California courts continue to find the evidence provided by photo enforcement citations to be lacking.
Mon, 01/10/2011 - 4:46pm
 |
 18 years
|
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/01/california-appellat...
California courts continue to find the evidence provided by photo enforcement citations to be lacking. In both Orange, and San Mateo Counties, appellate division judges found the images presented in court by private vendors to be inadmissible hearsay. Late last month, Kern County joined the growing number of jurisdictions troubled by the quality of traffic camera evidence packages.
Duh!
Could be that because the Kalif Evidence Code states that only a person can testify in court.
And as some of us know, a picture ain't a person.
A person can use a picture to help explain to the court what the scene looked like. But the picture is inadmissible in and of itself, unless the person that took the picture is present.
If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there.
Good!
I don't see why much of the photographic/video evidence should be considered trustworthy, as the redlight camera operators often have a financial incentive to falsify the data.