Related News California: Red Light Camera Refunds Reach $3.1 Million
Florida: Red Light Camera Lobbyist Fails To Register
Louisiana Lawmaker Proposes Local Votes For All Traffic Camera Programs
Washington: Federal Judge Saves State Camera Program
Missouri Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
View Main Topics:

 Subscribe via RSS or E-Mail
Back To Front Page
|
10/3/2004 San Diego Final Court Ruling The San Diego, California Superior Court ruled red light camera evidence inadmissable after a landmark trial in 2001.
The San Diego, California Superior Court ruled red light camera evidence inadmissible after a landmark trial in 2001. Read the brief court decision.
For the reasoning behind this court's decision, see also the motion to dismiss
Article Excerpt:SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
In re: Red Light Camera Cases The People of the State of California, Plaintiff, v. John Allen, et al., Defendants.
In re: Red Light Camera Cases CASE NO. 579275D
ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE
Plaintiff, The People of the State of California, V.John Allen, et al., Defendants.
The prosecution's arguments have not persuaded the Court to change its ruling. The prosecution relies on People v. Adams (1976)59 Cal.App.3d 559 and the cases following it for the proposition that failure to follow the statute only goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its inadmissibility. As pointed out in People v. Williams (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 85 at 100,
Adams and its progeny were crafted to address anomalies or occasional errors and innocent lapses in law enforcement. They were not meant to provide a means for peace officers and their agencies to ignore clear, easy-to-apply statutory law and administrative rules, for any reason, including budget or personnel constraints.
In this case, the failure of the city to operate the system as required by the legislature, combined with the contingent fee paid to Lockheed Martin goes far beyond Adams or any of the cases which follow Adams. The Court sees no difference between a contingent fee to a private corporation and a contingent fee paid to an individual.
Therefore, the Court's ruling will stand. The evidence from the red light cameras will not be admitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED; September 4, 2001
Ronald L. Styn Judge of the Superior Court
|