

(Fighting) Your Ticket Page:

- 3 -

"It's Not Me!"



Is the Ticket from a City in LA County, or from a Camera near a LA County MTA Busway or Light Rail Line?

In June of 2011 we found out that the LA County Superior Court has not been reporting ignored tickets to the DMV! For info about the option to ignore LA County red light camera tickets, go to Set # 2 on the LA County Documents page.



If it's not you in the photo, you don't have to identify the person driving.

Is your name on the ticket, but it's someone else in the picture? In California, these tickets can put a point on your driver's license, so they have to have a picture of your face. A picture of your license plate doesn't establish that you personally did the crime - it only establishes that your car did it, and anyone could have been driving your car. There are two different "It's not me!" situations.

(1) If the police sent you a paper that looks like a ticket, but it doesn't give the name and full address of the Court, or it says, "Do not contact the court" (in small print on the back of the page), it may not be a real ticket at all; it may be a fake ticket, what I call a "Snitch Ticket." Go to the section titled "Police Going Too Far...," above, to read about those.

(2) If your ticket gives the name and full address of the Court and says you are to go there or "respond to" the Court by a certain date, that's a genuine ticket - keep reading here.

It's a Real Ticket - but "It's Not Me!"

Is the mismatch between the person ticketed and the actual driver really obvious, like a combined age AND gender mismatch?

If so, be sure to let me know about your ticket.

The easiest way to dispose of an "It's not me!" ticket is to give the police the name of the person who was actually driving. But if you don't want to turn them in, you don't have to.





Even though there is no law

requiring you to identify the driver,

most police departments, and even some courts,

will tell you that you must.

Sometimes it is OK for the police to make such a false/misleading statement - they are allowed to lie, in order to investigate crime and get criminals to confess.

But it is not OK for the court to do so.

( If you want to read more about why you don't have to ID the driver, scroll way down to the subsection titled "It's Not Me!" - Why You Don't have to ID the Driver. )

"It's Not Me!" - First (Optional) Step (of four): Contact the Police ? Please be sure to read this First Step, even though contacting the police is totally optional. And, before you take any action under this First Step, please read all of the Second Step, below. If the ticket is in your name but it's not you in the photo, and the photo is sufficiently clear that a comparison between it and your driver's license photo would raise a strong doubt that it was you driving the car, you could call the police phone number that is usually printed somewhere on the ticket, and ask them to dismiss the ticket. (Please note that doing this - contacting the police - is optional.) If you get repeated busy signals, no reply to voicemails you have left, or end up talking to a clerk who keeps saying, "Please identify the driver," you could try calling the Traffic Division at the police department directly, via the city hall operator, and asking for the officer who signed your ticket - or his boss. And, you could, as many defendants do, make an appointment and go to the police department in person in hopes that you can convince them to dismiss your ticket.

Caveats - Beware!



1. You can "dummy up" and refuse to tell the police who was driving your car, but it is illegal to send them on a Wild Goose Chase by filling-out the affidavit (a.k.a. "Section D") with the name of someone who doesn't exist.



2. If you were the driver but are not named on the ticket, you should not be the one to contact the police. Leave that to the registered owner ("R.O."), or whoever is named on the ticket.



3. Once your "It's not me!" ticket has been dismissed against you, the police are free to issue the ticket to someone else. They have several ways to find the other driver. If their workload allows them the time, they can use their computer to look at all driver's licenses with the same mailing address as yours, and compare the photos. If that doesn't work, they can pull up the citation history for your car, check out any old tickets issued to someone other than you, and look at the photos of those drivers. Or look around on your Facebook page.



4. When you are named on the ticket but it was not you driving, it is actually better if the face photo is a clear one. Some judges, when presented with a blurry photo and an "Are you sure it's me?" motion from a defendant who hasn't volunteered to identify the driver, will find the defendant "guilty" anyway. Here is a transcript (Hawthorne) where the judge came very close to doing that.



5. If you have filled out the affidavit and sent it in, but have not been able to confirm that the ticket against you has been dismissed, you still will have to take action by the "Respond to the Court" date shown on the ticket - or before the expiration of any extension you have obtained.



First Step, continued... Notes from Defendants The first of these notes suggests that contacting the police may be a waste of time, or it could even make things worse! "I phoned the police department for my mother in order to have them dismiss any action against her (my 82 year old father was driving). After harassing me to give him the name of the driver (and my refusal to do so), the police officer was able to look up my father's driver's license photo [since his license was at the same address as my mother's]. The citation came in the mail a few days later."

A visit to the PD:



"The picture of the driver in my ticket was blurry so I went to meet with the police to review the video and zoomed-in photos. Immediately, the person there was convinced that I couldn't have been the person driving. Like your website stated many times, this person insisted that I identify who was driving the vehicle. This person explicitly told me that the responsibility to ID the driver was on my shoulders. I didn't want to argue with the police officer at this time so I remained silent and gave a blank look. My only intention today was to gather data and observe reaction. I then asked a simple question about contesting the ticket. Without answering my question, this person told me not to ask for a court date but instead ID the driver and let the new person go to court instead. They further threatened that if I did not ID the other driver, they will look up all drivers at my residence and try to do a matching. [See the purple "Caveats" box, above, about "matching."] I told them politely to go ahead and do it, and left the building."



