KEEP-CA-khaled Traffic Cameras Case

5/26/2018 KEEP-CA-khaled Traffic Cameras Case

1/12

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE FILEDUSTICE CENTER: Central Justice CenterCivil Operations - Appellate Division SUPERIOR COURT OF CAl.IFORNIA700 Civic Center Dr. West COUNTY OF ORANGeSanta Ana, CA 92701 CENTRAl.. JlJltlCI: CeNTERM Y 9 )

APPELLANT: Khaled ALAN CARLSON Clerk of tne CourtRESPONDENT: People . J.GQMEZ DEPUTY

NOTICE OF FILING OF JUDGMENT/ORDER APPEAL CASE NUMBER:Appellate Division 30-2009-00304893TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER:SA128676PE

To the above named parties and their attorneys of record:You are notified that a Judgment in the above entitled matter was filed on: May 21. 2010

A Copy of the Judgment is attached for reference.

CLERK S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

R. Allen Baylis9042 Garf iled Ave. 306Huntington Beach, CA 92646

Anthony RackauckasO.C. District AttorneyP.O. Box 808Santa Ana CA 92701

y Interoffice Delivery:Central Justice Center - Traffic -Han. Daniel Ornelas, Commissioner - CIO JAGHan. Erick L. Larsh - Supervising Judge - Dept. C55

I certify that I am not a party to this action and that this certificate was mailed in accordance with Section 10 13athe Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of this Notice of Filing of Judgment/Orderwith a copy of the Judgment/Ordand Minute Order dated 5 25 10 were deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fuprepaid addressed as shown above. The mailing and this certification occurred at Santa Ana, California, on May 22010

ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the CourtJORGE GOMEZJ. Gomez, Deputy Clerk

NOTICE OF FILING OF JUDGMENT/ORDER


2/12

123456

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION M Y 2l2 1QAPPELLATE DIVI S ION 1lL A1r;; l ~ flfjRij f @ jFt

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA flY J. @ ~COUNTY OF ORANGE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF7 CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 30-2009-304893

8 Pla in t i f f andRespondent,9 vs.10KHALED11 Defendant and

JUDGMENT ON APPEALfrom theSUPERIOR COURTofORANGE COUNTYCENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

12 Appellant . HON. DANIEL M. ORNELASCOMMISSIONER----------------------------314 This appeal invo lves an i s sue fa r t oo of t en presen ted to15 t h i s cour t , namely the admiss ib i l i t y o f evidence and the16 s t a tu to r y compliance with the procedures employed by severa l17 munic ipa l i t i e s in t h i s county in what have come to be known as1819 photo enforcement c i t a t i o n s .20 On August 2, 2008, the p o l i ce depar tment of the Ci ty o f21 Santa Ana i s sued a t r a f f i c c i t a t i o n to the ap p e l l an t a l l eg i n g a22 v i o l a t i o n o f Cal i fo rn ia Vehic le Code sec t ion 21453, subd iv is ion23 a) . A t r a f f i c tri l was he ld on the mat te r . The prosecu t ion24 sought to e s t a b l i sh the majo r i t y of the v io l a t i o n with a25 dec la ra t ion t h a t was i n t ended to suppor t the in t roduc t ion o f2627 photographs purpor t ing to show the appel l an t d r iv ing through an28 i n t e r s ec t i o n aga ins t a red l i gh t . Appel lant o b jec t ed to the


3/12

in t roduc t ion o f the photographs and dec la ra t ion as inadmiss ib le2 hearsay and v io l a t i v e of a p p e l l a n t s confron ta t ion r igh t s . Th3 objec t ion was overru led and the t r i a l judge admit ted the45 photographs as business records , o f f i c i a l records , and because6 proper founda t ion fo r the adrniss ion had been made based on the7 submit ted dec la ra t ion .8 We hold t ha t the t r i a l cour t erred in admi t t ing the9 photographs and the accompanying dec la ra t ion over the

1ap p e l l an t s hearsay and confron ta t ion c lause ob jec t ions . Absen11 the photographs and content in the dec la ra t ion , there i s

