Showing posts with label open government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open government. Show all posts
Sunday, July 21, 2024
I just figured out why our country is in danger
Friday, March 16, 2012
Fight Your Red Light Camera Ticket, and Win!
Last Friday, my long battle against a red light camera ticket I received back in 2010 finally came to a positive conclusion. The ticket I received in the mail was a formal statement of the government's allegation that, on June 1, 2010, I made a rolling right on red, i.e., I didn't come to a complete stop before making a right turn in my vehicle. The problem is, no actual police officer was there to witness the incident, and the only purported evidence showing I had violated the law were photographs and video recorded by cameras operated by a for-profit corporation, Redflex Traffic Systems.
So, last Friday, when I showed up promptly for my 2pm hearing in Superior Court, and walked into the Department 1 courtroom, there was almost no one in the room, and you could have heard a pin drop. I saw two women in their 30s standing, huddled over a ledger, and I surmised they were courtroom staff. One of them asked me for my appellate court case number, and after she confirmed I was on the docket, I took a seat. Another male, about my same age, soon walked in, and apparently he was also there as a defendant for an appellate hearing. We four, the only ones in the court room, were soon joined by another woman, who also appeared to be courthouse staff, and who told me she would speak with the judge, as there was apparently a mix-up, as I was listed on the docket as not wanting to give an oral argument, even though I had expressly requested in writing that I wanted to speak at my hearing. This woman, who seemed to have the ear of the judges, left the room, then reappeared and confirmed that I would be on the docket for oral argument. Soon the appeals panel appeared, and we all stood for Justices Jon Tigar (presiding judge) and Gloria Rhynes. Normally, there are 3 judges on the panel, but one justice, Jacob Blea III, was absent that day. The entire proceeding lasted at most 15 minutes. Judge Tigar, who spoke on behalf of the appeals court panel, first called the other defendant's case, which I had overheard the women say was also a traffic matter, and Judge Tigar said that charges would be dismissed. He then called my name, and I walked up to the table and stood. Before I was able to utter a word of my prepared oral argument, the judge said that they had reviewed my case, and the charges against me would be dismissed, because hearsay was introduced as evidence. The judge asked me if that was alright, to which I replied, "Oh, very much alright, your honor." That was that, and I left right after.
Today, I received in the mail the following letter:
Here are the step by step instructions on how to fight your ticket and win. If a police officer actually saw you run a red light, you may be out of luck (unless s/he doesn't appear at your trial, which is unlikely). These steps apply to any traffic case where the only evidence used to charge you with a crime are recordings made by cameras operated by a for-profit corporation. Many municipalities, in addition to red light cameras, may also use traffic camera systems to collect evidence to charge people with exceeding the posted speed limit, or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign:
Update: After you prevail in your lengthy court case fight, you may still notice an increase in your automobile insurance premiums when it's time to renew, based on the state DMV records your insurance company receives showing you were found guilty in traffic court because of traffic camera system evidence. This is despite the fact you fought long and hard to get the original traffic court conviction overturned on appeal. What your insurance company needs from you is proof from the DMV that the traffic court conviction was dismissed. This is a two step process:
So, last Friday, when I showed up promptly for my 2pm hearing in Superior Court, and walked into the Department 1 courtroom, there was almost no one in the room, and you could have heard a pin drop. I saw two women in their 30s standing, huddled over a ledger, and I surmised they were courtroom staff. One of them asked me for my appellate court case number, and after she confirmed I was on the docket, I took a seat. Another male, about my same age, soon walked in, and apparently he was also there as a defendant for an appellate hearing. We four, the only ones in the court room, were soon joined by another woman, who also appeared to be courthouse staff, and who told me she would speak with the judge, as there was apparently a mix-up, as I was listed on the docket as not wanting to give an oral argument, even though I had expressly requested in writing that I wanted to speak at my hearing. This woman, who seemed to have the ear of the judges, left the room, then reappeared and confirmed that I would be on the docket for oral argument. Soon the appeals panel appeared, and we all stood for Justices Jon Tigar (presiding judge) and Gloria Rhynes. Normally, there are 3 judges on the panel, but one justice, Jacob Blea III, was absent that day. The entire proceeding lasted at most 15 minutes. Judge Tigar, who spoke on behalf of the appeals court panel, first called the other defendant's case, which I had overheard the women say was also a traffic matter, and Judge Tigar said that charges would be dismissed. He then called my name, and I walked up to the table and stood. Before I was able to utter a word of my prepared oral argument, the judge said that they had reviewed my case, and the charges against me would be dismissed, because hearsay was introduced as evidence. The judge asked me if that was alright, to which I replied, "Oh, very much alright, your honor." That was that, and I left right after.
Today, I received in the mail the following letter:
People of the State of California vs Thuon ChenIf you decide to fight your ticket, you will find that your experience in appeals court is a marked contrast to traffic court, which is much more crowded, especially at arraignment. Lots of people are there to tell their stories, when the judge (or more likely a commissioner, which Len Tillem likes to say is usually a lawyer who likes to wear a robe and hear people address him as "your honor") really only wants to hear how you plead. Your traffic court trial is where you can sit in on other people as they face the judge and the police officer. Most of the defendants at trial are not prepared and are hoping and betting on an officer not showing up to testify against them. The probability is high that a police officer will be present at your traffic court trial, because the police get paid to be there. What's funny (I'm sure it gets old for the presiding judge very quickly) is that when the police do show up, very often the defendant makes weak, anecdotal arguments, essentially pitting the defendant's testimony against the testimony of a sworn officer of the law. The judge is much more likely to believe what a police officer has to say. While doing research for my case, I got the sense that traffic court judges are like the hanging judges, that is, the police write the tickets and the judges collect. It's not until you, as the defendant, appeal your traffic case to Superior Court that you have a chance to make an argument before a receptive audience of jurists.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed 3-0. Similar to the affidavits held inadmissible in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 129 S.Ct. 2527, there was no live testimony by any person involved in the production of the Redflex Traffic Systems court Evidence Package (the "Redflex Packet"). Because the defense was not able to freely and adequately cross-examine the testifying witness on any of these issues, and because the absence of witness who could have testified as to the facts underlying the Redflex packet, Appellant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated, and the judgment of the trial court below must be reversed.
Remittitur to issue.
Here are the step by step instructions on how to fight your ticket and win. If a police officer actually saw you run a red light, you may be out of luck (unless s/he doesn't appear at your trial, which is unlikely). These steps apply to any traffic case where the only evidence used to charge you with a crime are recordings made by cameras operated by a for-profit corporation. Many municipalities, in addition to red light cameras, may also use traffic camera systems to collect evidence to charge people with exceeding the posted speed limit, or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign:
- Ask yourself if you have the wherewithal, the time, and the motivation, to make numerous appearances in court. If you don't want to pay the ticket, you either have to hire a lawyer, or invest a lot of time learning how to do this on your own. You will need to set aside hours to do research, collect your arguments, and put together the documents you need to jump through the hoops in traffic court. This means going to your arraignment, and asking the judge to schedule a motion hearing; in the event your arraignment judge does schedule a motion hearing, you will need to attend that hearing, with a copy of your motion in your hand, as well as a prepared oral argument; and of course, you will need to attend and argue at your trial.
- Given that many towns, cities and states are in poor financial shape, the arraignment judge is not likely to honor your request and schedule a motion hearing. But if s/he does, you want to request that the municipality where you are alleged to have violated the law give you the best representation of the evidence that will be used against you, which are the full resolution photos and video. In a previous blog post, I detail my exploits in traffic court, how I asked the traffic court commissioner numerous times, in a total of three arraignment appearances, to schedule a motion hearing for me, to no avail; how the commissioner got so exasperated with my asking for a motion hearing at arraignment that he demanded I enter a plea, to which I replied "not guilty", and so the matter was set for trial.
- If you attend all of your scheduled appearances at arraignment, the judge may release you on your own recognizance, i.e., not require you to pay bail in the amount of the fine. To my surprise, at my traffic court trial, Redflex Traffic Systems even sent their co-custodian of records, Sarah Rutherford, as a witness to testify against me. However, you are allowed to cross-examine even surprise witnesses, and her answers, or lack of answers, to your prepared questions can be used in your appeal. These are the questions I asked of the two people who testified against me during my trial (The first witness was the police service technician, and the last two questions were directed by me only to the Redflex co-custodian of records, in an effort to show that she is not an agent of the government, and because she is an employee of a for-profit corporation, her testimony in your trial does not hold the same weight as the testimony of a police officer):
- How many technicians at Redflex were assigned to process Emeryville cases?
- Who were the technicians who created the system for Emeryville, and who installed it?
- Who were the technicians who reviewed this particular violation?
- With regard to my case, was the photographic and video evidence recorded by Redflex originally in digital or analog form?
- If the evidence was recorded digitally, what are the typical sizes of the photos and video please, in bytes and in resolution?
- Have you had any federal, state or local police training?
- What is the physical location of the computers that store the high resolution photos and video that are being used as evidence against me in my trial?
- After you are found guilty, the judge will order you to pay your fine. In a previous blog post, I instruct you on how to ask for a stay of judgment after you've been found guilty, so that, while you appeal your conviction, you don't have to pay the fine.
- You will have to develop a thick skin, because the judge who was present during your arraignment may be present at your trial, and may very well be dismissive of your arguments. S/he may even not-so-secretly hate you for wasting her time, when she has the photos and video showing someone, who looks a lot like you, appearing to violate the law.
- In a previous blog post, I instruct you on how to appeal your red light camera case after you've been found guilty.
- the motion to compel a municipality to either provide me with the best evidence, or else preclude the evidence that would be used against me during trial
- the motion to stay the judgment
Update: After you prevail in your lengthy court case fight, you may still notice an increase in your automobile insurance premiums when it's time to renew, based on the state DMV records your insurance company receives showing you were found guilty in traffic court because of traffic camera system evidence. This is despite the fact you fought long and hard to get the original traffic court conviction overturned on appeal. What your insurance company needs from you is proof from the DMV that the traffic court conviction was dismissed. This is a two step process:
- Bring the proof your conviction was overturned in appeals court to your local traffic court clerk, and ask that this information be sent to the state DMV headquarters (in California, DMV headquarters is in Sacramento). My local traffic court clerk then went into the back, presumably spoke to someone or perhaps she herself had access to the court computer that talks to the DMV computer, and she came back and told me the dismissal had been sent to the DMV and my record had been cleared.
- Your insurance company will want an updated copy of your driver record (some call it a "DMV abstract") faxed or mailed to them. In California, you can get a copy online for $2 by printing it out from your web browser at
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/dr/welcome.htm
Or, time permitting, you can schedule an in-person appointment to confirm with the DMV representative that the conviction has been removed, then ask to get a copy of your driver record as a DMV printout that comes with an official seal. This cost me $5.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
How to Appeal a Red Light Camera Ticket When You've Been Found Guilty: Filing an Opening Brief
Update: After a year and a half battle, I won my case on appeal in Superior Court, as detailed in this latest blog entry: Fight your red light ticket, and win!
Recent news about red light cameras, like the cities of Loma Linda in California, then Houston, Texas, and now the city of Los Angeles doing away with them, have been disturbing for those concerned with road safety, and encouraging for those who believe red light camera tickets have become an aggressive tactic by municipal government to squeeze money out of motorists. The cities did away with the automated ticketing systems, despite evidence that the cameras prevent the most horrific and fatal type of accidents, the ones where a driver barrels through an intersection on a red light and gets into a side-impact collision. I appreciate the technology of an automated system to record by video and photograph the people who violate traffic laws, and I even believe the technology can be used to bring safety to people on the road. The implementation so far, however, leaves a lot to be desired.
On Monday, December 13, 2010, during the 2pm hour, Gil Gross, news-talk host on KGO radio, interviewed Los Angeles City Controller Wendy Greuel on her 77 page critique of the red light camera program. She made the point that 2/3 of red light camera tickets are for rolling right-on-reds, i.e., turning right on a red without coming to a complete stop. Wendy came to the conclusion that red light cameras cost Los Angeles more than the city collects in fines; the state of California taking a portion of these fines is one reason, but another reason is people are not paying the fines, and getting away with this because they can still renew their licenses with the DMV. In a damning rebuke of municipal greed, Wendy found that where the city puts these cameras are not where the most dangerous intersections are, but where they are easiest to install, i.e., where the city didn't have to work through a state process for an intersection near a state highway, or where there was the same kind of physical infrastructure at an intersection that the equipment installers had worked with before, and could easily work with again.
I was convicted of a red light camera traffic ticket on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, even though at trial I felt I presented a strong case with convincing arguments. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, how to file a stay of judgment, my read of the judge was he just didn't want to hear what I had to say. Fair enough, judges can do whatever they want in their courtroom, and he certainly wouldn't be the first person to reject whatever may be contradictory to what he wants to believe! The great thing about the criminal justice system (yes, a traffic ticket means you are being charged with a crime) is you can appeal your conviction when you've been found guilty of an infraction, which most traffic tickets are. If you don't want to pay the ticket, you either have to hire a lawyer, or invest a lot of time learning how to do this on your own. The first step to an appeal is filing a proposed notice of appeal, but before you can do so, you must do a lot of research, reading, writing, and preparation, using resources like highwayrobbery.net and Fight Your Ticket & Win in California. In California, you need to download from the internet or ask the court clerk for the CR-141-INFO packet, which gives you information on appeal procedures for infractions.
One of the main pillars of my defense at trial was the rule of "best evidence", which means in court the government has to submit their sharpest photos and video as evidence, and not some fuzzy copies. Under California Evidence Code 1520, otherwise known as the Secondary Evidence Rule, if submitting a document, the government has to provide an uncondensed version, not a summary or memo. On the website, at photonotice.com, where you can view your alleged violation, there is a disclaimer (which as of 5pm today, I've confirmed is still there) which states: "Due to formatting constraints this video is a representation of the original evidence and is not intended for court purposes...The video you are viewing on this website is provided as a courtesy and convenience to you. The video is in no way purported to be a true and correct copy of evidence that will be presented in court."
