Big D

Baldwin Park, CA

#41 Nov 5, 2012
They should take those shits off
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#42 Nov 5, 2012
Your 600 bucks went to Arizona.. The Baldwin Park city Idiots passed a resolution to boycott Arizona but still does business with them.

Welcome to Baldwin Park, Keep your kids inside there is a serious all out gang war going on right now.

Oh and when you vote next, Make sure you don't vote for any of the sitting idiots.
Eva

Los Angeles, CA

#43 Dec 9, 2012
So I recently received a red light camera ticket on Baldwin park and Ramona, The car that I was driving was my dads so he got the ticket, obviously the person in the car was not him, so I identifed myself as the driver so now I'm the person with ticket and after reading all this information about the cameras I don't know what to do??Should I just ignore it but what if something happens to my drivers licsense. I'm a full time student with no job and no money, and financial aid pays for my school, and by the way this is my first ticket
Eva

Los Angeles, CA

#44 Dec 9, 2012
I received this ticket on October 21 and must respond by January 17 2013
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#45 Dec 9, 2012
Most of the cities including Los Angeles has dumped their red light camera programs because of court decisions that have called them unconstitutional and a number of other legal issues.

These other cities like Baldwin Park have kept their programs to pay some of their pensions , perks and payroll.

The sad part is that most of your fine will go to a company in Arizona.

Thats right the money that you would normally spend in your community will go to Arizona.

The red light program will most likely continue to take thousands of dollars out of the local economy until enough citizens band together and go to the council meetings and demand they get rid of this program.

It can be done.. two years ago we had 300 residents attend a council meeting demanding change in the cities tow policy.

It worked the new policy did away with the 30 day impound and it prohibited the police from keeping wallets, cell phones and other personal property from drivers who car would be impounded.

The power is with the people. they just need to speak up.
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#46 Jan 1, 2013
The city council in San Bernardino, California voted 5 to 0 last week to pull the plug on its red light camera program. The action follows the lead of a growing number of jurisdictions in the Golden State that have grown disillusioned with automated ticketing machines. Most recently, Rocklin‘s cameras were shut off last Tuesday.

San Bernardino first installed cameras at four intersections in 2005, sparking a number of controversies in its history. In 2008, the city was caught with illegally short yellow times that maximized the number of citations generated. Fixing the signal timing dropped the system’s profitability. In 2009, the city dropped a “cost neutrality” clause from its contract after an Orange County court ruled that the provision violated state law (view ruling). This change left the city open to losing, instead of making, money on the red light camera program. The final blow came in December 2010 when a San Bernardino County court ruled that photo ticket evidence was inadmissible hearsay

Dozens of cities have ended photo enforcement. These include Loma Linda and Whittier, Moreno Valley, Rocklin, San Carlos, Union City, Yucaipa and Costa Mesa. In November 2010, 73 percent of Anaheim residents voted to ban cameras. Berkeley, Burlingame, Cupertino, Compton, El Monte, Fairfield, Fresno, Fullerton, Indian Wells, Irvine, Maywood, Montclair, Paramount, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Roseville, San Jose (photo radar), Santa Fe Springs, Santa Maria, Santa Rosa, and Upland have rejected their automated ticketing programs.
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#47 Jan 1, 2013
Fourth California County Rejects Red Light Camera Evidence
Courts representing a quarter of the California population question the admissibility of red light camera evidence.

San Bernardino CourthouseA consensus is growing among the appellate divisions of the California Superior Court that red light camera evidence currently offered by private companies does not meet the appropriate legal standard of proof. In December, a three-judge appeals panel in San Bernardino handed down a unanimous decision reversing the photo ticket issued to motorist John Macias.

Macias received a ticket in the mail after his car was photographed in Victorville on January 10, 2009 making a slow right-hand turn at a light that had been red for 0.36 seconds. His attorney, Robert D. Conaway, argued that when San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy Baker testified as a witness against Macias, Baker had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. As such, his evidence was hearsay.

