticket. It got mailed to my old place. I never got it b/c I moved. I moved like 3 different times since I got the ticket. I didn’t even know I got the ticket.

I didn’t find out until like 5 years later when I got pulled over for something else. The cop said I had a failure to appear on a ticket. There was no warrant. I took care of it only b/c I was scared that it would go to collections. I heard they can send it to collections and it could affect your credit.

But looking back, they had 5 years to send it to collections and they didn’t. Probably the only reason to pay it would be if you didn’t want to be bothered by a bored cop running plates that may need an excuse to pull you over.

[jpinpb]

partypup is right. I had a red light ticket. It got mailed to my old place. I never got it b/c I moved. I moved like 3 different times since I got the ticket. I didn’t even know I got the ticket.

I didn’t find out until like 5 years later when I got pulled over for something else. The cop said I had a failure to appear on a ticket. There was no warrant. I took care of it only b/c I was scared that it would go to collections. I heard they can send it to collections and it could affect your credit.

But looking back, they had 5 years to send it to collections and they didn’t. Probably the only reason to pay it would be if you didn’t want to be bothered by a bored cop running plates that may need an excuse to pull you over.

[jpinpb]

partypup is right. I had a red light ticket. It got mailed to my old place. I never got it b/c I moved. I moved like 3 different times since I got the ticket. I didn’t even know I got the ticket.

I didn’t find out until like 5 years later when I got pulled over for something else. The cop said I had a failure to appear on a ticket. There was no warrant. I took care of it only b/c I was scared that it would go to collections. I heard they can send it to collections and it could affect your credit.

But looking back, they had 5 years to send it to collections and they didn’t. Probably the only reason to pay it would be if you didn’t want to be bothered by a bored cop running plates that may need an excuse to pull you over.

[jpinpb]

partypup is right. I had a red light ticket. It got mailed to my old place. I never got it b/c I moved. I moved like 3 different times since I got the ticket. I didn’t even know I got the ticket.

I didn’t find out until like 5 years later when I got pulled over for something else. The cop said I had a failure to appear on a ticket. There was no warrant. I took care of it only b/c I was scared that it would go to collections. I heard they can send it to collections and it could affect your credit.

But looking back, they had 5 years to send it to collections and they didn’t. Probably the only reason to pay it would be if you didn’t want to be bothered by a bored cop running plates that may need an excuse to pull you over.

[sd_bear]

Speaking of red light cameras… tonight I was turning left onto Mira Mesa Blvd from Scranton Rd with a full on green light arrow when the red light camera flashed me. Should I be expecting a citation in the mail? Would that be easy to contest since I obviously did not even come close to running a red light?

I’ve seen it happen a million times before. Those red light cameras flashing when cars are turning left with green left arrows, sometimes 5 in a row. It finally nabbed me.

[sd_bear]

Speaking of red light cameras… tonight I was turning left onto Mira Mesa Blvd from Scranton Rd with a full on green light arrow when the red light camera flashed me. Should I be expecting a citation in the mail? Would that be easy to contest since I obviously did not even come close to running a red light?

I’ve seen it happen a million times before. Those red light cameras flashing when cars are turning left with green left arrows, sometimes 5 in a row. It finally nabbed me.

[sd_bear]

Speaking of red light cameras… tonight I was turning left onto Mira Mesa Blvd from Scranton Rd with a full on green light arrow when the red light camera flashed me. Should I be expecting a citation in the mail? Would that be easy to contest since I obviously did not even come close to running a red light?

I’ve seen it happen a million times before. Those red light cameras flashing when cars are turning left with green left arrows, sometimes 5 in a row. It finally nabbed me.

[sd_bear]

Speaking of red light cameras… tonight I was turning left onto Mira Mesa Blvd from Scranton Rd with a full on green light arrow when the red light camera flashed me. Should I be expecting a citation in the mail? Would that be easy to contest since I obviously did not even come close to running a red light?

I’ve seen it happen a million times before. Those red light cameras flashing when cars are turning left with green left arrows, sometimes 5 in a row. It finally nabbed me.

[scaredyclassic]

re; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.

i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.

you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.

[scaredyclassic]

re; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.

i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.

you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.

[scaredyclassic]

re; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.

i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.

you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.

