8/9/2019 ca-khaled

1/12

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE FILEDUSTICE CENTER: Central Justice CenterCivil Operations - Appellate Division SUPERIOR COURT OF CAl.IFORNIA700 Civic Center Dr. West COUNTY OF ORANGeSanta Ana, CA 92701 CENTRAl.. JlJltlCI: CeNTERMAY 9 !)

APPELLANT: Khaled ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of tne CourtRESPONDENT: People ' ,. J.GQMEZ ,DEPUTY

NOTICE OF FILING OF JUDGMENT/ORDER APPEAL CASE NUMBER:Appellate Division 30-2009-00304893TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER:SA128676PE

To the above named parties and their attorneys of record:You are notified that a Judgment in the above entitled matter was filed on: May 21. 2010A Copy of the Judgment is attached for reference.

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

R. Allen Baylis9042 Garfiled Ave. #306Huntington Beach, CA 92646

Anthony RackauckasO.C. District AttorneyP.O. Box 808Santa Ana, CA 92701

By Interoffice Delivery:Central Justice Center - Traffic -Han. Daniel Ornelas, Commissioner - CIO JAGHan. Erick L. Larsh - Supervising Judge - Dept. C55

I certify that I am not a party to this action and that this certificate was mailed in accordance with Section 10 13a ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of this Notice of Filing of Judgment/Orderwith a copy of the Judgment/Orderand Minute Order dated 5/25/10 were deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fullyprepaid addressed as shown above. The mailing and this certification occurred at Santa Ana, California, on May 25,2010

ALAN CARLSON, Clerk of the CourtJORGE GOMEZJ. Gomez, Deputy Clerk

NOTICE OF FILING OF JUDGMENT/ORDER

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

2/12

123456

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION MAY 2l201QAPPELLATE DIVI S ION 1lL.A1r;; e l ~ flfjRij f!@!jFt

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA flY J. @ : ~ COUNTY OF ORANGE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF7 CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 30-2009-304893

8 P l a i n t i f f andRespondent,9 vs.10KHALED,11 Defendant and

JUDGMENT ON APPEALfrom th eSUPERIOR COURTofORANGE COUNTYCENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

12 Appel lan t .

)))))))))))) HON. DANIEL M. ORNELASCOMMISSIONER----------------------------)3

14 This appeal invo lves an i s su e fa r too of t en presen ted to15 t h i s cour t , namely th e admiss ib i l i t y o f evidence and the16 s t a tu to r y compliance with th e procedures employed by sev e ra l17 munic ipa l i t i e s in t h i s county in what have come to be known as1819 "photo enforcement" c i t a t i o n s .20 On August 2, 2008, the pol i ce depar tment of th e City o f21 Santa Ana i ssued a t r a f f i c c i t a t i o n to th e ap p e l l an t a l l eg i n g a22 v i o l a t i o n o f Cal i fo rn ia Vehic le Code sec t ion 21453, subd iv is ion23 (a ) . A t r a f f i c trial was held on th e mat t e r . The prosecu t ion24 sought to e s t a b l i sh th e majo r i t y of the v io l a t i o n with a25 dec la ra t ion t h a t was in tended to suppor t th e in t roduct ion o f2627 photographs purpor t ing to show th e appel l an t d r iv ing through an28 i n t e r s ec t i o n aga ins t a red l i gh t . Appe l l an t objec ted to the

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

3/12

1 in t roduct ion o f the photographs and dec la ra t ion as inadmiss ible2 hearsay, and v io l a t i v e of a p p e l l a n t ' s confron ta t ion r i g h t s . The3 objec t ion was overru led and th e t r i a l judge admit ted th e45 photographs as business records , o f f i c i a l records , and because a6 proper founda t ion fo r the adrnission had been made based on th e7 submit ted dec la ra t ion .8 We hold t h a t the t r i a l co u r t erred in admi t t ing the9 photographs and th e accompanying dec la ra t ion over th e

10 appe l lan t ' s hearsay and confron ta t ion c l au se o b j ec t i o n s . Absent11 the photographs and content in th e dec la ra t ion , there i s1213 i n su f f i c i en t evidence to suppor t th e v io l a t i o n . Accordingly we14 reverse th e judgment . l15 I . Factual Summary16 The under ly ing fac t s jn t h i s case a re f a i r l y s imple . No17 pol ice o f f i c e r witnessed the a l l eged t r a f f i c v io la t ion .18 Ins tead , a pol i ce o f f i ce r t e s t i f i e d about the genera l a rea19 depic ted in a photograph token from a camera i n s t a l l e d a t an20

in te r sec t ion in Santa Ana.21 A p a r t i c u l a r pr iva te company

22 con t rac t s with th e munic ipa l i ty to i n s t a l l , main ta in , and s to re23 t h i s d i g i t a l photogrophic informat ion. The o f f i c e r t e s t i f i ed2425262728

these photographs are then per iod ica l ly sen t back to the pol icedepartment fo r review as poss ib le d r iv ing v io la t ions .