In most cities, there's a lot of arm twisting going on!



Another phone call to the PD:



"I received a red light ticket in the mail. The picture was not clear. The ticket was issued in June but I didn't get the notice until October. They had an incorrect address. I called the # on the ticket (it was a real ticket, not a Snitch Ticket) and spoke to the officer. I told him that it wasn't me. I asked if HIS picture was clear. He told me it was crystal clear (a lie). I said that in that case I would go to court and get a court date and we would have the judge decide if it was me or not. He said that if I would work with him he could take care of it over the phone. I said what can you do? He put me on hold for several minutes and came back and told me that they had a new system and it was hard to figure out (another lie), and to hold on again. I held for several more minutes until he came back on and said, 'Since it isn't you I will dismiss it right now.'"

Another visit to the PD - with narrative by the defendant and his mom. The defendant wrote:



"I appeared at the red light police officer's office. He asked me who was driving and when I said it was not me he drilled me as to who was in the picture. He kept telling me I must know the person and needed to tell him. Then another officer came over, told me he thought I was protecting a family member and said I must know who it was and that I needed to tell him. Thanks to your website, I learned the law does not require me to say anything other than ' it is not me.' "

From the defendant's mom: "My son explained that he has a sister and maybe one of her friends took the car to go out for pizza or something, and went on to state he rarely if ever comes to [the city where the violation occurred] for any purpose (it is about 40 miles from his residence) and again reminded the officer he was there because he needs to have this ticket removed from his DMV driving record and it was preventing him from renewing his license. The first officer again said, 'Who was driving? You had to know, you got to know who is driving your car.' My son replied respectfully, 'Hey guys, I know it is not me.' He mentioned again that he needed the ticket dismissed so that he could renew his license. The main officer then said 'Well, I guess we have no choice but to dismiss it.' "

The defendant wrote: "These guys really work overtime to force you to say who was driving. They would not give me anything in writing that I could take to a judge to expedite the [renewal of my license]."

First Step, continued...



Based upon emails I've received from defendants, many police departments are threatening, like the ones depicted above - or worse. But there could be exceptions. Here is the letter one department (West Hollywood) sent to a defendant who had a question about his "It's not me!" ticket.

"This is not a problem for you. If you are not the driver of the vehicle, then you are not guilty of anything. The law simply requires that we mail these citations to the registered owner of the photographed vehicle.

"The easiest way to resolve this problem is to come in and see me. I take appointments every Wednesday between 9:30 and 11:30 am. I take walk-ins as well as scheduled appointments. I'll examine the photos and if you are not the defendant or if the photograph is not legible, then I'll dismiss it. It's that simple and the process takes less than 2 minutes. We are located at the West Hollywood Sheriff's Station 720 N. San Vicente Blvd West Hollywood, CA 90069. Phone (310) 855-8850 ext. 505." You do not have to tell the police who the driver was, either when you are talking to them, or by filling out the spaces on the back of the ticket. One police department has even admitted that on TV...

"...sure, we think that you should identify the violator.... But there's no law that says you have to do that."

Bakersfield Police Public Information Officer Det. Mary DeGeare, on KGET, July 20, 2005.



The full text of the story is below. Or watch it.



Anchor Robin Mangarin: Red light cameras can catch you red handed, but what if you weren't the one behind the wheel? Should you be compelled to snitch on your wife or kids if they get caught running a red light? KGET-17's Kiyoshi Tomono has the story of a Bakersfield man who faced that very dilemma.

Reporter Kiyoshi Tomono: A flash of light and suddenly you're caught on camera and getting a ticket for running a red light. It happened to local lawyer Bill Slocumb. Thing is, neither he nor his wife was behind the wheel.

"My stepdaughter ran the red light southbound on Coffee Road onto Truxtun Avenue," said Slocumb.

But Slocumb's wife got the $350 ticket.

In the same envelope was a form encouraging the couple to divulge who may have been driving if it wasn't them.

They decided to fight in court.

Slocumb said the judge didn't push the issue and dismissed the ticket, but the Bakersfield police still wanted to know who was driving.

"The officer who apparently runs the red light program demanded [during a phone conversation before the court session] to know the name of the driver, the address of the driver, whether I knew if she was a California licensed driver or not, and we simply told him that we were not interested in providing that information," said Slocumb.

But does the officer's request or the city's form have any teeth?

Police said it's a matter of civic duty and safety.

"If someone is driving your car and they run the red light and they [or you] get the notification, sure, we think that you should identify the violator," said Det. Mary DeGeare from the Bakersfield Police Department. "It's an infraction. It's a red light violation. But there's no law that says you have to do that."

DeGeare said not being able to identify the driver is not the norm.

"There's a process in place that helps us identify who the driver is," she said. "We're able to compare, usually, the violator's photo to their driver's license photo."

Reporter Tomono: Bottom line, read the fine print.

Slocumb said he thinks he's lucky because he's a lawyer.

"I guess it was a happy ending and we moved on with our lives," he said.

From KGET-TV, with emphasis added, and with clarifying notes in [ ].

First Step, more...



While you're there, get your Late Time!

And, write down the names of the officers you talked with.

(That info may come in handy later.)



If you have decided to visit the police, and your ticket was issued by one of the Nestor/ATS cities that doesn't print the Late Time on the ticket, or by an ACS camera that prints it so small and fuzzy that you can't read it, then while you are at the station be sure to ask the police to show you your Late Time.

(For more info about these tickets with missing or illegible Late Times, see Defect # 5 and the How to Read Your Late Time box in Defect # 7.)





First Step, almost done...



If It Obviously wasn't You, Should the Police Even have Filed the Charges ?



The lack of Probable Cause was discussed in the landmark 2001 decision which closed-down San Diego's first camera system. The judge wrote:



"Gender Mismatches"

"The most disturbing testimony at this hearing came from Officer Smalley who testified that even when he had a 95 percent belief that the individual in the photograph was not the registered owner because of a fairly obvious gender difference, he would issue the citation on the theory that he was not 100 percent certain. This procedure has been halted over the objection of Officer Smalley. The police now do not issue citations where there is an obvious gender discrepancy between the driver and registered owner. Further, the prosecution has moved to dismiss the gender mismatch cases pending in this court. Therefore, there is no need to analyze whether such a prior procedure constituted outrageous governmental conduct."

From Section III(B)(2) of Judge Ronald Styn's Aug. 15, 2001 ruling in People v. John Allen.



In 2014 there was another trial court decision about Probable Cause, in People v. Tho--. Also see Defect # 10 - E (on the Home page) and Set # 16 on the Culver City Docs page.



Some recent contracts specify that where there is a gender mismatch, the police are to mail out a fake/Snitch Ticket rather than filing charges (a Notice to Appear) at the court.





This defendant got his gender mismatch ticket dismissed by writing to the PD:



"Dear Officer ______, On Sept. 4, 2007 I spoke to you regarding citation # _______ which you issued to me on Aug. 14, 2007. In that conversation I informed you that I was living in (another state) and had been since April of 2007 and that I had not received the photo evidence used by you to issue the citation. After you stated to me that It couldn't be you because it is a female driving the car, it was mutually agreed that the driver of the vehicle shown in the photo was not the same person named in the citation. You then asked me to nominate the driver . I replied that I would not nominate anyone without seeing the photos first. I requested that you send me a copy of the photographic evidence so that I could review it. I have received the photos and after careful review I am unable to identify the driver shown in the photos. The photo quality is very poor and the driver appears to be wearing large sunglasses that cover most of the face. I am unable to positively identify the person driving in the photo you sent me and therefore cannot nominate the driver of the vehicle.

I am enclosing a color photocopy of my valid Calif. Drivers License and my valid (other state's) Identification Card. Both can be verified through DMV records. Both have a clear photo of myself. When compared to the driver in the photographic evidence you sent me there is clearly no evidence that the person named in the citation is the same person driving the vehicle on the date and time indicated. Based on the comparison of the citation photo and the ID / CDL photos included I hereby request that you dismiss the citation.

Respectfully,





If you visited the police but they refused to dismiss your ticket despite an obvious gender or age mismatch, and there is no way they would be able to find out who was driving your car (see the purple "Caveats" box, above), you could file a claim against the city for the wages you will lose while attending court due to their "outrageous governmental conduct." If you file the claim well before your scheduled arraignment date, maybe the city attorney will figure out that it's best to dismiss your case before your claim mounts up. Claim forms can be obtained by phoning the city attorney's office. Or, you could contact the "public integrity" or "justice system integrity" division of the local district attorney's office, and complain to them. Or, you could contact the Bar Association and file a complaint against the city attorney or city prosecutor, for filing charges despite a lack of Probable Cause.



Here is a diagram of what can happen in a city that does not use Snitch Tickets.





"R.O." is registered owner. Also read the big purple "Sneaky Lies" box, just below.



Before you take any action under this First Step, please read all of the Second Step, below.

"It's Not Me!" - Second (Optional) Step (of four): Get an Arraignment Date ?

The New "No Bail" Privilege Could Be a Trap for You!

A June 2015 amendment to the Rules of Court allows defendants to schedule a "not guilty" court trial without posting bail. But be warned: If a defendant sets up a trial date without posting bail and then fails to show up for the trial, the judge is likely to issue a bench warrant and/or suspend the defendant's license. So, defendants who are not so good about making it to important appointments should think twice before taking advantage of the new "no bail" privilege.



It does not apply to Trial by Declaration.

It does not apply to trials requested by mail.

Rule 4.105 at the California Courts website

Report considered by the Judicial Council prior to its adoption of the new rule

More info about the new "no bail" privilege:It does not apply to Trial by Declaration.It does not apply to trials requested by mail.

If you decided not to contact the police, or you did and the police refused to dismiss, "twisted your arm" to try to get you to identify the driver, or are just dragging their feet and wasting your time, you could call the court and get an arraignment date. (If it is inconvenient for you to come to an in-court arraignment in person, don't make an arraignment date. Instead, see the "It's Not Me!" - Third (Optional) Step: Trial by Declaration section, below.)



If you're not sure what an arraignment is, see the big green Confusing Courthouse Terminology box, further down this page. Then come back here!



And, if you have never been to traffic court before, you might want to read this article about it, to get the "feel" of what traffic court is like.

Sneaky Lies Encountered While Handling It's Not Me! Tickets







2) On the back of some real tickets (a Notice to Appear), it may say that you "must" fill out the form. That sort of deceptive language is OK on a fake ticket, but not OK on a real ticket - because a real ticket is a court document, with a court-prescribed format. If you receive a real ticket saying that you must fill out the form and identify the driver, please let me know right away. The position of the word "must" is important. It's OK if it says,

"If you were not the driver, complete the Identify New Driver form and return it in the enclosed envelope. You must complete all the information regarding this citation for your name to be considered for dismissal. If you do not complete all the required fields, this citation will remain in your name." 3) Sometimes the city's website will say that you "must" identify the driver. Let me know if you see a website saying that.





City of Corona website as of Sept. 23, 2009, emphasis added.

4) When you call some courts, you may get a recording that tells you, if you were not the driver, that you must identify the driver. Or, it may say to call the "Traffic Violations Bureau" or the "Traffic Enforcement Office," which will turn out to be the office of the camera company that is working for the city. And the attendant there will tell you that you must identify the driver. See this example from



5) If you access the website for some courts, you may see a statement saying that you must identify the driver. See these examples from



1) If the Court's address and phone number are not on the ticket, the ticket may not be real! It could be a Snitch Ticket, as described in the "Police Going Too Far..." section, above. On the back of many of these fake tickets it says that you "must" fill out the form and identify the driver. You don't have to!2) On the back of some real tickets (a Notice to Appear), it may say that you "must" fill out the form. That sort of deceptive language is OK on a fake ticket, but not OK on a real ticket - because a real ticket is a court document, with a court-prescribed format. If you receive a real ticket saying that you must fill out the form and identify the driver, please let me know right away. Theof the word "must" is important. It's OK if it says,3) Sometimes the city's website will say that you "must" identify the driver. Let me know if you see a website saying that.4) When you call some courts, you may get a recording that tells you, if you were not the driver, that youidentify the driver. Or, it may say to call the "Traffic Violations Bureau" or the "Traffic Enforcement Office," which will turn out to be the office of the camera company that is working for the city. And the attendant there will tell you that youidentify the driver. See this example from San Diego, Docs Set # 5 5) If you access the website for some courts, you may see a statement saying that youidentify the driver. See these examples from Marysville, Docs Set # 1 , and Bakersfield Docs Set # 12 . Let me know if you see a court website saying you must identify the driver. camera companies + police + courts =







I went to the SF Hall of Justice today to request a trial (based on Its not me). The clerk immediately asked me if I was driving, and when I said no she said, You have to fill this out and tell who it was. I told her I didnt want to do that and that I wanted a trial. You cant have a trial unless you tell who it was, which I knew wasnt true. I said, I believe Im not obliged to say who it was, and I can have a trial. She said, Theyre just gonna make you tell them at the trial, and I said, I believe I am not legally required to say. After that she more or less threw a sheet at me and told me to pick a trial date. 7) Most often, the pressure tactics and refusals described in # 6 above are verbal - but there are instances of written refusals. In the Sacramento County court, motorists who wish to do a Trial by Declaration (TBD) are required to fill out a form admitting that they were the driver. More info about that is in Set # 6 on the

We are returning your payment for the automated red light citation

listed above due to the following reason:

Enclosed is (your) check/money order



X You have indicated that you were not driving the vehicle

at the time of the violation.



Please complete the "Affidavit of Non-Liability" form attached and

return to Automated Red Light Enforcement, P.O. Box 3997, Burbank

CA 91508-3997.

The citation will be re-issued to the person you have identified as the

driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. The driver of the

vehicle will be instructed to submit payment for the re-issued citation

when he/she receives the citation in the mail. This process will ensure

proper bail posting and/or further citation disposition if required. The

citation will be cancelled and no further action is required by you.

Please fill out affidavit with the person driving the vehicle at the time

of the citation. Once this process is done the driver will receive a

ticket in his name with bail. Then he can pay or appear in court. To

get a copy of the picture you may contact the Red Light Enforcement

Agency at (866) 334-2156.

If you cannot identify the driver, please call (213) 742-1884 to set a

court date.



Thank you

[no signature or identifier of the clerk who generated the notice]

8) Even some judges and their courtroom clerks will "twist your arm" to try to get you to identify the driver, either during your arraignment appearance, or sometimes even at your





6) Even those innocent-looking courthouse phone/window clerks may have been trained to try to get you to identify the driver! Many have been instructed to refuse your request for a TBD or an arraignment or trial date, to tell you that if it was not you driving the car, you cannot have a TBD or arraignment or trial. They insist that you must either fill-out and submit the affadavit, or contact the police. Here's an example:7) Most often, the pressure tactics and refusals described in # 6 above are- but there are instances ofrefusals. In the Sacramento County court, motorists who wish to do a Trial by Declaration (TBD) are required to fill out a form admitting that they were the driver. More info about that is in Set # 6 on the Sacramento Docs page. In Los Angeles County, some motorists who have mailed in an "identity" TBD to the court have had everything sent back - including their check - along with a form letter saying:8) Even someand their courtroom clerks will "twist your arm" to try to get you to identify the driver, either during your arraignment appearance, or sometimes even at your trial (Hawthorne) If you encounter misdirection, false statements or arm-twisting when you phone or visit the court or its website,

please send me all available details.