[scaredyclassic]

re; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.

i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.

you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.

[scaredyclassic]

re; ignoring jury summons; sometimes they do send a cop around to question you about your summons. people admit receiving it to the cop.

i dont know if cops routinely mirandize people before questioning. i doubt it. people confess.

you dont have to talk to the police. indeed, you almost never should. and one of the most important lessons to teach your children is to never ever ever ever ever EVER assume a policeman is your friend or trying to help you. if there is remotely any chance the target of investigation might be you…SHUT UP. i think it’s most important to tell children this, much more improtant for life and liberty than telling them that pot will ruin their life.

[mike92104]

I think we have a civic duty to fight each and every citation we receive. When it costs the city/county/state more to prosecute us then the revenue they receive, they will stop relying on there little cash cow, and actually write citations only when they are deserved. I’m scheduled for court on a ticket of my own.

[mike92104]

I think we have a civic duty to fight each and every citation we receive. When it costs the city/county/state more to prosecute us then the revenue they receive, they will stop relying on there little cash cow, and actually write citations only when they are deserved. I’m scheduled for court on a ticket of my own.

[mike92104]

I think we have a civic duty to fight each and every citation we receive. When it costs the city/county/state more to prosecute us then the revenue they receive, they will stop relying on there little cash cow, and actually write citations only when they are deserved. I’m scheduled for court on a ticket of my own.

[mike92104]

I think we have a civic duty to fight each and every citation we receive. When it costs the city/county/state more to prosecute us then the revenue they receive, they will stop relying on there little cash cow, and actually write citations only when they are deserved. I’m scheduled for court on a ticket of my own.

[mike92104]

I think we have a civic duty to fight each and every citation we receive. When it costs the city/county/state more to prosecute us then the revenue they receive, they will stop relying on there little cash cow, and actually write citations only when they are deserved. I’m scheduled for court on a ticket of my own.

[equalizer]

Try Mr Ticket, Specializing in DMV and Traffic Ticket Defense.

I think that’s who I heard someone at work said helped them out a few times.

Mr. Ticket | San Diego Traffic Ticket Lawyer | Representation Starts At $99

You may want to read info at web site below on fighting tickets:

http://www.ticketassassin.com/index.html

[SDowner]

Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. 🙂

[DataAgent]

Congrats. What was the cost?

[DataAgent]

Congrats. What was the cost?

[DataAgent]

Congrats. What was the cost?

[DataAgent]

Congrats. What was the cost?

[DataAgent]

Congrats. What was the cost?

[equalizer]

[quote=SDowner]Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. :-)[/quote]
Good, glad that worked for you! It’s probably worth at least $300.

[Diego Mamani]

I guess Mr Ticket only pratices in San Diego? I’ll call and ask if he can refer me to a colleague in East Ventura County (adjancent to the L.A. County line).

[Diego Mamani]

I guess Mr Ticket only pratices in San Diego? I’ll call and ask if he can refer me to a colleague in East Ventura County (adjancent to the L.A. County line).

[Diego Mamani]

I guess Mr Ticket only pratices in San Diego? I’ll call and ask if he can refer me to a colleague in East Ventura County (adjancent to the L.A. County line).

[Diego Mamani]

I guess Mr Ticket only pratices in San Diego? I’ll call and ask if he can refer me to a colleague in East Ventura County (adjancent to the L.A. County line).

[Diego Mamani]

I guess Mr Ticket only pratices in San Diego? I’ll call and ask if he can refer me to a colleague in East Ventura County (adjancent to the L.A. County line).

[equalizer]

[quote=SDowner]Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. :-)[/quote]
Good, glad that worked for you! It’s probably worth at least $300.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDowner]Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. :-)[/quote]
Good, glad that worked for you! It’s probably worth at least $300.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDowner]Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. :-)[/quote]
Good, glad that worked for you! It’s probably worth at least $300.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDowner]Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. :-)[/quote]
Good, glad that worked for you! It’s probably worth at least $300.

[SDowner]

Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. 🙂

[SDowner]

Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. 🙂

[SDowner]

Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. 🙂

[SDowner]

Update

Did go with Mr. Ticket and my case got dismissed. 🙂

[equalizer]

Try Mr Ticket, Specializing in DMV and Traffic Ticket Defense.