1213 i n su f f i c i en t evidence to support the v io l a t i o n . Accordingly we14 reverse the judgment . l15 I Factual Summary16 The under ly ing fac t s jn t h i s case are f a i r l y s imple . o17 pol ice o f f i c e r witnessed the a l l eged t r a f f i c v io la t ion .18 Ins tead, a pol i ce o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d about the genera l a rea19 depic ted in a photograph token from a camera i n s t a l l e d a t an2

i n t e r s ec t i o n in Santa Ana.21 A p a r t i c u l a r pr iva te company

22 con t rac t s with the munic ipa l i ty to i n s t a l l , maintain , and s to re23 t h i s d i g i t a l photogrophic informat ion. The o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d2425262728

these photographs are then p e r io d i ca l l y sen t back to the pol icedepartment fo r review as poss ib le d r iv ing v io la t ions .

Appel lant and r ea l par ty in i n t e r e s t , t he Ci ty o f Santa Ana addressi ssues regarding the prosecut ion of photo-enforcement cases in general andthe l ack o f no t ice in t h i s case t ha t we f ind unnecessary to address in l i g hof the i n su f f i c i ency o f the evio2nce to sus ta in the t r i a l c o u r t s f inding.


4/12

3456789

1011121314

To be more spec i f i c , the photographs con ta in hearsay evidenceconcerning the mat te rs dep ic ted in the photograph inc lud ing thedate , t ime, and other in format ion . The person who en tered t h a tre levan t informat ion i n to the camera-computer system did nott e s t i fy . The person who en te red t h a t informat ion was not subjecto be ing cross-examined on t he underlying source o f tha tin fo rmat ion . The person or persons who main ta in the system dinot t e s t i f y . o one with persona l knowledge t e s t i f i e d about hoof ten the system i s mainta ined. o one with personal knowledget e s t i f i e d about how of ten the date and t ime are v e r i f i ed orcor rec ted . The custodian of records fo r the company t h a tcon t rac t s wi th the c i t y to main ta in , monitor , s to re , and

15 disperse these photographs did not t e s t i f y . The person with16 d i r ec t knowledge of the workings of the camera-computer system1718192

212223

did not t e s t i f y . Ins tead , t he prosecut ion chose to submit thetes t imony o f a loca l pol ice o f f i c e r , Santa Ana Pol ice Off icerAlan Berg. This witness t e s t i f i e d t h a t sometime in the d is tan tpas t , he a t t ended a t r a in ing sess ion where he was i ns t ruc t ed onthe o v e r a l l working of the sys tem a t the t ime o f the t r a in ing

See S e t t l e d Statement , page 1 l ines 24-26 he rea f t e r SS :2424 26). Off i ce r Berg was unable to t e s t i f y about the spec i f i c25262728

procedure fo r the programming and s to rage of the systemin fo rmat ion .


5/12

23456

I I . Ana l ys i sA. Admiss ib i l i ty o f video tape and photograph ic ev idence :These photo enforcement cases presen t a unique f ac t u a l

s i t u a t i o n to the cour t s regard ing t he a d m i s s i b i l i t y ofvideo tapes and photographs . There are two t ypes of s i t u a t i o n s

7 where a videotape or photographs are t y p i ca l l y admit ted in to8 evidence where t he photographer or videographer does not9

1011121314151617181920212223

t e s t i f y . The f i r s t i nvo lves a s u rv e i l l an ce camera a t a

commercial es tab l i shment (o f t en t imes a bank o r conveniencel i q u o r s to r e ) . In those s i t u a t i o n s , a per son t e s t i f i e s to beinin the bu i ld ing and recount s the even t s d ep ic t ed in thephotographs. Courts have c o n s i s t e n t l y he ld t h a t such t e s t imonyes t ab l i s h e s a s u f f i c i en t foundat ion i the video tape i s a

r easo n ab le r ep re s en t a t i o n of what it i s a l l eg ed t o por t ray .(See g en e ra l l y People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal . 4th 932, 952-953People v . Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal . 4th 312, 385-387; People v.Mayf ie ld (1997) 14 Cal . 4th 668, 745-747; Imwinkelr ied, Cal i fo rn iE v id en t i a ry Foundat ions , p . 115, 117 (3 rd ed. 2000); a l so UnitedSta t e s v . J e r n i g a n 9 th Cir . 2007) 492 F.3d 1050 (en banc) . )

The second s i t u a t i o n i nvo lves what i s commonly known as a4 nanny cam. In t h a t s i t u a t i o n , a homeowner hides a

25 s u rv e i l l a n c e camera in a room and then r e t r i ev e s the camera a t262728

l a t e r t ime. At t h e co u r t proceed ing , t h a t per son es t ab l i shest h e t ime and placement of t he camera. This per son a l so has


6/12

personal knowledge o f when the camera was i n i t i a l l y s t a r t ed andwhen it was ev en t u a l l y s topped and r e t r i e v e d .

3 Nei ther o f these s i t u a t i o n s i s analogous to the s i t u a t i o n4 a t bar . Here the o f f i c e r could not es t ab l i s h the t ime in56 ques t ion , the method o f r e t r i e v a l of the photographs, o r t ha t7 any o f the photographs o r the videotape was a reasonab le8 r ep re s en t a t i o n of what it i s a l l eged to p o r t r a y . A very9 analogous s i t u a t i o n to the case a t bar , however, i s found in

10Ashford v. Culver Ci ty Unif ied Sch. Dist . (2005) 130 Cal.App.4

th11 344, 349-450, where the cour t held t ha t the unau then t ica ted1213 videotape a l l eged ly showing employee ' s ac t i o n s lacked s u f f i c i en14 foundat ion to be admi t t ed a t an ad mi n i s t r a t i v e hear ing . And in15 so holding the co u r t noted t h a t without e s t a b l i s h i n g such a16 foundat ion, the video tape was inadmiss ib le .17 B Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule are not ppl ic b le here18 In l i e u o f e s t a b l i s h i n g the necessary foundat ion by d i r ec t19 tes t imony, the proponent of the evidence, respondent , argues2021 t h a t independent hearsay excep t ions j u s t i f y admiss ion of the22 photographs under e i t h e r the Off i c i a l Records Except ion or th23 Business Records Except ion o f the Evidence Code.2 Nei ther o f24 these sec t ions suppor t Respondent ' s con ten t ion . e recognize25262728

t h a t the tri l cour t i s ves ted with wide di sc re t ion indetermining whether su f f i c i e n t foundat ion i s l a i d to qual i fyevidence under t he se hearsay excep t ions . And [o ]n appeal ,

Appe l l an t ' s Opening Brief , pages 5-7; Respondent ' s Opening Brief , pages 810.


7/12

exerc i se of t h a t di sc re t ion can be over tu rned only upon a c lea rshowing of abuse . People v. Beeler (1995) 5 Cal .4 l 953, 978-

3 979.45 1. Off i c i a l Records Except ion (Evid. Code, 1280)

6 The prosecu t ion argues t h a t these documents were proper ly7 admit ted under Evidence Code sec t ion 1280, the Off ic ia l8 Records excep t ion to the hearsay ru l e .3 A pla in read ing of t h i9 sec t ion cannot suppor t t he i r pos i t ion . Not only does t h i s

10 sec t ion requ i re t h a t the w r i t i n g be made by a publ ic employe11 (subd. (a)) (e. g. , Shea v. Department of Motor Vehic les (1998)1213 6 Cal.App.4

th 1057 ( fo rens ic l ab o ra t o ry t r a in ee did not qual i fy14 as a publ ic employee ) ) , but the publ ic employee must be under15 a l ega l duty to make such repor t s (subd. (a) e . g . People v .16 Clark (1992) 3 Cal . 4th 41, 158-159 (autopsy repor t o r ig in a l l y17 performed and prepared by now deceased coroner proper ly admit ted18 through t es t imony of another coroner ) .19 Here, the s igna to r of t he document, Exhib i t 3, s t a t es they2021 are employees of the Redlex Tr a f f i c Systems. At no poin t does22 the s i g n a t o ry s t a t e tha t Redflex Traf f ic Systems i s a publ ic23 en t i ty o r t ha t they are othe rwise employed by a publ ic en t i ty .2425 3 Sect ion 1280 provides : Evidence o f a wri t ing made as a record o f an ac t ,

condi t ion, o r event i s not made inadmiss ible by the hearsay ru le when of fe re26 in any c i v i l or c r imina l proceeding to prove the ac t , condi t ion, o r event i fa l l of the fol lowing appl ies :27 (a) The wri t ing was made by and with in the scope o r duty o f a publ ic

employee.28 (b) The wri t ing was made a t o r near the t ime of the ac t , condi t ion oevent .(c) The sources of informat ion and method and t ime o f prepara t ionwere such to ind ica te i t s t rus twor th ines s .


8/12

2

4

567

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25262728

Absent t h i s c r i t i c a l foundat ion in fo rmat ion , the document t h a tthey c rea t ed cannot be and i s not an o f f i c i a l record underEvidence Code sec t ion 1280.

In addi t ion , sect ion 1280 requ i res t h a t [ t ]h e sources ofin fo rmat ion and method and t ime o f prepara t ion [of the record]were such as to indica te i t s t rus twor th iness (subd. (c ) ) .Except fo r the wri t ten con ten t of Exhib i t #3, which presentsanother l aye r of hearsay, the re i s a t o t a l l ack o f evidence toes t ab l i s h t h i s element of sec t ion 1280 hearsay except ion. Eachl ayer o f hearsay must meet the foundat iona l elements of t h i sexcept ion o r another hearsay except ion, o r the wri t ing i sinadmiss ib le . (People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal. 4 217, 224-225 ( Awith a l l mu l t i p l e hearsay, the quest ion i s whether each hearsays tatement f e l l within an excep t ion to the hearsay ru l e . ) ,People v . Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4 t 988,995; People v Baeske(1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 775 (po l ice repor t contain ing con ten ts o fphone c a l l t o po l i ce department inadmiss ib le under o f f i c i a lrecord e xc e p t ion .

However, s ec t i o n 1280 does permi t the cour t to admit ano f f i c i a l record o r repor t without necessa r i ly r eq u i r i n g awitness to t e s t i f y as to i t s i d e n t i t y and mode o f prepara t ion ithe cour t t akes j ud ic i a l not ice or i su f f i c i e n t independentevidence shows t h a t the record or repor t was prepared in such amanner to assure i t s t rus twor th iness . (Bhatt v . Sta te Dept. of


9/12

Health Serv ices (2005) 133 Cal.App.4 th 923, 929 [c i t a t ions2 omit ted] . )3 Here, the record i s t o t a l l y s i l e n t as to whether the t r i a l45 cour t took j ud ic i a l not i ce o f anything, nor does t show6 su f f i c i e n t independent evidence t ha t the record or repor t wa7 prepared in such a manner to assure i t s t rus twor th ines s . The8 only evidence, outs ide of the contents of Exhibi t #3, descr ib in9 the workings of the photo enforcement system and recorda t ion o f

10 informat ion from t ha t system came from Off i ce r Berg who,11 admi t ted ly , was unable to t e s t i f y about the spec i f i c procedure1213 from the programming and s to re of the sys tem in fo rmat ion SS14 1:24-26) . Consequently, the t r i a l cour t e r red in admi t t ing t h i15 evidence as an o f f i c i a l record .16 Bus iness Records Exc e pt i on Evid. Code, 1 2 7 1 .17 These exh ib i t s a l so do not f a l l under the bus iness record18 except ion under sec t ion 1271.4 In order to es tab l i sh the prope19 foundat ion fo r the admission of a bus iness record , an2021 appropr ia te witness must be ca l led to lay t h a t foundat ion22 (Bhatt , supra) . The underly ing purpose o f sec t ion 1270 i s to23 e l imina te the necess i ty of ca l l ing a l l witnesses who were245 4 Evidence o f a wr i t ing made as a record o f an ac t , condi t ion or event i snot made inadmiss ible by the hearsay ru le when of fe red to prove the ac t ,6 condi t ion, or event i f :(a) The writ ing was made in the regula r course o f a business ;27 (b) The wr i t ing was made a t or near the t ime of the ac t , condi t ion o

28 c )d)

event ;The custodian or other qua l i f i ed witness t e s t i f i e s to i t si d e n t i t y and the mode o f i t s pr epa r a t ion ;The sources o f informat ion and method and t ime o f prepara t ionwere such as to ind ica te t t rus twor th ines s .