Runaround by the court staff:



"I had success for a red light ticket issued by the _____ Police Dept. I happened not to be the driver of the car, so I ignored the advice of many police and court employees, and followed your advice to request a trial and plead the "not me" defense. My initial attempts to get the ticket dismissed by ticket issuing authorities failed. The driver was a female with blonde hair, I am a male with no hair. It was pretty obvious that I wasn't the violator, but the police continued to play hardball to get me to submit the name of the driver in the ticket picture. I kept pressing for a trial. It took multiple calls to multiple agencies before I began to get any information regarding a court trial. I kept getting the story that a trial wasn't an option and that I had to ID the driver to get out of the ticket. I eventually got the appropriate information, mailed in two requests for a court date, and submitted bail. On a follow up call two weeks after my second request for a court trial, I spoke to a supervisor in the courthouse. He forwarded my request to the police for review. I think he was hesitant to assign a trial date because he understood the futility of a trial. A few days after speaking to the courthouse supervisor, I received my bail check and a note indicating that the police had dismissed the ticket. Success thanks to you and your website."



If you encounter arm-twisting and/or false statements coming from a court clerk or a judge, please send me all available details!



I wrote back and asked this defendant what his ticket looked like, and he replied:

"The front of my red light ticket followed the official format - the court's address and phone number were supplied on the front of the ticket; however, the back of my ticket (highlighting added by highwayrobbery.net), which give instructions for handling the ticket, provided vague and misleading information. The instructions that I received from the ticket handling agency in Arizona, the police, and the Superior Court, was to either pay the ticket or provide the required information of the driver of the car in the picture. No additional options were mentioned to me. This was told to me by a minimum of eight different people. The cop at the PD was both loud and insistent on this point. I was told on several occasions by clerks at the Superior Court that they COULD NOT give me a court date unless I agreed to being the person pictured in the car. Here was their rationale:

' The purpose of a trial is to judge the guilt or innocence of the person driving the car. As I was not the person driving the car, I could not request a trial. Only the driver pictured in the ticket could request a trial. Please provide the name and CDL# of the driver and they can request a trial.'

Only after insisting to speak to a supervisor or the supervisor of the supervisor, was I given instructions for requesting a court date."



The editor of highwayrobbery.net phoned this same court, and got the same runaround. With two different clerks! And, looking at the back of the defendant's ticket, there were four prominent mentions of "complete the affidavit" (a.k.a. "Section D") and only one mention, in the smallest type size, of the availability of a court hearing.

( A request you could make at arraignment would be for your ticket to be moved to a different courthouse. See Change of Venue on the Challenges page. )



Second Step, continued...



You could take your ticket with you to your arraignment and tell the judge, "Not guilty - identity" or, "Not guilty - wrong defendant."

Even though this verbal approach could end up being a waste of your time, here are details.



Saying only the correct words is important - a judge can't force you to identify who it is in the photo, unless you give up your right to not testify - by testifying. So, you may want to avoid making statements that the judge might consider to be testimony, such as, "I was not driving the car," or even "It's not me!" (Maybe I need to change the title of this section!)



If you know that it actually is you in the photo, you definitely can't say "It's not me!" as that would be perjury. See FAQ # 21 on the Links page for more information about perjury.



As soon as he hears you question identity at arraignment, a good** judge will ask to look at your copy of the ticket (or he may ask the bailiff to look at it) - after all, all judges know that they're not supposed to send an obviously "wrong defendant" to a trial. Then he may dismiss the ticket.



Here's an example of a good judge.



"I got whacked with a collection letter for almost $700. I called the collectors and found out I'd been charged with a camera violation. I called the cops and asked for the photo ticket that I never received (must have been mailed to my former address in another state). The officer e-mailed me the ticket. When I saw it, it was quite clear that my wife was the driver -- though the ticket was issued to me (as per my registration of course). The picture was clearly a female driver. My name is Ralph -- clearly a man's name. Anyhow, after reading through your site, I decided to go down to the police station and ask them to drop the charge. The officer there said, 'No problem, just gimme the name of the cupcake driving and I'll be happy to drop the charge against you.' Disgusted, I turned on my feet and walked out. To which the officer said quite threateningly, 'Good luck in court, pal.'

The arraignment date came, I saw the judge -- entered my plea of 'not guilty - identity.' He asked if the basis of my defense was that I wasn't the operator. I nodded. He asked if I had a copy of the ticket. I gave it to the bailiff, the bailiff gave it to the judge. He looked at it for a millisecond, and dismissed the case. Nice judge. BAD cop. It's like you said, a good judge doesn't wanna waste their or my time on a cr--shoot with no evidence."



Here's an example of a bad judge. A clever bad judge.



"When the judge called my name, I plead not guilty and told the judge I was not the driver. She looked up and asked for my ticket and my driver license. After looking at it for a while, she said, 'It is too blurry, you might have to set up a trial.' And then she said: 'Let me help you out here. Im not going to ask you who was the driver, but do you know who that person is?' I did not know what to respond so I kept silent, she asked me twice and she got a little bit upset, saying that's OK, you dont have to take the help from me, Ill just put not guilty here and you can go ahead and pay your bail and set up a court trial.