Because I asked the government numerous times to give me their best evidence, which are the high-resolution photos and video captured by the Redflex cameras, and said evidence was never provided to me, then for the purposes of trial, the rule of best evidence was never satisfied. At trial, the police service technician may have, on her laptop, access to the evidence you requested, and she may offer to show it to you, but since you asked for the evidence before trial, so you could prepare for your defense, and that evidence was never given to you, you can ask the judge to throw out the high-resolution copy that the police have and plan to use against you. If the judge throws out the high-resolution copy (which, in my case, did not happen), the police have no evidence against you, unless they decide to submit a lower resolution copy, or the officer might refer to the low res copy given to you in discovery. However, you can object to the admission of the low res copy under the rule of "best evidence".
The second step in an appeal is to file an opening brief, which the district attorney can respond to by filing a respondent's brief (this is unlikely in an infraction case). Filing an opening brief is mandatory, and after all the briefs have been filed, or the time to to serve and file them has passed, the court will schedule a date for oral argument. Below is what I submitted as my opening brief:
Recent news about red light cameras, like the cities of Loma Linda in California, then Houston, Texas, and now the city of Los Angeles doing away with them, have been disturbing for those concerned with road safety, and encouraging for those who believe red light camera tickets have become an aggressive tactic by municipal government to squeeze money out of motorists. The cities did away with the automated ticketing systems, despite evidence that the cameras prevent the most horrific and fatal type of accidents, the ones where a driver barrels through an intersection on a red light and gets into a side-impact collision. I appreciate the technology of an automated system to record by video and photograph the people who violate traffic laws, and I even believe the technology can be used to bring safety to people on the road. The implementation so far, however, leaves a lot to be desired.
On Monday, December 13, 2010, during the 2pm hour, Gil Gross, news-talk host on KGO radio, interviewed Los Angeles City Controller Wendy Greuel on her 77 page critique of the red light camera program. She made the point that 2/3 of red light camera tickets are for rolling right-on-reds, i.e., turning right on a red without coming to a complete stop. Wendy came to the conclusion that red light cameras cost Los Angeles more than the city collects in fines; the state of California taking a portion of these fines is one reason, but another reason is people are not paying the fines, and getting away with this because they can still renew their licenses with the DMV. In a damning rebuke of municipal greed, Wendy found that where the city puts these cameras are not where the most dangerous intersections are, but where they are easiest to install, i.e., where the city didn't have to work through a state process for an intersection near a state highway, or where there was the same kind of physical infrastructure at an intersection that the equipment installers had worked with before, and could easily work with again.
I was convicted of a red light camera traffic ticket on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, even though at trial I felt I presented a strong case with convincing arguments. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, how to file a stay of judgment, my read of the judge was he just didn't want to hear what I had to say. Fair enough, judges can do whatever they want in their courtroom, and he certainly wouldn't be the first person to reject whatever may be contradictory to what he wants to believe! The great thing about the criminal justice system (yes, a traffic ticket means you are being charged with a crime) is you can appeal your conviction when you've been found guilty of an infraction, which most traffic tickets are. If you don't want to pay the ticket, you either have to hire a lawyer, or invest a lot of time learning how to do this on your own. The first step to an appeal is filing a proposed notice of appeal, but before you can do so, you must do a lot of research, reading, writing, and preparation, using resources like highwayrobbery.net and Fight Your Ticket & Win in California. In California, you need to download from the internet or ask the court clerk for the CR-141-INFO packet, which gives you information on appeal procedures for infractions.
One of the main pillars of my defense at trial was the rule of "best evidence", which means in court the government has to submit their sharpest photos and video as evidence, and not some fuzzy copies. Under California Evidence Code 1520, otherwise known as the Secondary Evidence Rule, if submitting a document, the government has to provide an uncondensed version, not a summary or memo. On the website, at photonotice.com, where you can view your alleged violation, there is a disclaimer (which as of 5pm today, I've confirmed is still there) which states: "Due to formatting constraints this video is a representation of the original evidence and is not intended for court purposes...The video you are viewing on this website is provided as a courtesy and convenience to you. The video is in no way purported to be a true and correct copy of evidence that will be presented in court."
Because I asked the government numerous times to give me their best evidence, which are the high-resolution photos and video captured by the Redflex cameras, and said evidence was never provided to me, then for the purposes of trial, the rule of best evidence was never satisfied. At trial, the police service technician may have, on her laptop, access to the evidence you requested, and she may offer to show it to you, but since you asked for the evidence before trial, so you could prepare for your defense, and that evidence was never given to you, you can ask the judge to throw out the high-resolution copy that the police have and plan to use against you. If the judge throws out the high-resolution copy (which, in my case, did not happen), the police have no evidence against you, unless they decide to submit a lower resolution copy, or the officer might refer to the low res copy given to you in discovery. However, you can object to the admission of the low res copy under the rule of "best evidence".
