Rekte

Viktors Andris Rekte received a citation by mail for a violation of Vehicle Code section 21453, subdivision (a), for failing to stop at a red light, based on a photograph taken pursuant to the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES). At trial, the court overruled in limine objections to the admission of the photographic evidence on foundational grounds. Thereafter, defendant presented expert testimony to rebut the presumption of the reliability of the photographic evidence due to noncompliance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD or Manual). The trial court found defendant guilty of the offense. Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division of the Riverside County Superior Court, arguing, among other things, that the presumptions established by Evidence Code sections 1552 and 1553, affecting the burden of producing evidence, were rebutted. The appellate division affirmed the judgment and subsequently certified the matter for transfer to this court. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

Prior to the commencement of trial, defendant made an in limine motion to exclude the photographic and video evidence on grounds (1) the yellow light interval did not…

Dissenting. — I dissent. I would affirm because substantial evidence shows defendant and appellant Victors Anders Rekte ran the red light, as charged, on October 26, 2012, and was therefore guilty of violating Vehicle Code section 21453, subdivision (a).

Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, Evidence Code sections 1552 and 1553 do not require reversal of the judgment. The defense expert, Sean Stockwell, testified that the “yellow light interval,” or the amount of time the yellow light was on before the light turned red, was only 3.5 seconds, plus or minus 0.07 seconds, or less than the 3.6 seconds required by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This testimony was relevant to whether defendant had sufficient time to stop before the light turned red, but the testimony in no way indicated that the critical still photographs and the time stamps on those photographs did not show what they purported to show: defendant running the red light.

Indeed, the Automated Traffic Enforcement System-generated photographs and time stamps were presumptively accurate (Evid. Code, §§ 1552, 1553), and showed defendant traversing the intersection when the light was red (Veh.…

BACKGROUND

Prior to the commencement of trial, defendant made an in limine motion to

exclude the photographic and video evidence on grounds: (1) the yellow light interval

did not conform with the standards required by the MUTCD; (2) the defendant was not

provided with pretrial discovery of the video clip upon which the ATES citation was

based; and (3) the geometry of the intersection and placement angles of the ATES

equipment and traffic signals obscured the view of a substantial portion of the traffic

signal light.

The trial court denied the in limine motion. Defendant also objected to the

foundational statement and introduction of the evidence of the videotape, or the

declarations of any Redflex employee, which objections were overruled. The matter

2 proceeded to trial with Operator Teagarden appearing on behalf of the City of Riverside.1

Operator Don Teagarden is a retired Riverside Sheriff’s Department deputy. Since May

2010, he has been employed by the Riverside Police Department to review violations of

the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES).2 The automated camera system

captures drivers who enter an intersection while facing a red traffic light. The…