1 Appel lan t and r ea l par ty in i n t e r e s t , th e Ci ty o f Santa Ana addressi ssues regarding the prosecut ion of photo-enforcement cases in general andthe l ack o f no t ice in th i s case , t ha t we f ind unnecessa ry to address in l i g h tof the i n su f f i c i ency o f the evio2nce to sus ta in the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f inding.

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

4/12

1

23456789

1011121314

To be more s p ec i f i c , the photographs con ta in hearsay evidenceconcerning th e mat te rs depicted in th e photograph inc lud ing th edate , t ime, and other in format ion . The person who en tered t h a tr e l ev an t informat ion in to th e camera-computer system d id nott e s t i f y . The person who en tered t h a t informat ion was not sub jec tto be ing cross-examined on th e underlying source o f t h a tin fo rmat ion . The person or persons who maintain th e system d idnot t e s t i f y . No one with persona l knowledge t e s t i f i e d about howof ten the system i s mainta ined. No one with p erso n a l knowledget e s t i f i e d about how of ten the date and t ime a re v e r i f i ed orco r rec t ed . The custodian of records fo r th e company t h a tcon t rac t s with the c i ty to main ta in , moni tor , s to r e , and

15 disperse these photographs d id not t e s t i f y . The person with16 d i r ec t knowledge of the workings of the camera-computer system17181920

212223

did not t e s t i f y . Ins tead , th e prosecu t ion chose to submit th etes t imony o f a l oca l pol ice o f f i c e r , Santa Ana Pol ice Off icerAlan Berg. This witness t e s t i f i e d t h a t sometime in th e d i s t an tpas t , he a t t ended a t r a in ing sess ion where he was i n s t ruc ted onthe o v e r a l l working of the system a t th e t ime o f th e t r a in ing(See Se t t l e d Statement , page 1, l i n e s 24-26 (he rea f t e r SS 1:24-

24 26) . Off ice r Berg was unable to t e s t i f y about th e spec i f i c25262728

procedure fo r th e programming and s to rage of the systemin fo rmat ion .

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

5/12

123

456

I I . Ana l ys i sA. Admiss ib i l i ty o f video tape and photograph ic ev idence :These photo enforcement cases p resen t a unique f ac t u a l

s i t u a t i o n to t h e co u r t s regard ing the a d m i s s i b i l i t y ofvideo tapes and photographs . There are two t ypes of s i t u a t i o n s

7 where a videotape or photographs are t y p i ca l l y admit ted in to8 evidence where th e photographer or videographer does not9

1011121314151617181920212223

t e s t i f y . The f i r s t i nvo lves a su rv e i l l an ce camera a t a

commercial es tab l i shment (o f t en t imes a bank o r conveniencel i q u o r s t o r e ) . In those s i t u a t i o n s , a per son t e s t i f i e s to beingin the bu i ld ing and recount s th e even t s d ep ic t ed in th ephotographs. Courts have cons i s t en t ly he ld t h a t such t e s t imonyes t ab l i s h e s a s u f f i c i en t foundat ion if th e video tape i s a" reasonab le r ep re sen t a t i o n of what it i s a l l eg ed t o por t ray . "(See genera l ly People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal . 4th 932, 952-953,People v . Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal . 4th 312, 385-387; People v.Mayf ie ld (1997) 14 Cal . 4th 668, 745-747; Imwinkelr ied, Cal i fo rn i aE v id en t i a ry Foundat ions , p . 115, 117 (3 rd ed. 2000); a lso UnitedSta te s v . J e r n i g a n (9 th Ci r . 2007) 492 F.3d 1050 (en banc) . )

The second s i t u a t i o n i nvo lves what i s commonly known as a24 "nanny cam." In t h a t s i t u a t i o n , a homeowner hides a25 su rve i l l ance camera in a room and then r e t r i ev es th e camera a t a262728

l a t e r t ime . At t h e co u r t proceed ing , t h a t per son es t ab l i shesth e t ime and placement of th e camera. This per son a l so has

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

6/12

1 personal knowledge o f when th e camera was i n i t i a l l y s ta r ted and2 when it was ev en t u a l l y s topped and r e t r i e v e d .3 Nei the r o f these s i t u a t i o n s i s analogous to the s i t u a t i o n4 a t bar . Here the o f f i c e r could not es t ab l i s h th e t ime in56 quest ion, the method o f r e t r i e v a l of the photographs, o r t h a t7 any o f the photographs o r the videotape was a " reasonab le8 represen ta t ion of what it i s a l l eged to p o r t r a y . " A very9 analogous s i t u a t i o n to th e case a t bar , however, i s found in

