Red Light Camera Ticket with No 30 Day Notice Affirmed

In 2008, Steven Gray received a citation for entering the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Helms Avenue in Culver City on a red light in violation of Vehicle Code § 21453(a).  Mr. Gray received the ticket by a “red light camera” showing his car within the intersection when the traffic light for his direction of travel was red.  There was no debate that the driver of the car was him.
Without All the Details, What Happened?:  Red Light Camera Ticket in Culver City Affirmed Despite City Failing to Make Public Announcement and Comply With 30-Day Warning Notice Period.
Vehicle Code § 21455.5(b) obligated the city installing such a camera to make a public announcement concerning its installation and then have an initial 30-day period after installation during which warnings are given instead of citations.

The statute was vague as to whether this public announcement and 30-day warning period concern only the city’s first such red light camera or every red light camera later installed at different intersections.

Steven Gray put this statute’s interpretation to the test.  The red light camera that photographed him was installed two years earlier, in 2006.  The City of Culver City then immediately began issuing tickets.  It did not issue any type of public announcement or comply with the 30-day warning only period.

Gray first pled not guilty and sought dismissal, arguing that Culver City had failed to comply with Vehicle Code § 21455.5(b).  The Los Angeles County judge hearing his motion denied it ruling that the statute only applied to the city’s first installation of a red light camera.

The trial court then found Gray guilty of the charge.  Gray then appealed to the Appellate Division of The Los Angeles County Superior Court, which affirmed the trial court.  The appellate division disagreed with People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 9, which held that a public announcement and a 30-day period of warning notices were required for each installation of a red light camera.

Curiously, the Court of Appeal ordered the case referred to itself under California Code of Civil Procedure § 911 and California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1002.  It then affirmed the superior court appellate division.

Mr. Gray then appealed to the California Supreme Court.  It ruled in favor of Mr. Gray, insofar at least as Gray argued that a public announcement and 30 day warning notice period was required for each traffic light equipped with a red light camera.  However, it affirmed Gray’s conviction, rejecting Gray’s argument that his ticket was invalid because Culver City failed to comply with Vehicle Code § 21455.5(b)’s notice and warning period requirements.

The California Supreme Court’s analysis, in reaching this seemingly confusing result, made sense.  It reasoned that 21455.5(b)’s requirement of a 30 day period of warning notices was for the benefit of those violators whose red light violations took place at the specific intersection in question when the red light first became operational.  

The court continued, commenting that the announcement and 30-day warning period would not have benefited Mr. Gray because his violation took place two years later.  Had Gray’s ticket been issued during the 30-day period, however, it would have been invalid.  In other words, Culver City’s compliance with Vehicle Code § 21455.5(b) is not a jurisdictional requirement to enforcement of the red light traffic law.

Contact Greg Hill & Associates
Client Reviews
Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well.
★★★★★
Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him. S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards, L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help. V.L., Carson
★★★★★
Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot. C.R., Pomona
★★★★★