I think that’s who I heard someone at work said helped them out a few times.

Mr. Ticket | San Diego Traffic Ticket Lawyer | Representation Starts At $99

You may want to read info at web site below on fighting tickets:

http://www.ticketassassin.com/index.html

[equalizer]

Try Mr Ticket, Specializing in DMV and Traffic Ticket Defense.

I think that’s who I heard someone at work said helped them out a few times.

Mr. Ticket | San Diego Traffic Ticket Lawyer | Representation Starts At $99

You may want to read info at web site below on fighting tickets:

http://www.ticketassassin.com/index.html

[equalizer]

Try Mr Ticket, Specializing in DMV and Traffic Ticket Defense.

I think that’s who I heard someone at work said helped them out a few times.

Mr. Ticket | San Diego Traffic Ticket Lawyer | Representation Starts At $99

You may want to read info at web site below on fighting tickets:

http://www.ticketassassin.com/index.html

[equalizer]

Try Mr Ticket, Specializing in DMV and Traffic Ticket Defense.

I think that’s who I heard someone at work said helped them out a few times.

Mr. Ticket | San Diego Traffic Ticket Lawyer | Representation Starts At $99

You may want to read info at web site below on fighting tickets:

http://www.ticketassassin.com/index.html

[bob2007]

Yes, some details on cost would be great. I had a similar ticket, tried the trial by mail method per flu’s first post, but lost.

[SDowner]

It cost me $100. They had a preliminary hearing and then it went to trial. I did not have to do anything beyond send the money with my consent for the lawyer to represent me.

[DataAgent]

Only a hundred bucks? That’s way cheaper than the fine and increased insurance costs. Sounds like a great deal.

[DataAgent]

Only a hundred bucks? That’s way cheaper than the fine and increased insurance costs. Sounds like a great deal.

[DataAgent]

Only a hundred bucks? That’s way cheaper than the fine and increased insurance costs. Sounds like a great deal.

[DataAgent]

Only a hundred bucks? That’s way cheaper than the fine and increased insurance costs. Sounds like a great deal.

[DataAgent]

Only a hundred bucks? That’s way cheaper than the fine and increased insurance costs. Sounds like a great deal.

[CA renter]

Awesome job, SDowner! Great info.

[Ricechex]

Partypup and Scaredycat…great info! Thanks much!

I would like to add (I am NOT an attorney), that the law works somewhat the same in regards to domestic violence. If the police get called, and the alleged offender sticks around, then both will get interviewed and someone arrested. If it is a lower level, minor injury, and the offender leaves the scene before the police arrives, alleged victim gets interviewed and that is it. No charges are pressed, nothing happens.

Child Welfare Services also works the same. If they get a lower risk level report, with say a 7 day response time, and they go to the home but are unable to contact either parent by phone or home visit, the case closes. If the parent is home, they will often force the parent in low level cases to sign a “voluntary contract.” Usually, they threaten to pull the kids if the parents are not cooperative with this “voluntary contract.” However, once the parent signs, now they HAVE to follow through, because they have signed the contract. If they don’t, then it is really an unpleasant situation for them.

[Ricechex]

Partypup and Scaredycat…great info! Thanks much!

I would like to add (I am NOT an attorney), that the law works somewhat the same in regards to domestic violence. If the police get called, and the alleged offender sticks around, then both will get interviewed and someone arrested. If it is a lower level, minor injury, and the offender leaves the scene before the police arrives, alleged victim gets interviewed and that is it. No charges are pressed, nothing happens.

Child Welfare Services also works the same. If they get a lower risk level report, with say a 7 day response time, and they go to the home but are unable to contact either parent by phone or home visit, the case closes. If the parent is home, they will often force the parent in low level cases to sign a “voluntary contract.” Usually, they threaten to pull the kids if the parents are not cooperative with this “voluntary contract.” However, once the parent signs, now they HAVE to follow through, because they have signed the contract. If they don’t, then it is really an unpleasant situation for them.

[Ricechex]

Partypup and Scaredycat…great info! Thanks much!