Baker countered that he had attended a 20-hour seminar provided by Redflex Traffic Systems, the for-profit Australian company that runs all aspects of the photo ticketing program for Victorville. Under questioning, Baker had no idea whether the photographs he brought to court had ever been encrypted or compressed. He did not know whether the Redflex technicians who worked on the camera system were certified or qualified in any way. The trial judge found Baker's testimony sufficient and convicted Macias. The three-judge panel disagreed, insisting that Baker's evidence was not sufficient under the law.

"He did not, and could not, attest that the photos or videos were true representations of what they purported to depict because he had no such personal knowledge," the appellate judges wrote. "In short, Deputy Baker failed to provide any of the evidence necessary to lay a foundation for the admission of the photographs or the videotape into evidence... Accordingly, the evidence was inadmissible under the Evidence Code section 1401, and the trial court abused its discretion by admitting it. In the absence of any admissible evidence to support the conviction, the judgment must be reversed."

As photo enforcement lobbyists predicted, the US Supreme Court's Melendez-Diaz case underscoring the importance of the Confrontation Clause has undermined the ability of automated ticketing machines to operate the in the Golden State. Appellate divisions in Alameda, Kern, Orange, and San Mateo counties have also found the images presented in court by private vendors to be inadmissible hearsay. In addition, San Diego's trial court has handed down rulings following the same reasoning. While the decisions only have precedential value, when published, in these counties, the jurisdictions cover a population of over 10 million.

A copy of the decision, courtesy of the highwayrobbery.net website, is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File California v. Macias (California Superior Court, Appellate Divison, 12/21/2010)
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#48 Jan 1, 2013
12/12/2008
California Appellate Court Declares Red Light Camera Contracts Illegal
More than forty California cities have red light camera contracts of the type declared illegal by appellate court judge.
Orange County Superior CourtMillions in red light camera ticket revenue is in jeopardy following a ruling by the Appellate Division of the California Superior Court in Orange County. At least forty cities across the state depend on so-called "cost neutrality" clauses in their contracts with the private companies that operate red light camera programs. These provisions are designed to sidestep a state law prohibiting compensation payments to the companies based on the number of tickets issued. The appellate court last month dismissed the ticket of a Fullerton woman because the city issued a ticket under such a cost neutrality arrangement.
"The purpose of the statute is to avoid an incentive to the camera operator, as a neutral evaluator of evidence, to increase the number of citations issued and paid through the use of the equipment," Presiding Judge Robert J. Moss wrote.
Fullerton hired Nestor Traffic Systems (NTS) in January 2007 to operate the city's lucrative traffic safety program. As part of Fullerton's agreement with the firm, Nestor would perform an annual assessment of the flat-rate annual fee paid for the company's ticketing services.
"[Nestor] agrees to renegotiate its service fees (down or up, but not to exceed the service fees in Section 4.1) if it is determined that fees paid to NTS exceed net program revenues being realized," the Fullerton photo ticketing contract states.
In 2001, a San Diego, California Superior Court ruling found the common practice of having a city pay a financial bounty for each red light camera ticket issued had undermined the integrity of the system. In response, the state legislature mandated that all photo enforcement contracts signed after January 2004 must be flat rate. That means any payment method, "based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated" is prohibited. Judge Moss did not believe Fullerton's contract followed either the letter or the spirit of the law.
"The possibility that fees could be negotiated 'down' if it is determined fees paid to NTS exceed 'net program revenues being realized,' indirectly ties fees to NTS to the amount of revenue generated from the program," Moss explained. "If insufficient revenue is generated to cover the monthly fee, the fee could be 'negotiated down.' As such, NTS has an incentive to ensure sufficient revenues are generated to cover the monthly fee."
The ruling is thought to be the first of its kind on the subject. An appeals court ruling earlier this year passed over the topic in a decision that bolstered the photo ticketing program. The Moss ruling sets a precedent that a photo ticket issued under an illegal contract is inadmissible as evidence.
"Because the city's contract with Nestor Traffic Systems violated Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g), the trial court erred in admitting evidence from the automated enforcement system," Judge Moss concluded. "The judgment of the trial court is reversed with instructions to dismiss the citation."
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#49 Jan 1, 2013
12/12/2008
California Appellate Court Declares Red Light Camera Contracts Illegal
More than forty California cities have red light camera contracts of the type declared illegal by appellate court judge.