10/12

involved in a t r ansac t ion or event (People v . Cross l in (1967)2 251 Cal.App.2d 968) . General ly , the witness who at tempts to

lay the foundat ion i s a cus tod ian , but any witness with the45 r equ i s i t e f i r s thand knowledge of the b u s i n e s s s record-keeping

6 procedures may qua l i fy . The proponent of the admiss ion of the7 documents has the burden of e s t a b l i sh i n g the requi rements for8 admission and the t rus twor th iness of the in fo rmat ion . (People v9 Beeler , supra , 9 Cal. 4th a t p . 978.) And the document cannot b

1 prepared in contempla t ion of l i t i g a t i o n . (Palmer v. Hoffman11 (1943) 318 U.S. 109; Gee v. Timiner i (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 139.)1213 Here, Off i ce r Berg did not qua l i fy as the appropr ia te14 witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of under ly ing15 workings, maintenance , or record keeping of Redflex Traf f i c16 System. The foundat ion for t he i n t roduc t ion of the photographs171819221222324

25262728

and the under ly ing working of the Redf lex Traf f i c System wasouts ide the persona l knowledge of Off i ce r Berg. I f the evidencef a i l s to e s t a b l i s h each foundat ional fac t , ne i the r hearsayexcept ion i s ava i l ab le (People v Matthews (1991) 229 Cal.App.4 t930 ,940) .5

Accordingly , wi thout such foundat ion , the admission ofExhib i t s 1 and was erroneous and thus the t r i a l cour t abusedi t s d isc re t ion in admit t ing these exh ib i t s . Without these

5 This i s not a s i t ua t i on where, in compliance with a l awful ly issuedsubpoena duces tecum, the cus todian submitted a dec la ra t ion a t t e s t i ng to thenecessa ry founda t ion fac ts (Evid. Code, 1560 e t . seq . ) . See a lso Taggart vSuper Seer Corp. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 1697. o such subpoena duces tecum wai s sued or in t roduced here .


11/12

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

documents, t he re i s a t o t a l l a ck o f evidence to suppor t theveh ic le code v io la t ion in quest ion .

The judgment i s reversed and with di rec t ions t h a t thecharge be dismissed People v . Bigh ina t t i 1975) 55 Cal.App.3dSupp. 5, 7 .

. PRICKETT Act ing residing Judge

Judg

N L. ROBINSON Judg

S i t t i n g by ass ignment of the Chief Jus t i ce of the Cal i fo rn iaSupreme Court .


12/12

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF ORANGE

Date: 05 25 2010Judicial Officer Presiding: Appellate PanelClerk: Jorge A GomezReporter/ERM:BailifflCourt Attendant:

MINUTE ORDERTime: 08:36:00 AM Dept:

Case No: 30-2009-00304893-Cl-MC-CJC Case Init. Date: 09 23 2009Case Title: People of the State of California VS KhaledCase Category: Civil - Limited Case Type: Misc Complaints - OtherAPPEARANCES

Appellate Panel Judge(s):Honorable Gregg L Prickett, Assistant Presiding JudgeHonorable Gregory H Lewis, JudgeHonorable Karen L Robinson, JudgeTrial Court Case Number: SA 128676PEThe court having reviewed and considered the matter finds the opInion meets the standards forcertification for publication set forth in CRC Rule 8 11 05( c (2) and (c )(6). It applies existing rulesgoverning the admissibility of evidence to the specific context of citations issued through an automatedenforcement system. We are aware of no prior published authority which addresses specifically therequirements for admission of evidence in this context. The opinion addresses an issue of continuingpublic interest, in that use of automated enforcement systems has become increasingly common inOrange County and throughout California. Published guidance on the admissibility of evidence in thesecases is essential to trial courts hearing the cases, as well as law enforcement, municipalities employingautomated enforcement systems and the motoring public. The opinion is therefore certified forpublication.

Date: 05 25 2010Dept: MINUTE ORDER

Page: 1Calendar No.

Documents

KEEP-CA-khaled Traffic Cameras Case