I would like to add (I am NOT an attorney), that the law works somewhat the same in regards to domestic violence. If the police get called, and the alleged offender sticks around, then both will get interviewed and someone arrested. If it is a lower level, minor injury, and the offender leaves the scene before the police arrives, alleged victim gets interviewed and that is it. No charges are pressed, nothing happens.

Child Welfare Services also works the same. If they get a lower risk level report, with say a 7 day response time, and they go to the home but are unable to contact either parent by phone or home visit, the case closes. If the parent is home, they will often force the parent in low level cases to sign a “voluntary contract.” Usually, they threaten to pull the kids if the parents are not cooperative with this “voluntary contract.” However, once the parent signs, now they HAVE to follow through, because they have signed the contract. If they don’t, then it is really an unpleasant situation for them.

[Ricechex]

Partypup and Scaredycat…great info! Thanks much!

I would like to add (I am NOT an attorney), that the law works somewhat the same in regards to domestic violence. If the police get called, and the alleged offender sticks around, then both will get interviewed and someone arrested. If it is a lower level, minor injury, and the offender leaves the scene before the police arrives, alleged victim gets interviewed and that is it. No charges are pressed, nothing happens.

Child Welfare Services also works the same. If they get a lower risk level report, with say a 7 day response time, and they go to the home but are unable to contact either parent by phone or home visit, the case closes. If the parent is home, they will often force the parent in low level cases to sign a “voluntary contract.” Usually, they threaten to pull the kids if the parents are not cooperative with this “voluntary contract.” However, once the parent signs, now they HAVE to follow through, because they have signed the contract. If they don’t, then it is really an unpleasant situation for them.

[Ricechex]

Partypup and Scaredycat…great info! Thanks much!

I would like to add (I am NOT an attorney), that the law works somewhat the same in regards to domestic violence. If the police get called, and the alleged offender sticks around, then both will get interviewed and someone arrested. If it is a lower level, minor injury, and the offender leaves the scene before the police arrives, alleged victim gets interviewed and that is it. No charges are pressed, nothing happens.

Child Welfare Services also works the same. If they get a lower risk level report, with say a 7 day response time, and they go to the home but are unable to contact either parent by phone or home visit, the case closes. If the parent is home, they will often force the parent in low level cases to sign a “voluntary contract.” Usually, they threaten to pull the kids if the parents are not cooperative with this “voluntary contract.” However, once the parent signs, now they HAVE to follow through, because they have signed the contract. If they don’t, then it is really an unpleasant situation for them.

[CA renter]

Awesome job, SDowner! Great info.

[CA renter]

Awesome job, SDowner! Great info.

[CA renter]

Awesome job, SDowner! Great info.

[CA renter]

Awesome job, SDowner! Great info.

[SDowner]

It cost me $100. They had a preliminary hearing and then it went to trial. I did not have to do anything beyond send the money with my consent for the lawyer to represent me.

[SDowner]

It cost me $100. They had a preliminary hearing and then it went to trial. I did not have to do anything beyond send the money with my consent for the lawyer to represent me.

[SDowner]

It cost me $100. They had a preliminary hearing and then it went to trial. I did not have to do anything beyond send the money with my consent for the lawyer to represent me.

[SDowner]

It cost me $100. They had a preliminary hearing and then it went to trial. I did not have to do anything beyond send the money with my consent for the lawyer to represent me.

[bob2007]

Yes, some details on cost would be great. I had a similar ticket, tried the trial by mail method per flu’s first post, but lost.

[bob2007]

Yes, some details on cost would be great. I had a similar ticket, tried the trial by mail method per flu’s first post, but lost.

[bob2007]

Yes, some details on cost would be great. I had a similar ticket, tried the trial by mail method per flu’s first post, but lost.

[bob2007]

Yes, some details on cost would be great. I had a similar ticket, tried the trial by mail method per flu’s first post, but lost.

[equalizer]

“A California judge last week began throwing out red light camera citations issued in Santa Ana.
Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz declared the city’s program void because it had ignored several provisions of state law. Local attorneys Mark D. Sutherland and R. Allen Baylis had challenged the city for its failure to provide the required thirty-day warning period before beginning the program and its use of a prohibited per-ticket “cost neutral” compensation scheme.”

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-judge-declares-red-light-camera-program-illegal-and-void/

[partypup]

This is one way to send a message to our *elected officials*. It starts with civil disobedience and traffic tickets, and it ends in a tax revolt. Without the cooperation of the obedient masses, the clowns in Congress are powerless, and they know it. Watch the rage against the machine begin to grow.

Right now, most people have something to lose, and so they play along. But as more and more people fall by the wayside, due to unemployment or other misfortune, their incentive to stay in the game will disappear. When that attitude begins to spread, the real fireworks will begin. When 30-40% of the labor force loses their job and refuses to play along because they have nothing to lose, we will see people begin to ignore a lot more than traffic tickets.

“New speed cameras enrage Arizona drivers”

“‘I see all the cameras in Arizona completely coming down,'” Shawn Dow, who is leading the public revolt via his chairmanship of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, told the paper. “‘The citizens of Arizona took away the cash cow of Arizona by refusing to pay.'” He is now trying to get the cameras banned in November’s elections.

Although about 700,000 tickets have been issued since Arizona’s 76-camera plan was rolled out last year, a mere $37 million of the $127 million in fines and surcharges has been collected. That is because Arizonans have realised that they can simply ignore tickets sent to them in the post, and the authorities cannot prove that they have received them. Unless the tickets are served in person something Arizona cannot afford to do they become void after three months.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6964400/New-speed-cameras-enrage-Arizona-drivers.html

[partypup]

This is one way to send a message to our *elected officials*. It starts with civil disobedience and traffic tickets, and it ends in a tax revolt. Without the cooperation of the obedient masses, the clowns in Congress are powerless, and they know it. Watch the rage against the machine begin to grow.

Right now, most people have something to lose, and so they play along. But as more and more people fall by the wayside, due to unemployment or other misfortune, their incentive to stay in the game will disappear. When that attitude begins to spread, the real fireworks will begin. When 30-40% of the labor force loses their job and refuses to play along because they have nothing to lose, we will see people begin to ignore a lot more than traffic tickets.

“New speed cameras enrage Arizona drivers”

“‘I see all the cameras in Arizona completely coming down,'” Shawn Dow, who is leading the public revolt via his chairmanship of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, told the paper. “‘The citizens of Arizona took away the cash cow of Arizona by refusing to pay.'” He is now trying to get the cameras banned in November’s elections.

Although about 700,000 tickets have been issued since Arizona’s 76-camera plan was rolled out last year, a mere $37 million of the $127 million in fines and surcharges has been collected. That is because Arizonans have realised that they can simply ignore tickets sent to them in the post, and the authorities cannot prove that they have received them. Unless the tickets are served in person something Arizona cannot afford to do they become void after three months.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6964400/New-speed-cameras-enrage-Arizona-drivers.html

[partypup]

This is one way to send a message to our *elected officials*. It starts with civil disobedience and traffic tickets, and it ends in a tax revolt. Without the cooperation of the obedient masses, the clowns in Congress are powerless, and they know it. Watch the rage against the machine begin to grow.

Right now, most people have something to lose, and so they play along. But as more and more people fall by the wayside, due to unemployment or other misfortune, their incentive to stay in the game will disappear. When that attitude begins to spread, the real fireworks will begin. When 30-40% of the labor force loses their job and refuses to play along because they have nothing to lose, we will see people begin to ignore a lot more than traffic tickets.

“New speed cameras enrage Arizona drivers”

“‘I see all the cameras in Arizona completely coming down,'” Shawn Dow, who is leading the public revolt via his chairmanship of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, told the paper. “‘The citizens of Arizona took away the cash cow of Arizona by refusing to pay.'” He is now trying to get the cameras banned in November’s elections.

Although about 700,000 tickets have been issued since Arizona’s 76-camera plan was rolled out last year, a mere $37 million of the $127 million in fines and surcharges has been collected. That is because Arizonans have realised that they can simply ignore tickets sent to them in the post, and the authorities cannot prove that they have received them. Unless the tickets are served in person something Arizona cannot afford to do they become void after three months.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6964400/New-speed-cameras-enrage-Arizona-drivers.html

[partypup]

This is one way to send a message to our *elected officials*. It starts with civil disobedience and traffic tickets, and it ends in a tax revolt. Without the cooperation of the obedient masses, the clowns in Congress are powerless, and they know it. Watch the rage against the machine begin to grow.

Right now, most people have something to lose, and so they play along. But as more and more people fall by the wayside, due to unemployment or other misfortune, their incentive to stay in the game will disappear. When that attitude begins to spread, the real fireworks will begin. When 30-40% of the labor force loses their job and refuses to play along because they have nothing to lose, we will see people begin to ignore a lot more than traffic tickets.

“New speed cameras enrage Arizona drivers”

“‘I see all the cameras in Arizona completely coming down,'” Shawn Dow, who is leading the public revolt via his chairmanship of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, told the paper. “‘The citizens of Arizona took away the cash cow of Arizona by refusing to pay.'” He is now trying to get the cameras banned in November’s elections.

Although about 700,000 tickets have been issued since Arizona’s 76-camera plan was rolled out last year, a mere $37 million of the $127 million in fines and surcharges has been collected. That is because Arizonans have realised that they can simply ignore tickets sent to them in the post, and the authorities cannot prove that they have received them. Unless the tickets are served in person something Arizona cannot afford to do they become void after three months.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6964400/New-speed-cameras-enrage-Arizona-drivers.html

[partypup]

This is one way to send a message to our *elected officials*. It starts with civil disobedience and traffic tickets, and it ends in a tax revolt. Without the cooperation of the obedient masses, the clowns in Congress are powerless, and they know it. Watch the rage against the machine begin to grow.

Right now, most people have something to lose, and so they play along. But as more and more people fall by the wayside, due to unemployment or other misfortune, their incentive to stay in the game will disappear. When that attitude begins to spread, the real fireworks will begin. When 30-40% of the labor force loses their job and refuses to play along because they have nothing to lose, we will see people begin to ignore a lot more than traffic tickets.

“New speed cameras enrage Arizona drivers”

“‘I see all the cameras in Arizona completely coming down,'” Shawn Dow, who is leading the public revolt via his chairmanship of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, told the paper. “‘The citizens of Arizona took away the cash cow of Arizona by refusing to pay.'” He is now trying to get the cameras banned in November’s elections.

Although about 700,000 tickets have been issued since Arizona’s 76-camera plan was rolled out last year, a mere $37 million of the $127 million in fines and surcharges has been collected. That is because Arizonans have realised that they can simply ignore tickets sent to them in the post, and the authorities cannot prove that they have received them. Unless the tickets are served in person something Arizona cannot afford to do they become void after three months.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6964400/New-speed-cameras-enrage-Arizona-drivers.html

[equalizer]

“A California judge last week began throwing out red light camera citations issued in Santa Ana.
Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz declared the city’s program void because it had ignored several provisions of state law. Local attorneys Mark D. Sutherland and R. Allen Baylis had challenged the city for its failure to provide the required thirty-day warning period before beginning the program and its use of a prohibited per-ticket “cost neutral” compensation scheme.”

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-judge-declares-red-light-camera-program-illegal-and-void/

[equalizer]

“A California judge last week began throwing out red light camera citations issued in Santa Ana.
Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz declared the city’s program void because it had ignored several provisions of state law. Local attorneys Mark D. Sutherland and R. Allen Baylis had challenged the city for its failure to provide the required thirty-day warning period before beginning the program and its use of a prohibited per-ticket “cost neutral” compensation scheme.”

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-judge-declares-red-light-camera-program-illegal-and-void/

[equalizer]

“A California judge last week began throwing out red light camera citations issued in Santa Ana.
Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz declared the city’s program void because it had ignored several provisions of state law. Local attorneys Mark D. Sutherland and R. Allen Baylis had challenged the city for its failure to provide the required thirty-day warning period before beginning the program and its use of a prohibited per-ticket “cost neutral” compensation scheme.”

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-judge-declares-red-light-camera-program-illegal-and-void/

[equalizer]

“A California judge last week began throwing out red light camera citations issued in Santa Ana.
Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz declared the city’s program void because it had ignored several provisions of state law. Local attorneys Mark D. Sutherland and R. Allen Baylis had challenged the city for its failure to provide the required thirty-day warning period before beginning the program and its use of a prohibited per-ticket “cost neutral” compensation scheme.”

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-judge-declares-red-light-camera-program-illegal-and-void/

[Author]

Posts