Traffic Changes in LA County Present New Obstacles for Defendants

Traffic citations are issued to almost every driver in Los Angeles. Broken tail light, speeding, driving without a license are all common mistakes.  No one is spared from the traffic courts, including attorneys, judges, and sometimes law enforcement personnel. Thus, everyone should be angry about recent changes being implemented throughout Los Angeles County.

Penalty assessments use to be the only outrageous part of getting a ticket. For those unfamiliar with penalty assessments, let me explain. The California Legislature has voted multiple times to add additional assessments to every single citation in California, on top of the base fine. These assessments are now a reliable way to increase revenue for the state. What use to be a $100 fine, adds up to around $500 after state assessments. Recently, the LA Times and other media outlets have criticized the burdensome law, which affects low-income families the most.

Now the courts have taken egregious steps to make traffic citations even more onerous. To my knowledge, these changes have not yet been made available to the public. Let me go through some of the major changes:

DEFENDANTS CAN NO LONGER PURCHASE AN ABSTRACT AFTER A FAILURE TO APPEAR

A failure to appear is a separate charge that can be added to a ticket, if a defendant misses his or her court date. When a defendant misses a court date, the court will issue a warrant, and place a hold on the defendant's driver's license. A hold will then lead to a suspension of the driver's license.

Upon notice of the suspension, defendants use to be able to go to the court clerk and purchase an abstract. An abstract removed the hold, and the defendant could then get his or her license reissued. No more.

Now, holds will not be removed until disposition of the case. Attorneys can and should request a speedy trial in light of these changes.

DEFENDANTS CAN NO LONGER NEGOTIATE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS WITH THE OFFICERS AT TRIAL

Some defendants cannot take advantage of traffic school (completion of traffic school, available once every 18 months, keeps a negligent operator point off of the defendant's driving record with the DMV).

A strategy that used to be utilized by attorneys, when traffic school was not available, was negotiation with the citing officers. When evidence was disputable, or when officers' were in a good mood, the court would accept an amended violation and plea agreement. This means that the officer would change the vehicle code violation to a non-moving violation (carries no point), and the defendant would change his plea to guilty. The moving violation would then be dismissed. This is no longer an option.

Given that negotiations are off the table, attorneys will have no other choice but to put on a trial. This means that discovery requests may be made more often.

DEFENDANTS CAN BE FOUND GUILTY BY THE COURT IF THEY ARE NOT PRESENT AT TRIAL

Defendants miss their trial dates too. Before the new changes effective April 1, 2015, the court would have simply issued a warrant and placed a hold on the defendant's driver license. Unfortunately, this is not the case now.

Bench officers may now hold a trial in absentia. In absentia is a Latin phrase meaning "in the absence" of the defendant. If there is sufficient evidence of guilt, the court can find the defendant guilty without the defendant having been given an opportunity to present a defense. Pretty crazy, right?

These new policies are frowned upon by the defense bar. One can expect appeals to the higher courts. Until then, a person cited for a traffic matter should be careful. It is a new world.  

California Supreme Court Upholds the Use of Red Light Cameras

A red light camera ticket is a type of traffic infraction that can cost you money, time, and anxiety. In fact, with so much misinformation online, I have spoken with many confused callers. They were not happy with the non-legal blog's advice.

A red light camera ticket is enforced by way of technology, rather than an officer. While frustrating, it is still legal in some jurisdictions. Indeed, the California Supreme Court, on June 5, 2014, upheld the use of red light camera enforcement. This blog will touch upon the recent case, and other aspects of red light camera citations. 

IGNORING THE CITATION WILL POTENTIALLY COST YOU MORE

First, do not simply ignore the citation. Yes, I am aware of the information online from non-lawyers. It is not sound advice. The California Legislature enacted Vehicle Code section 21455.5 some time ago. This California law controls the requirements for how a jurisdiction may implement camera enforcement. Therefore, while some cities may have discontinued their programs, other have not. Culver City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, among others, have valid camera enforcement pursuant to the law.

Thus, if you ignore the citation and miss a mandatory court appearance, it is possible that you can be found guilty of a failure to appear violation. This will add significant, and unnecessary, fines to your citation. Unless you were active military, incarcerated, or receiving medical care, the court will most likely find you guilty.

EVIDENTIARY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN SPURNED

Second, the California Supreme Court has addressed some of the constitutional issues related to evidentiary foundation, authentication, hearsay, and confrontation. People v. Goldsmith (2014), S201443, recently decided, upheld the use of camera enforcement. The decision was a major victory for the red light camera programs. 

The arguments in that case were similar to some of those posted on the online blogs. The defendant in the Goldsmith case argued, one, that the photos, obtained from the red light camera, were not legally authenticated. In short, the defendant argued that the photo evidence could not be admitted against her because it was unreliable. The California Supreme Court disagreed.

With sufficient legal rationale, the Court explained that the photos were reliable, and notwithstanding the reliability, the evidence could be admitted "as provided by law." There is a statutory presumption that the photos are reliable. The trial court does not have to accept the photos as true, but it can admit it into evidence to be weighed against the defendant.

Two, the photos are not hearsay, according to the California Supreme Court. Section 1200 of the Evidence Code defines hearsay as, "evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." The Court clarified that a camera could not be characterized as a "person," who has the capacity to make a statement. The law does not contemplate whether a machine can make a statement -- at least not yet.

Third, the confrontation clause is not invoked because a defendant cannot, and does not have the right, to cross-examine a camera. Machine-generated printouts are not within the bounds of Sixth Amendment protection.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

I always advise consulting with a defense attorney. Although traffic infractions only involve a fine, not jail, it is best to consult with a lawyer for a few reasons. It can save you money. It can save you time. It can give you peace of mind.

Moreover, a red light camera ticket does not necessarily mean that you will be found guilty. The burden of proof in a traffic case is still "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If the picture is unclear, or if there is an identity issue, the ticket can be dismissed. But, it is always wise to seek out the advice of a person with knowledge and experience. Our office invites you calls, and we remind you that nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. Watch out for the machines.