Hi Roger and interested readers,

I just finished my court appearance and elected for a reduced fine with traffic school. Here is my timeline and the options given to me in court.

- 4/2012: Received red light camera violation

- Posted on this site and sent Roger my ticket images for some advice. My windshield was glared over completely with no evidence of identity. I briefly considered fighting it based on that fact alone but talked myself out of it.

- 5/2012: Went to SF Courthouse at 7:30am (Get there early!), waited in security line and then the clerk’s line at room 145 until open at 8:30am. By 9am I spoke to a clerk who set me up for a court appearance a week later. I could have elected to make a court appearance 3 months later.

- Showed up to court at 12:45pm for a 1:30pm appearance

- The Bailiff gave the room the following options:
(1) Plead guilty/no contest with reduced fine (depending on your violation) and option of traffic school (if you haven’t taken it in last 18 months) and community service in lieu of the fine ($10/hr awarded against fine).
(2) Plead not guilty and get assigned a court date 45 days later
(3) Speak to the judge in court that day to plead your court.

- I elected to take option (1) with traffic school. We were the first group in line for the bailiff and he swiftly processed everyone through. My reduced fine from a $480 ticket came down to $294 + $55 admin fee for traffic school. I have 3 months to pay and complete traffic school.

I thought about community service but at $10/hr I would be putting in 48 hours of work and the time and actual cost would have far exceeded my ticket. I should have asked for more detail on their program but I’m assuming it’s funneled through their government agencies and very strict in terms of what and when you can do your time.

I still feel there was some possibility in fighting my ticket based on visual evidence but the process would have become a lot longer and more stressful in fighting it. I would have had a minimum of 3 court appearances at around 6+ hours of my time and if found guilty, would not have the option of traffic school and would be given a point on my record.

My final advice is to weigh your bank account vs your time account vs the evidence presented against you. Don’t lie and don’t simply pay the fine at the maximum amount. In the end, I took the easy, middle of the road option.

All the best!

P.S. Thanks Roger for your time and advice to this site!

I’d like to send you my citation/pin# so you can take a quick peek at the camera’s picture (14th and Van Ness; I’ll also send along pictures of two guys in my house with access to my car, for comparison). My email is 0330003@gmail.

After some questioning – ask the judge to dismiss. Not only was there not probably cause to have issued the ticket (under penalty of perjury as it says on the citation) but the the burden of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” has not been met. Maybe remind the court that it the state must show you as the driver beyond a reasonable doubt and NOT that you show that it was NOT you beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am not clear whether you can be compelled to ID the driver once you have called yourself to the stand (i.e. gave your own testimony) but clearly, if you do not take the stand, you cannot be compelled to do so.
If the judge asks you “Who was driving?” Answer that by saying you are not testifying as a witness.

On the other matter, I have talked with a couple people who had their arms twisted by window clerks into ID’ing the actual driver (another family member usually). I have written a letter of complaint to the presiding judge, but I could not provide the window clerk’s name nor the name of the defendant. If you could go back and get the window clerk’s name I would be more than happy to alert the presiding judge to something wholly inappropriate. Or I could help you write the letter on your own behalf. Even a letter without the clerk’s name would be better than nothing. If you have the time, you could also, ask to speak to a supervisor of window clerks. Get names and take detailed notes.

Also, some courts will allow you to combine arraignment and trial without even posting bail. I believe they ask you to sign an “own recognizance” form promising to show up. If, by chance, your court date is just for arraignment, be sure to ask the judge to dismiss the case and have your photo ticket ready to pass up to the judge.

Thank you for keeping us up to date. When is your trial date? Usually the courts have a way to find your trial date on line – just in case you want to verify the particulars.

In regards to the signage: the law requires a sign at each approach to a photo-enforced intersection, UNLESS the city labels all entrances to the city. San Francisco has attempted to do the latter, so it doesn’t label each intersection.

I believe you have pled “not guilty” via the clerk and you have therefore skipped your arraignment.

Aren

Marty

I think I was driving too tired and I’m lucky no one got hurt. I’m curious to find out if I’ll get a ticket. No flashes and I don’t think I speed up to more then 10mph going through the intersection. According to the SF website:

“When the computer detects the signal has been red for 0.3 seconds or longer, and the vehicle speed is greater than 15 mph, the computer will activate the camera to take two photographs of the vehicle.”

Regardless this posting is a lesson to people. Don’t drive tired and PEETs coffee is not worth $500.

The best way to get rid of this ticket is to get before a judge at arraignment and ask for a dismissal based photo evidence. The judge should not ask you who was driving and you are not required to say since this is not a trial. If judge does not dismiss the ticket, plead Not Guilty and do the same thing at trial.