Orange County Superior CourtMillions in red light camera ticket revenue is in jeopardy following a ruling by the Appellate Division of the California Superior Court in Orange County. At least forty cities across the state depend on so-called "cost neutrality" clauses in their contracts with the private companies that operate red light camera programs. These provisions are designed to sidestep a state law prohibiting compensation payments to the companies based on the number of tickets issued. The appellate court last month dismissed the ticket of a Fullerton woman because the city issued a ticket under such a cost neutrality arrangement.

Highwayrobbery.net has examined the contracts of several photo enforcement programs across California and determined that the following cities used similar cost neutrality clauses: Baldwin Park, Bell Gardens, Capitola, Cathedral City, Citrus Heights, Corona, Covina, Culver City, Daly City, Davis, Escondido, Gardena, Glendale, Grand Terrace, Highland, Laguna Woods, Lancaster, Loma Linda, Los Alamitos, MRCA, MTA/Metro, Marysville, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Modesto, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Napa, Newark, Oroville, Rancho Cucamonga, Redding, Redwood City, Riverside, Rocklin, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Juan Capistrano, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Rafael, Santa Maria, City of South San Francisco, Union City, Ventura, Victorville, Walnut, Yucaipa and Yuba City.
The full text of the ruling is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: PDF File California v. Franco (Appellate Division, Superior Court of California , 11/21/2008)
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#50 Jan 1, 2013
What Baldwin Park is on the list.

When will our city idiots get rid of these illegal camera.

They loose money on the program. It has a tremendous negative impact on the community.

What this program does, It takes money out of the community and sends it to Scottsdale Arizona.

That's money that could be spent in the community.

We just can not afford to let these Bozo's and Bimbo's continue to impact our economic recovery.

It is unbelievable that Baldwin Park ignores our Court decisions.

Hey Bozo Lozano, Your camera's are illegal.

What a stupid ass bitch you are.
USAF Enlistee

West Covina, CA

#51 Jan 28, 2013
So...I got one for making an "Illegal Red Light Right Turn" on Ramona and Francisquito about 4 weeks ago. The worst part is, I got another a couple of hours ago. The first one is to be payed in February, and am yet to receive the next one in the mail.

The bottom line: Is it just ethically irresponsible for me to pay, or can I just not pay and live with being hassled by collection companies?
City Boss

West Covina, CA

#52 Jan 28, 2013
USAF Enlistee wrote:
So...I got one for making an "Illegal Red Light Right Turn" on Ramona and Francisquito about 4 weeks ago. The worst part is, I got another a couple of hours ago. The first one is to be payed in February, and am yet to receive the next one in the mail.
The bottom line: Is it just ethically irresponsible for me to pay, or can I just not pay and live with being hassled by collection companies?
Baldwin Park says fukyou very much for your service.
Alexia

La Puente, CA

#53 Mar 31, 2013
I just got my picture taken today with that dumb camera thiNg here in Baldwin park. Will I be receiving a ticket? And if I do will I have to go to court and pay for it....
Car Parker

West Covina, CA

#54 Apr 1, 2013
Alexia if you live in Baldwin Park have your family and friends vote every one of your councilmen out of office. You need your money more than a company in Arizona.

AB 666 -- also known as the “Devil’s Bill” by the opposition -- was introduced by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski in Sacramento early February, and would make the process of settling a red light camera ticket a civil process rather than criminal, meaning a driver wouldn’t have the right to a trial.

Last July, the red light camera ticket program through which tickets could get as high as $500 was shut down. Payment of the violations was already voluntary as of 2011.

With the new bill, a judge would not oversee the case, and the owner of the car would be responsible to pay the ticket regardless of whether the owner was driving or not.