A good** judge won't ask "Who is it?" But if your judge does, remind him that you have pled "not guilty" and have not given up your right to not testify, and ask him (politely, "With all due respect...") to either dismiss the case, or set it for trial, or Trial by Declaration. (If the judge refuses to dismiss the case, and you can't afford putting up the full fine amount as bail, then you may want to consider taking advantage of the new "no bail" privilege.)



If you ended up pleading "not guilty," you will next need to see the courtroom clerk, who will give you papers documenting what your trial date will be and also will collect the bail, if you need to post it. This is supposed to be a straightforward and businesslike transaction, but if your judge is one of those who asks "Who is it?," you may encounter more of the same from the clerk! The clerk may try to intimidate you into filling out the form disclosing who the driver was; he may even say that you must fill it out. If telling him that you know that you don't have to fill out the form doesn't stop the pressure, simply tell the clerk that you'd like to see the judge again, to verify what the clerk has told you.



If the arraignment judge said that he thought it might be your face in the photo, and you responded by asking for a trial, then in the days after the arraignment you may want to do a Peremptory Challenge, so that you will have a different judge at the trial of your "It's Not Me!" ticket.



Second Step, continued... More Info about Arraignment



**With an "It's not me!" ticket, the outcome depends upon the fairness of the judge. If you would like to move your case away from a particular judge, or even totally away from the local courthouse, see Peremptory Challenge and Change of Venue, on the Challenges page.



In the past, many arraignment judges had a computer terminal on their bench, giving them instant access (via the Internet) to the camera company's digital copies of ticket photos. Before the arrival of these computers, when a defendant at arraignment told them "Not guilty - wrong defendant!" or "Not guilty - identity," the arraignment judges had to make their decision based upon looking at the face photo printed on the defendant's copy of the ticket. Many of those photos were poorly printed and indistinct, so the judge often had to tell the defendant to plead "not guilty" and come back for a trial.

Now it is rare to see a judge do these computerized comparisons, because using the computer took an extra minute of the judges' time, and also made it much easier for It's Not Me defendants to get a dismissal "on the spot" without having to come back for a trial.

"It's Not Me!" - Third (Optional) Step (of four): Do a Trial by Declaration ? Trial by Declaration ("TBD") on an "It's not me!" ticket is suitable for either of these two situations:

(1) The mismatch between you and the driver is very clear, and it is inconvenient for you to come in for a court appearance, or

(2) You wish to exercise your right to have the question of identity considered multiple times - at arraignment, in a TBD, and possibly in a Trial de Novo.

Trial by Declaration is discussed at the end of the Handling Your Ticket section near the bottom of this web page, under the heading "TBD Situation # 3."

"It's Not Me!" - Fourth Step (of four): Trial



If it is inconvenient for you to come to a court trial in person, don't make a trial date right away. You could try a Trial by Declaration (above).



If you are going to a trial on an "It's not me!" ticket, you should read all of Defect # 1 on the Home page, and also the Handling Your Ticket section, below.



"If there is any other advice to give readers please advise them

to park in a lot or a garage vs. at meters. I lost count of the number

of people I encountered who had to leave the courtroom to go feed their meter

and missed out on important information. Plus, the whole time they were stressing

about their meter instead of paying attention to what was happening in the courtroom."



Once you get to the courthouse for your trial, hang on tight! The officer who is there representing the city knows that a police agency is not supposed to file charges against someone when there is strong evidence that someone else committed the crime - in other words, a lack of Probable Cause. The officer also knows that if he does so, repeatedly, a judge may "call" him on it, as these judges did.



"Gender Mismatches"

"The most disturbing testimony at this hearing came from Officer Smalley who testified that even when he had a 95 percent belief that the individual in the photograph was not the registered owner because of a fairly obvious gender difference, he would issue the citation on the theory that he was not 100 percent certain. This procedure has been halted over the objection of Officer Smalley. The police now do not issue citations where there is an obvious gender discrepancy between the driver and registered owner. Further, the prosecution has moved to dismiss the gender mismatch cases pending in this court. Therefore, there is no need to analyze whether such a prior procedure constituted outrageous governmental conduct."

From Section III(B)(2) of Judge Ronald Styn's Aug. 15, 2001 order in People v. John Allen, the landmark case that closed-down San Diego's first red light camera system.



Another trial court decision about the lack of Probable Cause is the 2014 decision in People v. Tho--. Also see Defect # 10 - E on the Home page and Set # 16 on the Culver City Docs page.



The officer knows that he needs to avoid letting the trial go to the point where the judge sees the obvious mismatch between your face and the face in the photo on the ticket. The officer's plan will be to wait for your case to be called, and then once you are walking forward, to quickly ask the court to dismiss the case. But he also knows that the average defendant doesn't know about these problems, so in the minutes before the courtroom doors open and/or the judge comes in, the officer will try to bluff you into giving up, changing your plea to "guilty." See the trial examples below, written by other defendants. If that bluff doesn't work, then he (with the assistance of the court) will also try to "bribe" you into giving up: Before the judge comes in, many bailiffs offer traffic school to everyone there who has not had it in the last 18 months. They don't have to make that offer - once you plead "not guilty" the granting of traffic school is optional, at the judge's discretion - but it works to the court's advantage as it gets a lot of defendants to leave so that there's not so many cases to be heard.



At a trial, the judge can't force you to identify who it is in the photo, unless you give up your right to not testify - by testifying. So, you may want to avoid testifying, or making statements that the judge might consider to be testimony, such as, "I was not driving the car," or even "It's not me!"



At a trial, the burden of proof is on the People, so the officer will talk first. After the officer has shown his evidence to the judge and it is your turn to talk, you could make a motion by saying, "Your honor, are you sure it's me?"

Or, "Your honor, I request dismissal because the pictures do not show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was me driving the vehicle."

Or, even more formally, "I move to dismiss, on the grounds that the prosecution has not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the element of identification of the driver."

Or, "Your honor, would you convict a bank robbery suspect on such blurry photos? This also is a criminal matter... the burden of proof is the same."



Whichever of the above wordings you decide to use, write it down ahead of time, and then when you get to court, read it to the judge Don't ad lib !



If you want to be very sure that the judge understands that you are not testifying, you could tell the judge, before you make the motion above, that you don't intend to testify, that you plan to remain silent (except for making the motion). Or, you could substitute the words "the defendant" or "this defendant" wherever "me" or "I" occurs in the motion.



If, despite all your precautions, the judge asks you if you were the driver, one or both of the following replies would be appropriate.

"Your honor, that's a factual determination for the court to make."

"Your honor, I'm exercising my right to remain silent."



If the judge claims that the wording you used ("Are you sure it's me," etc.) was testimony and that by saying those words you gave up your right to remain silent - and so won't stop asking you who the driver was - you could point out to him that the wording you used was identical to what a lawyer representing (a silent) you would have said if the pronouns "me" and "I" were changed into "my client," that you spoke those words while acting as your own lawyer, not as testimony - and that you retain your right to remain silent. The judge should understand that what a lawyer says is not testimony.



I strongly recommend that you make a request that your trial be recorded. Otherwise, some judges will trample all over you. It is best to make the request ahead of time, before the trial date.





Examples of "It's Not Me!" Trials



1. This defendant had to take her (obvious) gender mismatch ticket all the way to a court trial.



"My boyfriend had been driving my car. It was NOT a Snitch Ticket. They had actually submitted it to the court under my name even though the driver was obviously a male. The officer either didn't care to check, or, more likely, thought I would cough up the name of the driver. Everyone associated with these red light cameras had always assured us that an officer of the law would review the picture and if the driver didn't match the owner of the car, they wouldn't ticket the owner. Liars.

So, having read highwayrobbery.net, I knew what to do. I went to the arraignment and pleaded, "NOT GUILTY, WRONG DEFENDANT." The judge didn't bother to review the evidence and arraigned me - THE WRONG DEFENDANT ! I always thought they had to arraign the accused. I was proven wrong.

Note: at the courthouse, everyone I talked to asked me if I wanted to "nominate" someone else as the driver. I always answered, "I am not going to testify." They never pressed for a name after I said that.

I showed up for trial. About 20 minutes before our scheduled court time a cop showed up and asked everyone there for a red light camera ticket to step over to him. He then called us one by one and offered to show us the infraction on video. I declined. That seemed to throw him off. Make a note: do NOT let the cops schmooze you.

Anyway, there were a lot of "gender mismatches." In the hallway, before the cop got to me, I witnessed another cop schmoozing another woman. She had obviously never visited highwayrobbery.net. They were trying to coerce her to give up the name of the driver. I don't know the resolution of her case...

[When it was my turn] the cop pointed to the blanked-off picture of the front seat passenger and asked, "Is that you?" I answered, "Yes." I don't recommend that, however. You could do the "I'm not going to testify" even here; even though this is outside of court and thus not testimony, it could be entered as "admission." I'm not sure that would hurt since you could still choose, once the trial started, to not testify. So they still couldn't force you to cough up the driver's name.

Next the cop pointed to the driver and asked, "Who is that?" I answered, "I am not going to testify." The cop said OK and directed me to enter the courtroom and wait till my name was called. Next, to the trial. The judge called my name. As I was walking up to the podium, the cop moved for dismissal based on "gender mismatch." The judge granted it, and I was out!"





2. Here's a defendant who showed up for trial and was given the "Third Degree" by the police. The defendant's story points out how careful you have to be when being interviewed by (or negotiating with) the police. (Remember, you can "dummy up" and refuse to tell the police who was driving your car - you could even tell them that you don't want to talk to them at all outside of trial - but it is illegal to give them false information or send them on a Wild Goose Chase.)



"I just got back from my trial appointment and my case was DISMISSED! I followed your advice to the letter, I held firm, it got a little heated and the officer had the audacity to claim I was making false statements. Heres how it went down.

The line was ridiculous by the way. Before you see the trial judge they send you to see the video or photo in a different department. After waiting about half an hour, I had the privilege of being interviewed by Officer R. Wiggums, from the city's police department.

We sat.

OFFICER: Whos that? (Pointing to person in photo, obviously not me.)

ME: I want to see a judge.

OFFICER: Whats going on?

ME: I want to see a judge.

OFFICER: Well, we need to get some information first. Tell me whos in the photo.

