This top link is correct. Although far more complicated reading that it needs to be. It happened to me...I got the "snitch" notice, ignored it. And my DMV record is fine.

 

So as to if you choose to pay or not that is up to you. Part of the reason I run no front plate is to avoid some of these questions(even though I'm way more religious about stopping at stop signs/lights than most people....some have even claimed OCD on it. )

But the old trick that people used to question revolves around this requirement.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40518.htm

In short the government is required to deliver mail to your current address within 15 days of the violation. If they do not then it is an improper notice to appear. The trick is can they prove that it was delivered in that time frame. Now if you respond to that first notice then it's easier for them to prove you you received it. If for instance you get pulled over or DMV held for some time later then you can claim you never received the notice. They obviously can't send you a new one since it would be in violation of said CVC and be an improper notice. So then the issue comes down to, can they prove that the notice was delivered to you within 15 days of the violation. If they had a Sheriff deliver it to you personally then you're screwed. If they sent it certified mail with return receipt and you signed for it(or someone from your household), you are also likely screwed. If they sent it certified mail you may or may not be screwed. Since the certified record says it's delivered but that may or may not be proof.

Now I suspect and it used to be the case that they don't use certified mail(and obviously not sheriffs), if they don't then they don't have proof of delivery. Now they may have proof of mailing, but mailing is not delivery and the law clearly says delivery. Mail does get lost. And if it's been some time since the violation, what are the odds that the proof of delivery is still around? If it's not they cannot prove it was delivered in time then the notification is invalid.

If you've ever wondered why they make you sign your ticket when you get one this is why. So you have a proper notification of a violation.

As always anytime you do something like this there's always a decent chance you will have to go through a bunch of hassle even if you are innocent and sometimes even if innocent, you can still get screwed by the system.

I have not personally used this strategy but it is what I would do should I be presented with such a violation. Again part of the reason I run no front plate is so I don't have as great a chance of having to deal with this mess.

 

Yes, without reasonable doubt, the judge & person checking the photos (their name is listed in the citation) have to be able to identify the drivers face. If they cannot, then they will not be able to issue a ticket. If they do & you go to court & they cannot match the photo to the driver's face, then typically the case is dismissed & you will receive a refund of the ticket fees you paid.
[/quote]

JP, I'm 99% sure that is a negative, they do NOT need to see your face. Basically their assumption is that you are the driver. If you are not the driver, they will WHO IS the driver. So either you lie and get in bigger trouble or if it is a friend, relative then you have to turn their info to the police.

I'm not sure about the time frame but anything you can use to fight the ticket is worth a shot IMO. Just don't expect to win unless you are really lucky. Every jurisdiction has their own rules so what works for one person won't work for another.

The ONLY WAY TO TRULY beat the red light camera is to not run ANY plates all together. I had a few buddies do this and the one bad luck day I was driving his car, I get busted by Fremont PD and the car got impounded and I got arrested. So take your chance or obey the law. In my experience (which I hate to admit is pretty vast) I would say if you get a red light ticket, you are guilty till proven innocent. Add up the days you have to take off work plus any other costs and most people just pay and move on with their life.

So YES I stand by my statement most cities make tons of money with these red light cameras. There will always be exceptions but this is the general rule.

P.S. I work with Redflex so I know how they work but won't post anything here about them.

 

Hi Rick, thanks for the info. I've heard other stories from people that have won their case. Their face was not fully recognizable due to sunglasses, sun visor or some sort of distortion/blockage in the drivers face. Im sure it varies case by case. As to the who; I would try to plea the 5th if I dont want to answer. I wouldnt know the solid results to these nor do I think it would be black/white; more on a case by case.

Im still waiting to hear back from my written declaration; its been a long time & havent heard back so Im not sure whats going on. I'll call in to the number listed on my ticket & see whats up.

 

Well, finally checked my mailbox today & I guess my case was dismissed. I didnt do anything special but do what I mentioned above - written declaration with my statement. The photos & video was not clear in showing the drivers face of the vehicle; in such I stated that without reasonable doubt - are you able to identify me personally as the driver of the vehicle?

Now I just need to figure out how to get my money back! "Play your cards right".

EDIT:

Just got through more of my mail - got this letter on 9/9 & received a check on 9/16 for the full amount I paid in fees.

 

Congrats dude! You win!

 

nice JP!

 

And that's exactly why they're a legal processing time money pit on the state. Well played good sir.

 

Thanks guys!

My additional advice to anyone in similar predicaments (IMHO); research, read & ask questions. Educate yourself. Eventually, you'll find a consistent answer & pattern amongst all your collected content & with a little lucky maybe things will line up right.

 

^^^ Well played. The law is the law and it is appropriate that your case be dismissed if it cannot be proven beyond doubt.