Is This Ticket Legal? (San Jose: photo radar, crimes, how much)

[joosoon]

Cite vehicle code that says you can't be issued a ticket in the mail unless LE can positively identify you.

[looker009]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Cite vehicle code that says you can't be issued a ticket in the mail unless LE can positively identify you.

You need to be specific what you're asking. Are you talking about moving violation which is issued to the driver or you talking about non moving violation which issue to the owner of the vehicle? Red light camera are exception even that requires photo of the driver. Register owner is always able to fight the ticket by saying it's not me driving. In LA county court decided that they will not enforce red light camera ticket unless it's acknowledged.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

It doesn't work that way. You can get a ticket in the mail without even knowing you committed a violation. Think: red light cameras, here.

Exactly. Red light cameras have lots of problems. You do know that if you don't pay red light tickets that they don't come after you anymore?

And again, you don't have to be parked in red to be cited for it. The vehicle code covers "standing" too, which means sitting idle in the car.

I understand that. That's not my point at all.

What you're basically saying would mean that if a person were to drive away from any parking violation, they couldn't be cited for it because they didn't receive the ticket on a parked car.

Actually yes. Typically parking tickets are written by LADOT parking enforcement. If you drive away before they can write a ticket and collect your information, you won't receive a ticket.

Like I said, it doesn't work that way and anybody thinking that's a workable strategy in traffic court has probably never been.

Who said anything about going to court? I've never even seen parking tickets contested in court. I'm saying that he could potentially contest the ticket when he sends it back with the explanation that he wasn't illegally parked and cite the fact that no ticket was left on his car. If they deny it, then pay the ticket. I'm not saying to go to court over it. Do you know how these things work?

And I've actually been to traffic court and won. I was the only one in court that I saw (you leave after your case) that had a defense that made sense. Everyone else was hoping their cop didn't show.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Cite vehicle code that says you can't be issued a ticket in the mail unless LE can positively identify you.

Moving violations are for the driver so the driver would have to be identified. Non-moving violations are for the car. It doesn't matter who was driving.

[chessimprov]

Originally Posted by joosoon

You have to pay the citation just to go to court. It's only if you win that you recoup the fine. If you lose, you're paying for the court costs on top of the money you ponied up just to fight the ticket in the first place.



It's designed like this for a reason.

It's been a long time since I've gotten a ticket, and I hope it stays that way, lol.

I didn't know there was a possibility to have to pay court costs on top of the ticket cost if you lose.
Maybe it depends on the offense and the court. I remember going to a court one time for a stop sign ticket and I did feel that I stopped properly. All I ended up getting were the points removed, but I was lucky there wasn't a long line of people to wait behind.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by looker009

You need to be specific what you're asking.

You said: "To receive speeding ticket in California you need to be pulled over unless officer can positively identify the driver.". Cite it please. Very simple.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

If you drive away before they can write a ticket and collect your information, you won't receive a ticket.

Well, that's sort of a no-brainer. If you drive away before you're spotted being in violation, you won't get a ticket because LE won't know. But in the OPs case, LE saw them illegally in the red zone. The OP drove off thinking he was being warned. The same LE followed them, obviously collecting their information, and that's why the ticket was ultimately mailed. It's like I already mentioned, the issuing officer just skipped the non-essential step of pulling the OP back over to write the ticket.

Who said anything about going to court? I've never even seen parking tickets contested in court. I'm saying that he could potentially contest the ticket when he sends it back with the explanation that he wasn't illegally parked and cite the fact that no ticket was left on his car.

For one, you can't effectively contest a ticket without going to court. You can pay it by mail or show up for your court date. It's either or. Also, you're still of the mind that a defense consisting of stating that the ticket was not affixed to a parked car has some strategic value. Did you find anything in the vehicle code that actually backs that up? It's most likely the OP was cited for 22500(c). If you read that section, there's nothing preventing LE from citing someone for that violation while they're in their car, engine running, in gear, but temporarily stopped... exactly as the OP described the situation. You're in error thinking that there's a hard definition of parking ticket and moving violation in this case yet, there isn't. That's why 22500 mentions "standing" which is what the OP was doing.


The ticket is legit. They asked if the method they received it was valid. You're debating otherwise but have nothing to really show how that's the case. So again, cite relevant code so they can go to court with your advice.

[looker009]

Originally Posted by joosoon

You said: "To receive speeding ticket in California you need to be pulled over unless officer can positively identify the driver.". Cite it please. Very simple.

I linked to the fact that automated speeding ticket is illegal in California. Which means speeding ticket can't be issued in California using automated camera that would automatically be issued to the register owner. A regular speeding ticket in all cases is issued to the driver. Are you suggesting that police officer can sit and write down everyone plate that he/she sees speeding and just mail out speeding ticket, if so i am pretty sure everyone here will agree that is not how it works.

[looker009]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Well, that's sort of a no-brainer. If you drive away before you're spotted being in violation, you won't get a ticket because LE won't know. But in the OPs case, LE saw them illegally in the red zone. The OP drove off thinking he was being warned. The same LE followed them, obviously collecting their information, and that's why the ticket was ultimately mailed. It's like I already mentioned, the issuing officer just skipped the non-essential step of pulling the OP back over to write the ticket.



For one, you can't effectively contest a ticket without going to court. You can pay it by mail or show up for your court date. It's either or. Also, you're still of the mind that a defense consisting of stating that the ticket was not affixed to a parked car has some strategic value. Did you find anything in the vehicle code that actually backs that up? It's most likely the OP was cited for 22500(c). If you read that section, there's nothing preventing LE from citing someone for that violation while they're in their car, engine running, in gear, but temporarily stopped... exactly as the OP described the situation. You're in error thinking that there's a hard definition of parking ticket and moving violation in this case yet, there isn't. That's why 22500 mentions "standing" which is what the OP was doing.


The ticket is legit. They asked if the method they received it was valid. You're debating otherwise but have nothing to really show how that's the case. So again, cite relevant code so they can go to court with your advice.

You are talking about non-moving violation. Yes for non moving violation it's likely be found valid ticket. However it can still be contested base on the fact that there is no actual proof it was that vehicle parked there unless vin was entered or picture of the vehicle taken.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by chessimprov

It's been a long time since I've gotten a ticket, and I hope it stays that way, lol.

I didn't know there was a possibility to have to pay court costs on top of the ticket cost if you lose.
Maybe it depends on the offense and the court. I remember going to a court one time for a stop sign ticket and I did feel that I stopped properly. All I ended up getting were the points removed, but I was lucky there wasn't a long line of people to wait behind.

The court costs may be built into the fine if you opt to fight the ticket. I seem to recall getting a speeding ticket that was like that; the payment for simply admitting guilt was less than the cost to contest it. But it had to be paid up front either way. There was a point once where going to traffic school would absolve you of the fine too, I think. But that was way back.


For the record, I've received a ticket in the mail for something as petty as an equipment violation. It's not that unusual.