The second step in an appeal is to file an opening brief, which the district attorney can respond to by filing a respondent's brief (this is unlikely in an infraction case). Filing an opening brief is mandatory, and after all the briefs have been filed, or the time to to serve and file them has passed, the court will schedule a date for oral argument. Below is what I submitted as my opening brief:
Red light cameras depend heavily on legal faith in a certificate that claims to confirm the total reliability of a machine's calibration and accuracy in detection, tracking, and overall synchronicity with the system of lights and cameras. Despite the possible hassle involved in confirming each fact at trial, it is essential to the integrity of the court system that questioning of the evidence be allowed. On the basis of my right to challenge the human elements of the evidentiary chain, I submit this appeal.Update: After a year and a half battle, I won my case on appeal in Superior Court, as detailed in this latest blog entry: Fight your red light ticket, and win!
Commissioner Culver's trial court ruling was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no live testimony by any person actually involved in the preparation or production of the crucial evidence. I have a right to confront witnesses under the 6th Amendment, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz versus Massachusetts. In addition, the website where representations of the evidence can be reviewed, photonotice.com, states the following (copied verbatim, and current as of October 12, 2011): "Due to formatting constraints this video is a representation of the original evidence and is not intended for court purposes." I made multiple requests to the police and the city for the best evidence, i.e., the high resolution photos and video recorded by the Redflex cameras, by serving Dominique Burton, the agent of process for the city of Emeryville, by asking Rebecca Sylvester, Emeryville police technician, in person at the police station for said evidence, and by asking Sergeant Mike Allen, Ms. Sylvester's superior, in emails. When my requests were not fulfilled, I twice asked Judge Culver during arraignment to schedule a motion hearing to hear my motion to compel discovery, and during the second time I requested a motion hearing, I submitted a printed copy of said motion to the court that asked the city of Emeryville to either provide me with the best evidence, or else preclude the evidence that would be used against me during trial. None of my requests were fulfilled. The evidence used against me in trial should have been precluded, because the city of Emeryville did not comply with my discovery request.
Commissioner Culver made the following errors:
- refused or ignored my numerous requests for a motion hearing to compel the city of Emeryville to provide me with the best evidence.
- did not preclude the evidence when I asked him to, under California Evidence Code 1520
- called up a witness, Sarah Rutherford, co-custodian of records for Redflex, when I as the defense was never notified in advance (according to rules of discovery) that she was going to testify.
- did not want to see or consider the 2 rulings of the higher court in Alameda County, copies of which I brought with me and which I attempted to show Commissioner Culver. Both of these appeals cases, People v Singh (January 2010) and People v Blankenship (May 2010), overturned similar trial court rulings resulting in convictions for said defendants in red light camera photo trials. In both of these cases, the appellate court reversed the lower court ruling due to violation of the defendant's right to confront witnesses under the 6th Amendment.
- denied my motion to dismiss based on violation of my right to due process under the 5th Amendment, i.e., no motion hearing was scheduled for me when I requested it.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
how to file a stay of judgment when you've been found guilty of a traffic violation
Update: After a year and a half battle, I won my case on appeal in Superior Court, as detailed in this latest blog entry: Fight your red light ticket, and win!
Let's say you got a traffic ticket, a red light camera photo ticket, and you decide to fight it. You do your due diligence, poring over the resources available at Fight Your Ticket & Win in California and highwayrobbery.net, and the first two times you appear for arraignment, in front of the same judge, you request that a motion hearing be scheduled so you can compel the city of Emeryville to provide discovery, in the form of the high resolution photos and video captured by the Redflex cameras. Both times, the judge either ignores or refuses your request, and continues the matter, i.e., gives you an additional 30 to 60 days before you have to reappear during arraignment in order to enter a plea. The third time, the judge is exasperated that you persist in your request for a motion hearing, and he demands that you enter a plea. You plead Not Guilty, and the judge, perhaps cognizant that you won't skip town, since you showed up all 3 times like you were supposed to, does not order you to put up bail (i.e., the fine of $446 in order to clear the citation), but instead, does you the favor of releasing you on 'O' 'R', i.e., on your own recognizance (most people try to ask the judge for no bail, and are usually denied, although the judge may grant you extra time to put up the bail). You have a trial, where you are found guilty, and the judge orders you to pay the fine, and gives you one month to do so. You may now want to appeal the trial court ruling, because you believe the trial court judge made one or more errors when deciding to rule against you. If you plan to appeal the ruling, you may want to avoid paying the fine until the appeals process is over, hopefully with the appeals court judge ruling in your favor.
The government alleges that, last year, on June 1, 2010, I didn't stop before turning right at the intersection of 40th Street and Horton Street in Emeryville. 17 days later, on June 18, I received a citation in the mail, a notice of traffic violation of California Vehicle Code 21453a, "Failure to Stop at Red Light". Since this case is still on appeal, I have to be wary of what I say, for fear of hurting my case (the government can read, just as well as you or I can). I pled Not Guilty, and appeared in court a total of 8 times, 6 out of 8 in front of the same judge, Commissioner Taylor Culver, to argue my case and lose, then ask for a stay of judgment, and then for a hearing on settlement of the statement on appeal. I spent quite a bit of time reading and writing to get a sense of what my legal foundation is and what obstacles I might face, as I carefully prepared my case. Often, you'll find that when you're arguing a case in traffic court, the system is set up against you, and you will need all the help you can to navigate a process that seems prejudiced in favor of the police, the municipality where the alleged violation took place, and the corporations, such as Redflex, that the cities and the municipalities are in contract with. Eventually, despite all your preparation and strong arguments, the judge may be unresponsive to what you have to say, and very well rule against you (the logic may be, perhaps, that if the trial court were to actually listen to your arguments, then that may only encourage people to fight their tickets, instead of swallowing your pride and forcing yourself to submit to what I believe is an aggressive government tactic to squeeze money out of motorists). Well, during trial, despite my preparation and what I thought to be strong arguments for why my case should be dismissed, or at the very least why I should be found not guilty, the judge ruled against me, and I was ordered to pay $466 in one month.
You can now do one of two things: pay the fine, and when you win, petition to get your money back, or avoid paying the fine by filing a stay of judgment, asking the court to postpone the sentence while you appeal the trial court's ruling. I opted for the latter, as paying such a large amount for me would be a hardship. At first I asked the trial court to stay the judgment, and not surprisingly, the same trial court judge denied my motion. I then submitted a motion to the appeals court to stay the judgment, the template of which was provided to me by the editor of highwayrobbery.net, but the court sent me a letter saying the motion was denied, without prejudice ('without prejudice' means you are allowed to resubmit the motion to the court). The appeals court's given reason for why my motion was denied had to do with my not following the procedure spelled out by the California Rules of Court, which lays out the rules you must abide by, i.e., the technicalities you must follow, when you want the higher court to consider your motion. In this case, this is the denial letter that I got, copied verbatim:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/app151.pdf
I went ahead and filled out the form, resubmitted my motion, crossed my fingers, and hoped for the best. Four weeks later, I got the following letter in the mail, copied verbatim:
Update: After a year and a half battle, I won my case on appeal in Superior Court, as detailed in this latest blog entry: Fight your red light ticket, and win!
Let's say you got a traffic ticket, a red light camera photo ticket, and you decide to fight it. You do your due diligence, poring over the resources available at Fight Your Ticket & Win in California and highwayrobbery.net, and the first two times you appear for arraignment, in front of the same judge, you request that a motion hearing be scheduled so you can compel the city of Emeryville to provide discovery, in the form of the high resolution photos and video captured by the Redflex cameras. Both times, the judge either ignores or refuses your request, and continues the matter, i.e., gives you an additional 30 to 60 days before you have to reappear during arraignment in order to enter a plea. The third time, the judge is exasperated that you persist in your request for a motion hearing, and he demands that you enter a plea. You plead Not Guilty, and the judge, perhaps cognizant that you won't skip town, since you showed up all 3 times like you were supposed to, does not order you to put up bail (i.e., the fine of $446 in order to clear the citation), but instead, does you the favor of releasing you on 'O' 'R', i.e., on your own recognizance (most people try to ask the judge for no bail, and are usually denied, although the judge may grant you extra time to put up the bail). You have a trial, where you are found guilty, and the judge orders you to pay the fine, and gives you one month to do so. You may now want to appeal the trial court ruling, because you believe the trial court judge made one or more errors when deciding to rule against you. If you plan to appeal the ruling, you may want to avoid paying the fine until the appeals process is over, hopefully with the appeals court judge ruling in your favor.
The government alleges that, last year, on June 1, 2010, I didn't stop before turning right at the intersection of 40th Street and Horton Street in Emeryville. 17 days later, on June 18, I received a citation in the mail, a notice of traffic violation of California Vehicle Code 21453a, "Failure to Stop at Red Light". Since this case is still on appeal, I have to be wary of what I say, for fear of hurting my case (the government can read, just as well as you or I can). I pled Not Guilty, and appeared in court a total of 8 times, 6 out of 8 in front of the same judge, Commissioner Taylor Culver, to argue my case and lose, then ask for a stay of judgment, and then for a hearing on settlement of the statement on appeal. I spent quite a bit of time reading and writing to get a sense of what my legal foundation is and what obstacles I might face, as I carefully prepared my case. Often, you'll find that when you're arguing a case in traffic court, the system is set up against you, and you will need all the help you can to navigate a process that seems prejudiced in favor of the police, the municipality where the alleged violation took place, and the corporations, such as Redflex, that the cities and the municipalities are in contract with. Eventually, despite all your preparation and strong arguments, the judge may be unresponsive to what you have to say, and very well rule against you (the logic may be, perhaps, that if the trial court were to actually listen to your arguments, then that may only encourage people to fight their tickets, instead of swallowing your pride and forcing yourself to submit to what I believe is an aggressive government tactic to squeeze money out of motorists). Well, during trial, despite my preparation and what I thought to be strong arguments for why my case should be dismissed, or at the very least why I should be found not guilty, the judge ruled against me, and I was ordered to pay $466 in one month.
You can now do one of two things: pay the fine, and when you win, petition to get your money back, or avoid paying the fine by filing a stay of judgment, asking the court to postpone the sentence while you appeal the trial court's ruling. I opted for the latter, as paying such a large amount for me would be a hardship. At first I asked the trial court to stay the judgment, and not surprisingly, the same trial court judge denied my motion. I then submitted a motion to the appeals court to stay the judgment, the template of which was provided to me by the editor of highwayrobbery.net, but the court sent me a letter saying the motion was denied, without prejudice ('without prejudice' means you are allowed to resubmit the motion to the court). The appeals court's given reason for why my motion was denied had to do with my not following the procedure spelled out by the California Rules of Court, which lays out the rules you must abide by, i.e., the technicalities you must follow, when you want the higher court to consider your motion. In this case, this is the denial letter that I got, copied verbatim:
Petitioner Chen's "Application for Stay of Sentence Pending Resolution Of Appeal To the Appellate Department" is denied, without prejudice. CRC 8.930 et seq. governs proceedings in the appellate division for writs of mandate, certiorari, or prohibition.I was left scratching my head, wondering what I did wrong. I went to my local law library, where I was able to obtain a copy of the specific passage pointed at by the reference California Rules of Court 8.930. Reading further into the rule, in 8.931, I found the following:
A person who is not represented by an attorney and who petitions the appellate division for a writ under this chapter must file the petition on Petition for Writ (Misdemeanor, Infraction, or Limited Civil Case) (form APP-151). For good cause the court may permit an unrepresented party to file a petition that is not on form APP-151.Reading it over, I finally figured out I had to file what is known as a writ of mandate. After some googling, particularly for california appeals, writ of mandate, I was led to the proper form, APP-151:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/app151.pdf
I went ahead and filled out the form, resubmitted my motion, crossed my fingers, and hoped for the best. Four weeks later, I got the following letter in the mail, copied verbatim:
Petitioner Chen's Petition for Writ is granted.The best thing about filing for a stay of judgment, and appealing a traffic court ruling, is that a traffic infraction technically falls under the aegis of the criminal justice system, where you are entitled to a free defense. Therefore, all the paperwork described herein, such as the appeal or the writ of mandate, is free to file. Unlike the paperwork you file in civil court, where you do have to pay, sometimes hundreds of dollars per filing, filing the aforementioned paperwork with the appeals court regarding a traffic violation incurs no fees.
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and payment of the $466.00 fine be stayed pending resolution of Petitioner Chen's appeal to the appellate division.
Update: After a year and a half battle, I won my case on appeal in Superior Court, as detailed in this latest blog entry: Fight your red light ticket, and win!
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Bruce Ivins, maybe a creep, but the anthrax killer?
So the world hasn't ended yet, despite the bold and confident prediction of my former employer Harold Camping. On May 23rd, Harold declared that Judgment Day did occur, but only spiritually, and revised his doomsday prediction, moving it up to October 21. Harold's rationale was that sometimes God doesn't open our eyes and reveal everything to us, and it was good that the prediction was made, even if it didn't happen, because now the whole world knows about Judgment Day, and the Word of God. As I observed Harold on his Open Forum television program in the days leading up to May 21, and on May 23 and days after, I couldn't help but notice the resemblance between Harold Camping and the kind of person being spoken of in Man and superman; a comedy and a philosophy (1903) by George Bernard Shaw:
A couple of days ago, an excerpt was published in the Los Angeles Times, written by LA Times reporter David Willman. From the soon-to-be-published The Mirage Man, the excerpt reads like a hatchet job on Bruce Ivins, the supposed anthrax killer who struck shortly after 9/11 (when it really did seem like the world was going to end), painting a picture of the man as a major creep who was obsessed with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. With no citations or references to sources, the excerpt describes in vivid detail how the man broke into KKG sorority houses in North Carolina and West Virginia and stole a cipher used to decode secret rituals, and a book of rituals used by the young women, respectively. But a McClatchy News article, published 20 days before the LA Times excerpt, painted an entirely different picture of the whole story:
Thanks to Art Diamond for pointing me to the source for the Shaw quote.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world : the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.Sometimes, a person can be so fixated on the conclusion that s/he wants, that the possibility of a mistake, an error, or even reasonable doubt, cannot be tolerated. If the person represents not just himself, but is the face of an institution, sometimes the expense, wholesale investment, and senselessness of a wasted effort is magnified. I am reminded of an interview on Slate's The Wrong Stuff on what it's like trying to free people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes:
You become more certain over time; that's just the way the mind works. With the passage of time, your story becomes your reality... They're so convinced that they are right that they feel exempt from behaving right... There's still a whole category of prosecutors and detectives who say, "No, I'm sure [the guy I convicted] is guilty. I can't tell you how, I can't give you a logical explanation, but he's guilty." What's scary is that these people are part of a system that's predicated on logic and reasoning to see that justice is done. Yet they will ignore all logic and reason to protect their egos and their psyches. And it requires a complete disconnect, too, because these guys rely on DNA to convict bad guys all the time. But when the DNA works against them, they say something must have gone wrong.I think the best way to gauge whether the person you're dealing with is being unreasonable is to ask him if there's anything you or anyone can say or do that will make him change his mind. If he deflects, doesn't answer, or says 'no', then you have someone who probably cannot be swayed (least of all by reality).
...based on my own experience, about half the time police and prosecutors bury their heads in the sand and insist that they were right no matter what the evidence says.
If a prosecutor or a detective is totally unable to admit they're wrong in one case, what that tells you is that they will be making dozens and dozens more erroneous decisions, because they're not allowing new information to affect their views... -- Peter Neufeld
A couple of days ago, an excerpt was published in the Los Angeles Times, written by LA Times reporter David Willman. From the soon-to-be-published The Mirage Man, the excerpt reads like a hatchet job on Bruce Ivins, the supposed anthrax killer who struck shortly after 9/11 (when it really did seem like the world was going to end), painting a picture of the man as a major creep who was obsessed with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. With no citations or references to sources, the excerpt describes in vivid detail how the man broke into KKG sorority houses in North Carolina and West Virginia and stole a cipher used to decode secret rituals, and a book of rituals used by the young women, respectively. But a McClatchy News article, published 20 days before the LA Times excerpt, painted an entirely different picture of the whole story:
In ending the inquiry last year, the Justice Department said that a genetic fingerprint had pointed investigators to Ivins' lab, and gumshoe investigative techniques enabled them to compile considerable circumstantial evidence that demonstrated his guilt.While there is certainly circumstantial evidence that the FBI was correct in trying to pin the crime on Bruce Ivins, my fear is that there was too much at stake, especially after the FBI mistakenly focused on Hatfill; once Ivins committed suicide, there was a need for everyone at the Bureau to unify and say with one voice that Ivins was the guilty party, rather than deal with the possibility that they were responsible for a second tragedy.
Among these proofs, prosecutors cited Ivins' alleged attempt to steer investigators away from a flask of anthrax in his lab that genetically matched the mailed powder — anthrax that had been shared with other researchers. They also noted his anger over a looming congressional cut in funds for his research on a new anthrax vaccine.
However, the FBI never found hard evidence that Ivins produced the anthrax or that he scrawled threatening letters seemingly meant to resemble those of Islamic terrorists. Or that he secretly took late-night drives to Princeton, N.J., to mail them.
The FBI declared Ivins the killer soon after paying $5.8 million to settle a suit filed by another former USAMRIID researcher, Steven Hatfill, whom the agency mistakenly had targeted earlier in its investigation.
Thanks to Art Diamond for pointing me to the source for the Shaw quote.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
taking the police at their word
Confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination begin next week, and I wanted to share an article on the Obama nominee's powers of persuasion in a previous ruling that hinges on her taking the police at their word, then asks how broad are the grounds for arrest; Sotomayor's ruling nullified the decision of a jury that saw a process rife with police abuse of power:
A semi-truck breaks down on an expressway, with about 4 feet of the trailer jutting out into the right-hand lane. Worried about causing an accident, the truck driver runs almost a mile to the nearest gas station, which has a payphone with an extra long cord attached to the receiver that, at the time, was being used by a man sitting inside his car.
The truck driver claims he ran up and told the man there was an emergency because his truck was jutting out onto the expressway. The man told him to find another phone. The truck driver repeats it's an emergency, the man swears at the truck driver, the truck driver hangs up the phone, and soon the man in the car (who turns out to be an off-duty police officer) has a gun pointed at the back of the truck driver's head. Eventually another officer formally arrests the truck driver.
The man in the car claims he was asked for the phone by the truck driver, but there was never any mention of an emergency, and that the truck driver hit him in the face with the receiver, at which point the off-duty police officer pulled out his gun, and made the arrest.
Reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2219251/pagenum/all/
A semi-truck breaks down on an expressway, with about 4 feet of the trailer jutting out into the right-hand lane. Worried about causing an accident, the truck driver runs almost a mile to the nearest gas station, which has a payphone with an extra long cord attached to the receiver that, at the time, was being used by a man sitting inside his car.
The truck driver claims he ran up and told the man there was an emergency because his truck was jutting out onto the expressway. The man told him to find another phone. The truck driver repeats it's an emergency, the man swears at the truck driver, the truck driver hangs up the phone, and soon the man in the car (who turns out to be an off-duty police officer) has a gun pointed at the back of the truck driver's head. Eventually another officer formally arrests the truck driver.
The man in the car claims he was asked for the phone by the truck driver, but there was never any mention of an emergency, and that the truck driver hit him in the face with the receiver, at which point the off-duty police officer pulled out his gun, and made the arrest.
Reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2219251/pagenum/all/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