ME: I already told you I want to see a judge.

OFFICER (serious now): Okay, let me tell you whats gonna happen if you dont tell me who it is. Im gonna do a Lexis-Nexis search on your address and if I find out who it is, Im gonna file charges against you for making false statements, filing a false report.

ME (angry): I didnt make any false statements. I told you, I want to see a judge.

OFFICER: Are you telling me you dont know who this is?

ME: Im telling you I want to see a judge.

OFFICER: And what are you gonna tell the judge when he asks you who it is?

ME (angry): When the judge asks me, Ill respond to the judge.

OFFICER: Okay relax, Im just trying to straighten this out and help you out.

ME (angry): No, youre not. You just threatened me.

OFFICER: I didnt threaten you. I just told you whats going to happen.

ME (angry): Well I consider saying I made false statements a threat. Im here for trial, thats what Im here for!

OFFICER: Okay, Im gonna dismiss your case, but youll be hearing from the D.A."





3. Here's a case where the officer may have manipulated the evidence.



"My ticket was made out to me, a 55 year old male. The driver appeared to be a young female. I had read your site, but was not prepared for what happened at the trial.

Before the trial began, the officer showed me the photos and the video. At no time did I see the photo of the driver. I quietly asked the officer where the driver was, and he pointed to the blackened windshield which showed no driver. I said nothing else and waited for the officer to present the information to the judge.

I fully expected that the judge would ask for the photo identifying the accused. Incredibly, he did not. He turned to me and asked if I had any testimony. I replied that I did not, except for the fact that the officer did not present evidence that identified the driver. Instead of asking the officer to present the information, the judge asked me, "So are you saying that you are not the driver?" I sort of panicked and said "yes" while hoping that my answer would not be considered as testimony. At this point, he asked me for my license. This seemed like he was now helping the prosecution, but I gave it to the bailiff anyway. The judge then said he would look at his computer to see if the images were any clearer. I again said nothing while thinking that he should ONLY rely upon the evidence presented by the officer.

In the end, he found me not guilty due to me not being the driver. He then advised me that the officer may question me about who the other driver was and threw in more legal talk that seemed to include my Miranda rights. I sat for a minute, and received my paperwork as the officer approached to quietly question me before I left. I had seen this tactic before with other defendants, so I said nothing to him and walked toward the door. I heard him say that we could just talk out in the hall. Out in the hall he said, "So, who is the driver?" I turned to him and said, "That is information I am not going to provide." He just threw up his hands and left.

It occurred to me later that the officer chose not to print the photo of the driver, and edited the video so that it would also not identify the driver, which would have of course exonerated me."



"It's Not Me!" - Why You Don't have to ID the Driver A judge can't force you to identify who it is in the photo, unless you give up your right to not testify.



On trial days, one judge (now retired) told the assembled defendants:



"There is one defense that I call the always-win-never-lose defense, pretty much an absolute defense in these tickets, and that defense is if you're not the driver of the vehicle. Deputy Porche has two things that he has to prove to this court, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt this morning in each of your cases. First, he must prove that a vehicle went through a red light. Second, he must prove that you, the person cited, were the driver of the car. The primary way that he proves that you were the driver is with the photograph or the photographs. If the photographs are not photographs of you driving the car he has not met his burden of proof, you're 'not guilty,' end of case, we don't waste any time on those cases."

From: WeHo Trial Transcript



Here is an excerpt from a law review article, which says the same thing but in more formal terms:

"In every case, a registered owner will be acquitted if the prosecution does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner was driving. [Footnote 48] The existing 1995 law does not shift the burden of proof to the registered owner. [Footnote 49] The owner must simply proceed through the established procedures for contesting a traffic citation; the burdens of production and persuasion remain with the State of California."



"Footnote 48: See Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1096 (declaring that, in a criminal proceeding, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the state)..."

"Footnote 49: See Cal. Vehicle Code Sec. 21455.5(c) (stating no requirement that the defendant bear any burden of proof in defending herself against a charge for violating California Vehicle Code Sec. 21453(a))."

From: Stop! Photographic Enforcement of Red Lights, by Steven Tafoya Naumchik, McGeorge Law Review 1999, page 838 (Cite as: 30 McGeorge L. Rev. 833)



And here is the same message, in a "real life example."

A convenience store clerk is shot. The police examine the bullets and match the lands and grooves to information they have on file about a gun owned by you. The security tape shows that the robber was alone and the picture is clear enough so that anyone can see it's not you, but the police charge you with the shooting anyway and you are hauled into court. Your lawyer tells the judge it's not you on the tape. The judge looks at the tape, and agrees. Should he immediately dismiss the case, or would it be OK for him to delay letting you go, and question you as to who the robber was?



Some people think it should be OK to delay - that a lot more crimes would be solved if such arm-twisting was legal. But so far, it isn't. No judge would dare try such a tactic with a defendant represented by a lawyer, but some judges can't resist doing it to "pro per" defendants in traffic court.



In some other countries this right - to refuse to identify who was driving - does not exist. In England, if you refuse to identify the driver, they will double your demerit points!





If you are going to a trial on an "It's not me!" ticket, you should also read all of Defect # 1 on the Home page.

End of Section 3, "It's Not Me!"