(Thanks to Photo Radar Scam for link http://www.photoradarscam.com/news.php).

http://www.palisadespost.com/news/content.php?id=6563

Judge's Ruling Aids Case Against MRCA's Stop-Sign Cameras

By Sue Pascoe, Staff Writer

2011-04-14
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl West ruled on December 14 that a case against the Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority's (MRCA) use of stop-sign cameras could proceed. West's ruling is the precursor to a trial that could begin as early as this summer.

At issue is whether the MRCA must follow the California Vehicle Code on park roadways. Currently, $175 fines are levied under an administrative citation when motorists are photographed by cameras for failure to come to a complete stop at designated MRCA stop signs. There are five cameras at three park locations: two in Temescal Gateway Park, two in Franklin Canyon Park and one in Topanga.

'This is an early ruling and we intend to pursue this, take it to trial and win this case,' Laurie Collins, chief staff counsel for the MRCA, told the Palisadian-Post.

Since the December ruling, the MRCA has replaced its outside legal counsel (Richards, Watson & Gershon) with Gilchrist & Rutter, a Santa Monica law firm. Due to the replacement, the MRCA asked for and received a three-week extension in March before a trial date is set.

The case was originally filed as a class action lawsuit against the MRCA by attorney Michael Braun of the Braun Law Group, for Gareth Estwick, Jodi Bice and Phillip Robbins, Jr. on September 14, 2010. Estwick and Bice, former Westwood residents, received their tickets in Temescal Gateway Park.

In making his decision to proceed to trial, Judge West first looked at the California Vehicle Code (CVC) which states: 'No local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein,' and then at Senate Bill amendment 949 passed last summer: 'To the extent permitted by current state law, this section does not impair the current lawful authority of the MRCA, a joint powers authority or any member agency constituted therein as of July 1, 2010 to enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the management of public lands within its jurisdiction.'

Judge West wrote in his 21-page ruling, 'In synthesizing these statues and reading them in context, the Court is not persuaded by MRCA's position that it may, carte blanche, enforce its own ordinances where those ordinances would otherwise violate the CVC.'

The judge's interpretation of the amended version of the law was that the MRCA may only enforce ordinances on MRCA lands if it is already permitted by current state law.

West disagreed with MRCA lawyers who argued that the MRCA was not a local authority under the vehicle code because it was not a county or municipality. He wrote that even if the MRCA were not a local authority, 'It could not have been the Legislature's intent to permit the MRCA to establish a whole new scheme of traffic regulations, inconsistent with the Vehicle Code's express prohibition on photo radar for speed enforcement purposes.'

Once the judge decided that the MRCA could not trump state vehicle law, he then addressed whether money should be awarded to plaintiffs and whether attorney fees could be paid.

In making a decision, West addressed three topics: 1.) Did Estwick and Bice present their claims correctly through the Tort Claims Act? 2.) Did the three exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit? 3.) Are they entitled to claims because of 'unclean hands,' meaning they broke the law?

The judge found that Estwick and Bice did not comply with the Tort Claims Act and denied them money, but wrote, 'The Court will consider, at a subsequent stage, the right of Plaintiffs to add one or more class representatives seeking a return of funds paid to the MRCA who have complied with the Tort Claims Act filing requirements.'

As to the second question, the MRCA argued that administrative remedies were available because a hearing is available to anyone receiving a ticket.

The judge noted that the MRCA hearing officer was not allowed to consider anything other than five facts related to the citation, and that none of those deal with the legality of stop-sign cameras. West ruled that because of the circumstances, Estwick and Bice were excused from exhausting any administrative remedy before the MRCA.

MRCA wanted the matter thrown out because the plaintiffs broke the law (which they did not deny). The judge noted that the court was not persuaded by the 'unclean hands' argument at this time because the MRCA did not follow the Vehicle Code.

MRCA asked the Court to not award attorneys' fees, but the judge said he would entertain awarding fees under the 'substantial benefit' theory.

Estwick was happy with the ruling that will allow a trial to proceed. 'My primary goal is to get the MRCA to cease operation of the stop-sign camera,' said Estwick, who now lives in Orange County. 'Our assertion was always that they [MRCA] were not above California State traffic laws.'

When the cameras were installed in Temescal Gateway Park in the summer of 2007, local activist and former Beverly Hills city attorney Jack Allen predicted that MRCA's interpretation of traffic enforcement in the park would not withstand legal challenges that the stop-sign cameras were in violation of the Vehicle Code.

MRCA Executive Director Joe Edmiston appeared before the Community Council in January 2008 and told members, regarding the cameras in Temescal Canyon, 'It's true that this isn't done according to the Vehicle Code and for a good reason. That is an internal road or driveway, not a state roadway. Because this isn't a public road, we're held to a different standard.'

(Ban the Cams comment:  SURRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE,   I don't think so MRCA!)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview