Ruling is Latest Blow to Red Light Cameras

The Court of Appeal on 2-10-12 ordered publication of its Jan. 23 ruling that the use of photographs and the testimony of a police officer who wasn’t present to prove that a motorist ran a red light violated the Evidence Code.

Justice Fred Woods of Div. 7 agreed with a Beverly Hills attorney that her conviction for running a red light in that city in June 2009 was unsupported by substantial evidence.

The attorney was cited based on “photographic evidence” produced by the city’s Redflex automated traffic enforcement system. Representing herself, she asked that the evidence be excluded because the officer who issued the citation on the basis of the photos taken by the red-light camera lacked a foundation for testifying that the camera was properly maintained. 

In the attorney’s case, Woods explained, photographic  evidence with annotations was prepared by a Redflex employee, but was presented through the testimony of the officer. But the officer could not authenticate the evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Woods said, because he doesn’t work for Redflex.

 The attorney said at the time of the ruling that she was “very, very upset” that the opinion wasn’t certified for publication. She expressed gratitude yesterday that the court had granted her publication request, so that the decision is now citable as precedent.

The city could, however, ask the state Supreme Court to depublish the opinion or hear the case on review.  Its lead counsel on appeal, said his client was reviewing those options.

He added that the outcome of the case might have been different if the appellate court had a complete settled statement. One of the problems with traffic appeals, he explained, is that cutbacks have left courts without court reporters or audio equipment that would allow for the development of a full record of the evidence.

The city, he said, will make a focused effort on “what the police can do to make sure that all of the relevant evidence is in the settled statement.” If  those statements are “thorough and complete,” he said “we believe there will be no problems in carrying out a red light camera enforcement program as authorized by the Legislature.” The case is People v. Borzakian, B227948.

Brought to you courtesy of the Law Offices of Arna H. Zlotnik a criminal defense attorney serving the greater Los Angeles area, including downtown Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, the San Fernando Valley, East Los Angeles, Westside and the South Bay.  Also, Orange and Ventura counties.  Please contact us today to see that justice will prevail and your constitution rights are protected.  Misdemeanor or felony.