“The problem is you don’t have the same right in an administrative hearing as you would in a court of law,” said Jay Beeber, an opponent of the bill and founder of the website www.StopAB666.com .“The ticket is the only evidence that has to be presented against you.
DiamondDave

Sylmar, CA

#55 May 17, 2013
Here's how my incident went. I claimed not guilty and requested a court appearance. I wanted to fight how I could not be confronted by my accuser since my accuser is an electronic system and no law enforcement personnel witnessed the incident. I also wanted to question how video evidence is only from behind my vehicle and does not show exactly where my tires are in respect to the line. I appeared in court and noticed that the majority of the camera tickets were dismissed without calling anyone up. The remainder of the camera ticket people were told to meet a B.P. Police representative in the hallway to reference the video evidence. I saw some people were told by the representative where they were caught on video and asked how they wanted to plead, I think everyone should have plead not guilty and requested to appear before the judge or commissioner rather than wimp out in front of the officer. I was shown my video, the officer said he could clearly tell it was me in the video but would dismiss the violation because the clarity would not stand in court. I left feeling that from the moment the ticket is issued it is assumed by the city that people will just pay up after receiving the citation or cave in at the court. Yes you will not be actively pursued if you do not respond to the citation but the citation does not disappear, the decision not to persue is related to the stance by the county of L.A. that video or picture evidence does not prove the person receiving the citation is correct. I have seen plenty of businesses that will fight your citation if you file for a written trial, there seems to be some success with this option, cost varies up to $100. I hope anyone would not just give in but at least attempt to fight this type of ticket. It is my belief that he majority of the citations are dismissed.
Maddog2020

Los Angeles, CA

#56 Aug 19, 2013
Thanks for all the posts guys! I got my red light ticket last August at the corner of Dalewood and Puente in Baldwin Park. Because I didn't have the money I got it postponed and my court date is this Friday. I'm hoping that with all the time that has passed things have changed and I can have it dismissed.
Based on what you guys are saying I am most likely going to request a trial. Since I already went to traffic school a couple years ago the automated system said I was not eligible so that's probably my only option. I'll post after I go to court. Besides Diamond Dave, has anyone else gone to court on one of these recently?
adelcr55

El Monte, CA

#57 Nov 20, 2013
how did it end up going MAddog2020? I just got a ticket from the intersection of ramona and baldwin park blvd. The car is registered in my moms name but i am the one in the photo.
Chuy

La Puente, CA

#58 Dec 19, 2013
I turn on the corner of Ramona and fracisquito wild and ambulance was coming, cars were honking at me so I turn and the camara flas like crazy. Now the question is who got the ticket me or the car in back of me
2014sansan

Tustin, CA

#59 Jul 18, 2014
Wow! I just received a camera ticket for failing to stop before turning intersection on Ramona and Francisquito in Baldwin Park. I viewed my online video and it clearly shows my car making a stop.
Frustrating!
Destiney714

United States

#60 Dec 29, 2014
I received a red light ticket on Ramona Blvd & Francisquito ave, on the ticket it says Bladwin Park/ Los Angeles & I hear & read that L.A county tickets are no longer inforced anymore. I'm so paranoid I hear people say not to pay it to forget about it... On the ticket it states that I didn't stop on a red light when clearly on the ticket they send me there's a picture of my car stopped at the red light uugghh.... HELP WHAT SHOULD I DO????

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Baldwin Park Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cwa 1 hr OGpassing 1
BPUSD misconduct of officials and employees goe... (Sep '07) 2 hr The Facts 2,450
Soccer League Going Down School District Forced... 13 hr Stephanieluv 43
Soccer League Closing for Investigation on Tax ... 14 hr Illegals Bye Bye 15
Pacheco's Soccer buddies get Special Electric R... 14 hr Illegals Rip Offs 2
Baldwin Park Soccer League Needs Back Ground Ch... 14 hr Illegals go home 11
Mama Tuttle Does BP (Dallas) 22 hr Tuttle is sick 2

Baldwin Park News Video

Baldwin Park Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Baldwin Park People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:40 am PST