Photo enforcement, a California primer

[Charles Koster <krash2@domain.elided>]

Now that this thread seems to have petered out, I'd like to pass on a
little background.  This pertains to California, but it may be useful to
those in other states as they catch up (or slowly sink, depending on your
viewpoint) to our level.  There was an article in the December 1989 Los
Angeles Lawyer magazine by Frederick Grab, who was a California Deputy
Attorney General at the time.  The article is about 6 pages long and is
heavily endnoted.  Mr. Grab received a speeding ticket in the mail from
Pasadena Municipal Court, 43 in a 30 zone.  He readily admitted in the
article that he had most probably been speeding at that time and place.  He
noted 3 deficiencies in the law as then written, pertaining respectively to
due process, equal protection (both constitutional grounds), and personal
jurisdiction (California state law).  Grounds of personal jurisdiction
proved an effective defense for Mr. Grab and, I believe, others who
contested a photo speeding ticket around that time.  Basically, if the
officer didn't give you the ticket personally, the court has no
jurisdiction over you.  However, if you appear in court to contest
jurisdiction, you will have waived your right to contest jurisdiction.  Mr.
Grab instead requested an appearance before the court on the day of the
first scheduled appearance and designated his initial appearance as a
"special appearance" for the purpose of contesting jurisdiciton.  There is
more to the articles, lots more, but, in short, Mr. Grab prevailed.  

Fast forward to the May/June 1999 issue of Westways, a publication of the
Automobile Club of Southern California (a decidely less scholarly journal).
 First, the article notes that photo enforcement is being used in
California only against running red lights.  According to the author, it is
NOT being used for speeding enforcement in California.  It proved
unsuccessful against speeding, but not on constitutional grounds; instead,
it was ineffective and too expensive.  In Pasadena's case, its contract
with the "photo-radar vendor required it to pay a minimum of $40,000 for
the first seven months.  Unfortunately the city collected only $39,500 in
fines during the same period.  In addition, a paid technician monitored the
unit to ensure its acuracy.  And the city attorney's office had to add
staff to handle a 25% increase in prosecution of traffic violation cases."
And then, of course, a lot of people simply ignored the citations.  The
article also notes that for current uses, California law has been changed
so that a ticket can be mailed to a violator without a policeman having to
first stop that person and have him or her sign a promise to appear.  How
this last part jibes with constitutional guarantees (what few are left,
anyway) I don't know.  

I also remember a very recent e-mail going around that identified which
intersections in southern California are camera-equipped, but I think I
erased it (since I don't run red lights, I don't care where the cameras are).

Anyway, hope this is helpful to someone.  

Charlie Koster
1986 GTV-6
Kagel Canyon, CA

------------------------------