Archive for February 3rd, 2009
California Appeals Court Rejects Attempt to Unpublish Red Light Camera Decision
Author: goldironCalifornia Appeals Court Rejects Attempt to Unpublish Red Light Camera Decision
Decision overturning California red light camera ticket remains final and could affect cities throughout the state.
The California Court of Appeal on Friday rejected an attempt by Santa Ana to unpublish a decision that could force the city to provide refunds for thousands of illegally issued red light camera tickets. Earlier last month a California Superior Court, Appellate Division judge determined that the city of Santa Ana violated state law when it failed to provide a thirty-day warning period before issuing tickets at each individual intersection equipped with a red light camera (view decision). Despite the ruling, Santa Ana’s city attorney continues to insist that it was good enough to have provided a thirty-day warning period at a single intersection in the city. The city attorney unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the higher court that the appellate decision had denied the city due process in a matter of “great concern.”
“The City of Santa Ana was fundamentally denied notice and the opportunity to be heard on an issue that has severe consequences for the city of Santa Ana, as well as other cities throughout the state,” Santa Ana City Attorney Joseph W. Fletcher argued in a brief to the Court of Appeal. “Deciding a case of this nature with briefing and oral argument by only a single party makes a sham of the adversarial system… The appellate division was robbed of the opportunity in this case to utilize the adversarial system to reach justice.”
The district attorney was properly served with all briefs and notices required during the course of the court’s proceedings, but Fletcher insisted that the city attorney’s office had sole jurisdiction over the matter. Neither party showed up for proceedings before the appellate division. In a pair of letters to defendant Thomas Fischetti prior to his trial, the city attorney’s office denied that it had jurisdiction over his case.
“The district attorney’s office is charged with prosecution of California Vehicle Code violations,” Deputy City Attorney Laura A. Rossini wrote on March 13, 2008.
“As we discussed on the telephone, the Santa Ana City Attorney’s Office is not the prosecuting agency for this citation and therefore does not have authority to dismiss it,” Rossini wrote in a second letter dated March 27.
The Santa Ana City Attorney’s Office yesterday filed papers in the Superior Court, Appellate Division demanding a rehearing of the issue, but the request is unlikely to succeed. The appellate division has already issued at least two identical, unpublished opinions on the question of whether the thirty-day warning period applies to every intersection equipped with a camera. One of these cases involved Fischetti battling a ticket issued by the city of Costa Mesa (read decision). In 2005, the California Supreme Court declined to overturn the appellate division’s reasoning in Costa Mesa, despite urgent pleas from the California League of Cities that the case would affect the sixty-six jurisdictions using photo enforcement in the state, all of which failed to provide the appropriate warning period. The dire consequences predicted failed to materialize when the Costa Mesa decision remained unpublished.
The court of appeal now considers the matter closed. Unless the appellate division grants Santa Ana’s request for rehearing, the ruling will remain final and hold full precendential value in Orange County and persuasive authority throughout the rest of the state.
A copy of the denial order issued by Court of Appeal, Fourth District Presiding Justice David G. Sills along with the argument from the city of Santa Ana is available in an 800k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Court Order, Case G041501 (Court of Appeal, State of California, 1/29/2009)
Officials worry about losing revenue source
ATLANTIC BEACH — After a Monday night meeting turned the Atlantic Beach community center into the latest staging ground in the battle between motorcyclists and those who are tired of their massive May rallies, town officials must now weigh decades of tradition against a persistent fiscal crisis.
In broad terms with few specifics, Myrtle Beach Mayor John Rhodes and City Manager Tom Leath asked the Atlantic Beach Town Council to consider joining their effort to curtail the Harley-Davidson spring rally and the Atlantic Beach Bikefest.
“We understand the importance of Memorial Day weekend in Atlantic Beach,” Rhodes said in a brief address. “Let’s gain control of our Grand Strand community again.”
The four Atlantic Beach council members took no action, but Councilman Donnell Thompson said he could support a change, if Myrtle Beach helps Atlantic Beach climb out of its financial crisis. Atlantic Beach collects vendor fees during Bikefest that have sometimes made it profitable, but the town is now facing a far larger load of debts related to lost lawsuits and unpaid bills.
“If we heard an offer that could cure our problems, if it would take care of the town - that’s what we’re here for,” Thompson said.
The Atlantic Beach Bikefest, a four-day rally held over Memorial Day weekend since 1980, spreads throughout the Grand Strand but concentrates in two distinct centers. The event inside the four-block Atlantic Beach town limits often takes on a homecoming air, as motorcyclists park their bikes and walk streets lined with vendors and hot food, often visiting the same bars they have for years.
In Myrtle Beach, however, Bikefest’s epicenter is a crush of customized vehicles of all kinds - cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles and scooters - that form a slow-moving parade down a one-way Ocean Boulevard packed with spectators. The differences between the crowds at the two locations are so pronounced that many of those who visit Atlantic Beach during the rallies say they do not go to Myrtle Beach, and vice versa.
At Monday’s meeting, Leath detailed 15 new laws Myrtle Beach has written to discourage rallies, including helmet requirements, decibel limits on engines and tighter rules on public gatherings. Without requesting anything specific or offering anything in return, Leath asked Town Council to consider joining in.
“We understand that each of us is impacted differently - some positively, some negatively - and all we’re asking is that each of the governments take a look at the rallies and make their own determination,” Leath said.
Thompson responded by saying that the Bikefest is a source of revenue for the town, and that replacing that income will be his first consideration in considering any changes. Last year, former Town Manager Charles Williams said the town took in about $33,000 more in vendor fees than it paid in police support, toilets and cleanup - or about 4 percent of the town’s $800,000 annual income.
In years past, the event has alternately been a source of either new debts or, occasionally, higher revenue.
Mayor Retha Pierce said she does not think the town should make any “massive changes.”
“I look at Bikefest as a tradition for the people, something that they look forward to, something that’s part of their culture, so to speak,” Pierce said.
Public sentiment expressed at the meeting was on Pierce’s side, as six people from an audience of 40 spoke in favor of the rallies.
“If they don’t go to Myrtle Beach, they can come to Atlantic Beach,” said town resident Rosa Stanley. “We welcome them.”
“You look at us sometimes in our vests and leather, and you get intimidated,” said Hervey Carter of Carolina Forest, one of several rally supporters from outside Atlantic Beach who attended the meeting. “Why get intimidated? We’re just like you.”
The discussion comes in the midst of yet another emerging financial crisis for the town. Because the town has not completed an audit in three years, it has run afoul of a new state law and is now in danger of losing any tax money collected by the state on its behalf.
goldiron