Murrieta residents will decide the issue of whether or not to keep red light cameras this fall after an appeals court today issued a stay of a previous order that would have kept the measure off the November ballot.
Diana Serafin (r.) explains her petition to get a measure banning red light cameras within Murrieta to a resident in June, 2011. (File photo: Rocky Salmon/SWRNN)
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal today announced a stay of Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia’s decision handed down on Aug. 3, that deemed the ballot initiative illegal.
The decision has been stayed pending further determination of the petition and its merits.
Read: Petition to ban red light cameras in Murrieta gaining speed
Citing flaws in the measure, Judge Ottolia’s Aug. 3 judgment was swiftly appealed on behalf of opponents of the red light cameras and Murrieta resident Diana Serafin by attorney Peter Lepiscopo.
Serafin sought to ban the red light cameras and, after collecting thousands of signatures, filed the initial petition to have the measure placed on November’s ballot, citing the expense of operation and a violation of civil rights.
Serafin declined to comment on today’s ruling on the advice of her attorney.
Read: Murrieta City Council to decide future of red-light camera program
Resident Steve Flynn, who’d worked to put the cameras in place when he served as Murrieta Traffic commissioner, sought to take the matter out of voters’ hands altogether with a lawsuit filed in June, asserting that matters of traffic regulation are a statewide concern.
It was based on that filing that Judge Ottolia issued his decision last week.
Read: Murrieta residents weigh in on red light camera controversy
Murrieta has three red light cameras — one at the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood roads, one at Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita roads, and another at Clinton Keith Road and Nutmeg Street.
Kerri S. Mabee can be reached at kerri.mabee@swrnn.com. Follow me on Twitter @kerrimabee.
Loading ...
If initiative process is not successful, there is another way to get rid of the cameras: Economics. Make them unprofitable for cities. How?
1. Educate your friends about Snitch Tickets, so that they don’t respond to them. They are fake/phishing red light camera “tickets” mailed out by California police to fool the registered owner into identifying the actual driver of the car. One city sends out about 10,000 of them annually. (In SoCal, Bakersfield, Corona, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Garden Grove, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Oceanside, Poway, Riverside, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Solana Beach, South Gate and Vista use them.) Snitch Tickets have not been filed with the court, so they don’t say “Notice to Appear,” don’t have the court’s addr. and phone #, and usually say (on the back, in small letters), “Do not contact the court about this notice.” Since they have NOT been filed with the court, they have no legal weight whatsoever. You can ignore a Snitch Ticket. If in doubt, Google the term.
2. Also let you friends know that REAL tickets issued by cities in LA County can be ignored, because the LA County court does not report ignored tickets to the DMV. (Please also emphasize to your friends that this info applies only to tickets from cities that are in LA County.)
If you take the time to educate your friends about these things, you may find that suddenly you are eating better. Friends will be buying you lunch after they realize that you have just saved them $500.
If this decision holds until election day and the initiative is on the ballot, it is almost certain the cameras will lose. Cameras have lost 23 of 24 votes so far (96%) because people understand the predatory revenue nature of ticket cameras.
Be SURE you vote on the initiative and get all your friends and family out to the polls to vote these predatory red light camera cash registers out of existence in Murietta.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI