Advertisement

OC REGISTER>ARTICLE COLLECTIONS

JEBB HARRIS, THE ORANGE COUNTY
REGISTER

Red-light camera violations go unpunished

February 10, 2008|By
JENNIFER MUIR

Thousands of drivers who ignore their red light camera tickets are receiving
an unusual giftfrom Orange County courts:

Their cases disappear.

No fine. No points on their driving records.

Meanwhile, the drivers who face up to their mistake and respond to their
tickets face a $346 fine, driving school and sometimes, a spike in their
insurance rates.

"It's not a real good message to get out there to the public," Superior Court
CEO Alan Slater conceded in an interview.

An Orange County Register investigation has found that police and court
workers throughout Orange County rarely complete the time-consuming process
required to punish red-light violators. Court records indicate that as many as
25,000 motorists have received a free pass since 2004, although records are so
vague that calculating an exact number is impossible.

Most police departments do not follow up on unpaid tickets, the Register
found, and the court has failed to provide most departments with the information
they need to do so. Some departments said they were unaware they needed to do
any follow up work at all.

As a result, cities have forfeited as much as $3.5 million since 2004, a
Register analysis found.

Because of the failure to follow up, taxpayers in some cities are subsidizing
the cost of the red light cameras. When the cost of paying the camera vendors is
subtracted from ticket revenue, Costa Mesa appears to have lost more than
$250,000 for the year ending October 2007; Laguna Woods appears to be short
$22,000. And those numbers don't include the cost of city personnel.

Slater said the Register's questions have prompted the court to consider
changing its policy to ensure that people who don't respond will be fined.

But former grand jurors told The Register they raised similar issues in
2005.

"They knew they had problems at the time," said Dave Kasabo, the grand juror
who headed the 2005 red light camera investigation. "I was just shocked the
courts and police departments were not really interested in making a
profit."

Members say they were blocked from including anything related to court
procedures in their report because the Grand Jury doesn't have the legal
authority to investigate Superior Court, which is a state agency.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next

Advertisement

FIND THE CAMERAS

Use the symbols in the blue bar below to resize the map.

Loading...

Lawmakers seek to expand photo-enforcement of traffic laws

While courts in Orange County work to resolve problems processing photo
tickets, efforts are growing across the state to expand the role cameras play
in enforcing traffic laws.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, plans to introduce legislation for the
third time this year that would allow Beverly Hills police to enforce speed in
neighborhoods using photo radar technology. Two previous attempts to allow a
pilot project there ï¿½ in 2005 and 2006 ï¿½ failed amid concern that allowing
cameras on residential streets amounts to an invasion of privacy and fears
that other cities would soon follow suit.

"People saying it could open something up was ridiculous," Kuehl said.
"When you have something (legislation) that is specific to a place or a city,
you can't open it up. I like pilot projects because they allow a city or a
place that really, really wants to do something to amass some data about
it."

Last month, concern over cameras ignited concern among state assembly
members as well.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, proposed legislation that would
change language in the vehicle code to allow photo enforcement at a specific
intersection where turning right on a green light is illegal. Members of the
assembly's transportation committee expressed concern that the proposed
changes could create opportunities for more cameras to be installed in more
locations across the state.

So the bill was narrowed before it passed muster: now it only affects one
intersection in San Francisco.

"I think that there are some members who look at the spread of surveillance
cameras as something that has to be carefully monitored," said Assemblyman
Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, who chairs the assembly's transportation
committee. "That was in large part why we wanted to help Ms. Ma craft a
response that was more localized."

Meanwhile, a state authority that runs parks in Los Angeles and Ventura
counties in June began using cameras to ticket motorists at five stop signs in
three parks ï¿½ the first program of its kind in the nation.

Cameras have been installed at stop signs at the Top of Topanga overlook, a
popular spot for viewing the San Fernando Valley, in Franklin Canyon and in
Temescal Gateway Park. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority,
which runs the parks, installed the cameras hoping to slow down speeders.
Spokeswoman Dash Stolarz says the program already has reduced stop sign
violations by more than 70 percent at all the intersections.

The program faced criticism because it violates several provisions in the
vehicle code that regulate photo enforcement: The camera vendor is paid a cut
of each ticket issued and vehicle owners, not drivers, are responsible for
paying the $100 ticket.

Still, the program is legal, Stolarz says, because the state authority
doesn't operate under the vehicle code and has independent authority to
enforce its own laws.

And finding ways to get out of photo enforcement tickets is getting harder,
as well.

Last year, lawmakers made it a misdemeanor to sell products that obscure
license plate numbers so that drivers can avoid paying red light camera
tickets or tolls. Those caught selling products such as license plate shields
or sprays face a $250 fine for each product sold. Using those devices also is
illegal.

--Jennifer Muir

Copyright © 2011 Orange
County Register Communications. All Rights Reserved.

Index by Keyword

|

Index by Date

|

Privacy
Policy

|

User
Agreement