It Just Got A Lot Tougher To Get Out of 'Red-Light Camera' Tickets

State high court ruled Thursday that such evidence is "presumed authentic" unless a defendant can successfully challenge it.

The California Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for prosecutors to use red-light camera evidence against drivers who fail to stop at traffic signals. 

In a ruling issued in San Francisco, the court unanimously said that images and data automatically recorded by the cameras have a "presumption of authenticity" similar to the presumption for other types of photos and videos.

Under the presumption, the camera evidence is considered valid unless a defendant can successfully challenge it. 

The court ruled in the case of Carmen Goldsmith, who was convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court of a traffic infraction and fined $436 for failing to stop at a red light at an intersection in Inglewood in 2009. 

The only prosecution witness in the non-jury trial was an Inglewood police investigator who had not personally witnessed the incident, but who had worked in red-light camera enforcement for six years and who testified about how the system worked. 

In her appeal, Goldsmith argued that prosecutors should have been required to provide more evidence to authenticate the cameras. 

She also claimed the recordings should have been considered second-hand hearsay evidence. 

But the state high court upheld a California law that provides that red-light camera evidence has the same presumption of validity as other types of photos and videos. 

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote that from the investigator's testimony, "it can be reasonably inferred that the (camera) system automatically and contemporaneously recorded the images of the intersection and the date imprinted on the photographs." 

"No elaborate showing of accuracy is required" for the automatically produced images and data, the chief justice said. 

The court also rejected Goldsmith's claim that the camera evidence was hearsay, which is defined as second-hand evidence about a statement made by a person.

The panel said the automatically generated camera images and data were presentations of information by a machine, not a person. 

"The evidence code does not contemplate that a machine can make a statement," Cantil-Sakauye wrote, quoting from an earlier ruling. 

Under the red-light camera system, which is authorized by theCalifornia Vehicle Code, drivers are identified through photos of their license plates. 

--Bay City News
Jack Mingo June 08, 2014 at 09:27 AM
I imagine that a ring of bright lights around your license might be enough to make it unreadable to a camera at night.
Ken Briggs June 08, 2014 at 10:31 AM
oh just put a white flag over both plates .
Donalyn Deeds June 08, 2014 at 01:01 PM
Or, just follow the law and make a complete stop.
Ken Briggs June 08, 2014 at 01:51 PM
Donalyn Deeds yes but some of the lights are not right , if you seen some of those lights , why do they go off while you still have the green light for ? rvrn before the yellow light ?
Donalyn Deeds June 08, 2014 at 08:17 PM
Ken, that has not been our experience. My husband got busted two Saturdays in a row. He "offended" the second time before the first ticket came. We went to the PD and watched the video, and sure enough, he was guilty. And this is a man who has NEVER in his 60 years of driving received even a parking ticket. We were stunned. But, really, my comment was not about the cameras, per se. It was about those who were suggesting ways to get around it, like lights on the license plate, etc. That's all.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »