People v. Goldsmith

• Decision Date: 05 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. S201443.,S201443.
• Citation: People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258, 326 P.3d 239, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 637 (Cal. 2014)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carmen GOLDSMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

59 Cal.4th 258

326 P.3d 239

172 Cal.Rptr.3d 637

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Carmen GOLDSMITH, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S201443.

Supreme Court of California

June 5, 2014.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Robert Cooper, Los Angeles; Law Offices of John J. Jackman and John J. Jackman for Defendant and Appellant.

Kin Wah Kung as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Joseph W. Singleton and Joseph William Singleton, Woodland Hills, for Mishel Rabiean as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

The Law Office of Richard Allen Baylis, R.A. Baylis & Associates, R. Allen Baylis, Huntington Beach; The Ticket Dump and Patrick T. Santos, North Hollywood, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker and Robert Cooper, Los Angeles, for David Martin as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Cal Saunders, City Attorney; Best Best & Krieger, Dean R. Derleth, John D. Higginbotham and Kira L. Klatchko, Indian Wells, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Joseph Straka, Interim City Attorney (Santa Ana), José Sandoval, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Melissa Crosthwaite, Deputy City Attorney, for City of Santa Ana as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, William Litvak and Caroline K. Castillo, Los Angeles, for City of West Hollywood, City of Beverly Hills and City of Culver City as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Gregory P. Barbee, Los Angeles, Michael D. Stewart, John M. Hynes, Jessica A. Johnson, Costa Mesa; Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart and Jason McEwen, Costa Mesa, for Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., and City of Garden Grove as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Richards, Watson & Gershon, T. Peter Pierce, Los Angeles, and Andrew J. Brady for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

CANTIL–SAKAUYE, C.J.

Defendant was cited for failing to stop at a red traffic light at an intersection located in the City of Inglewood in violation of Vehicle Code section 21453. She was found guilty of the traffic infraction based on evidence of several photographs and a 12–second video. The evidence was generated by an automated traffic enforcement system (ATES), in common parlance referred to as a red light traffic camera. Her conviction was upheld on appeal by both the appellate division of the superior court and the Court of Appeal. We granted review to consider defendant's claim that the trial court improperly admitted the ATES evidence over her objections of inadequate foundation and hearsay. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the officer's testimony in this case provided sufficient authentication to admit the ATES evidence and that the ATES evidence was not hearsay. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

BACKGROUND

A. Statutory authorization of ATES

Local governmental agencies are statutorily authorized to equip a traffic intersection with an ATES, if the system meets certain requirements. ( Veh.Code, § 21455.5.) Specifically, the system must be identified by signs visible to approaching traffic that clearly indicate the system's presence and the traffic signal light governing the intersection must have a minimum yellow light change interval as set by the state Department of Transportation for the designated approach speed. ( Veh.Code, § 21455.7.)

A city council or county board of supervisors proposing to install an ATES within its jurisdiction must conduct a public hearing on the proposal prior to entering into a contract for the use of an ATES. ( Veh.Code, § 21455.6, subd. (a).) If the proposal is adopted, the local jurisdiction must at each affected intersection "commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days" and must "also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program." ( Veh.Code, § 21455.5, subd. (b) ; see People v. Gray (2014) 58 Cal.4th 901, 904, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 319 P.3d 988.)

"Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate" an ATES. ( Veh.Code, § 21455.5, subd. (c).) To operate an ATES, the governmental agency, in cooperation with law enforcement, must develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violation citations, as well as for processing and storing confidential information. ( Veh.Code, § 21455.5, subd. (c)(1).) It must establish procedures to ensure compliance with such guidelines. (Ibid. ) The governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, must also (a) establish guidelines for selection of a location, (b) ensure that the equipment is regularly inspected, (c) certify that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated and is operating properly, (d) regularly inspect and maintain the warning signs, (e) oversee the establishment or change of signal phases and signal timing, and (f) maintain controls necessary to ensure that only those citations that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are delivered to violators. (Id., subd. (c)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), & (F).)

The statutory scheme allows the governmental agency to contract out these described operational activities or duties "if it maintains overall control and supervision of the system." ( Veh.Code, § 21455.5, subd. (d).) But this is subject to an important qualification. The governmental agency may not contract out to "the manufacturer or supplier of the automated traffic enforcement system" certain of the described duties. (Ibid. [providing that the activities specified in Veh.Code, § 21455.5, subd. (c) (1) & (2)(A), (D), (E), & (F) may not be contracted out to the ATES manufacturer or supplier].) The only duties that may be contracted out to the ATES manufacturer or supplier are the activities of "[e]nsuring that the equipment is regularly inspected" and "[c]ertifying that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated, and is operating properly." ( Veh.Code, § 21455.5, subds. (c)(2)(B), (C), (d).)

A contract between a governmental agency and an ATES manufacturer or supplier entered into, renewed, extended or amended on or after January 1, 2004, is statutorily prohibited from including a "provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment." ( Veh.Code, § 21455.5, subd. (h)(1) ; see id., former subd. (g), as amended by Stats.2003, ch. 511, § 1, p. 3923 [applicable at the time of defendant's citation].)

B. The evidence submitted in this case

A notice to appear was issued to defendant pursuant to the City of Inglewood's implementation of the automated traffic enforcement statutes we have described. ( Veh.Code, §§ 21455.5 – 21455.7.) The citation alleged that on March 13, 2009, defendant failed to stop at a red traffic light located at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Beach Avenue in the City of Inglewood (Inglewood). Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.

At the court trial held before a traffic commissioner, only one witness testified. Dean Young, an investigator with the Inglewood Police Department, testified that he was assigned to the traffic division in red light camera enforcement, and had more than six years of experience in that assignment. Young testified that defendant's citation was the result of the red light camera program first implemented by Inglewood in 2003.

Young testified that Inglewood's ATES was operated by the police department, but was maintained by Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (Redflex). Based on his experience and the knowledge that he acquired from city engineers regarding how the traffic signals and system work and from Redflex regarding how the ATES works, Young testified that the computer- based digital camera system operates "independently" and records events occurring within an intersection after the traffic signal has turned red. Young stated that the ATES information is stored as it is "reported" on the hard disc of a computer at the scene. According to Young, Redflex technicians retrieve that computerized information periodically throughout the day through an Internet connection. A police officer then reviews all photographs before a citation is printed or mailed.

Young explained the photos and video images that are recorded and produced by the ATES as follows. There are three photographs taken, plus a 12–second video. The first photograph taken by the ATES camera, referred to as a "previolation" photograph, shows the vehicle at or before the crosswalk or limit line for the intersection with the traffic signal shown in the background during its red phase. The second photograph, referred to as a "postviolation" photograph, shows the vehicle within the intersection either in the process of making a right turn or going straight through the intersection.

The third photograph shows the vehicle's license plate. A data bar is imprinted on all the photographs by the ATES to show the date, time, location, and how long the light had been red at the time of the photograph. The 12–second video shows the approach and progression of the vehicle through the intersection.

Young testified, based on the ATES evidence, that defendant's violation occurred at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Beach Avenue on Friday, March 13, 2009. It involved a "straight through movement" by defendant. Defendant objected that the photographs did not establish that she was the driver of the vehicle depicted in the photographs because the right eye and part of the forehead of the person shown in the photograph was obscured. The trial court stated that it was satisfied that the photograph depicted defendant as the driver.

Defendant then objected to Young's testimony on the grounds of lack of...