10 Ashford v. Culver City Unif ied Sch. Dist . (2005) 130 Cal.App.4 th11 344, 349-450, where th e cour t held t h a t the unau then t ica ted1213 videotape a l l eged ly showing employee ' s ac t i o n s lacked s u f f i c i en t14 foundat ion to be admit ted a t an ad mi n i s t r a t i v e hear ing . And in15 so holding th e c o u r t noted t h a t without es tab l i sh ing such a16 foundat ion, the video tape was inadmiss ib le .17 B. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule are not appl i cab le here .18 In l i eu o f es t ab l i sh ing th e necessary foundat ion by d i r ec t19 tes t imony, th e proponent of th e evidence , re spondent , argues2021 t h a t independent hearsay excep t ions j u s t i f y admiss ion of the22 photographs under e i t h e r the " O f f i c i a l Records Except ion" or th e23 "Business Records Except ion" o f the Evidence Code.2 Nei ther o f24 these sec t i o n s suppor t Respondent ' s con ten t ion . We recognize25262728

t h a t th e trial c o u r t i s ves ted with "wide di sc re t ion" indetermining whether su f f i c i e n t foundat ion i s l a i d to qual i fyevidence under t he se hearsay excep t ions . And "[o ]n appeal ,2 Appe l l an t ' s Opening Br ie f , pages 5-7; Respondent ' s Opening Brief , pages 8-10.

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

7/12

1 exerc i se of t h a t di sc re t ion can be over tu rned only upon a c lea r2 showing of abuse . " People v. Beeler (1995) 5 Cal .4 il i 953, 978-3 979.45 1. Off i c i a l Records Exception (Evid. Code, 1280) .

6 The prosecu t ion argues t h a t these documents were proper ly7 admit ted under Evidence Code sec t ion 1280, th e "Of f ic ia l8 Records" excep t ion to the hearsay ru le .3 A pla in read ing of t h i s9 sec t ion cannot suppor t t he i r pos i t ion . Not only does t h i s

10 sec t ion requ i re t h a t the wri t ing be "made by ... a publ ic employee11 (subd. (a)) (e. g . , Shea v. Department of Motor Vehic les (1998)1213 62 Cal.App.4

th 1057 ( fo rens ic l abora to ry t r a in ee did not qual i fy14 as a "pub l ic employee") ) , but th e publ ic employee must be under15 a l ega l duty to make such repor t s (subd. (a) ; e . g . , People v .16 Clark (1992) 3 Cal . 4th 41, 158-159 (autopsy r ep o r t or ig ina l ly17 performed and prepared by now deceased coroner proper ly admit ted18 through t es t imony of another coroner ) .19 Here, th e s igna to r of th e document, Exhib i t #3, s t a t es they2021 are employees of the "Redlex Traf f ic Systems." At no p o i n t does22 th e s i g n a t o ry s t a t e t h a t "Redf lex Traf f ic Systems" i s a publ ic23 en t i ty o r t h a t they are othe rwise employed by a publ ic en t i ty .2425 3 Sect ion 1280 provides : "Evidence o f a writ ing made as a record o f an a c t ,

condi t ion , o r event i s not made inadmiss ible by the hearsay ru le when of fered26 in any c i v i l or c r imina l proceeding to prove the ac t , condi t ion, o r event i fa l l of the fol lowing app l i e s :27 (a) The wri t ing was made by and with in the scope o r duty o f a publ ic

employee.28 (b) The wri t ing was made a t o r near the t ime of the ac t , condi t ion orevent .(c ) Th e sources of informat ion and method and t ime o f prepara t ionwere such to ind ica te i t s t rus twor th ines s . "

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

8/12

12

34

567

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25262728

Absent t h i s c r i t i c a l foundat ion in fo rmat ion , th e document t h a tthey c rea ted cannot be and i s not an " o f f i c i a l record" underEvidence Code sec t ion 1280.

In add i t ion , sec t ion 1280 requ i res t h a t " [ t ]h e sources ofin fo rmat ion and method and t ime o f prepara t ion [o f th e record]were such as to indica te i t s t r u s t w o r t h i n ess" (subd. (c ) ) .Except fo r th e wri t ten con ten t of Exhib i t #3, which presen t sanother l aye r of hearsay, t he re i s a t o t a l l ack o f evidence toes t ab l i s h t h i s element of sec t ion 1280 hearsay excep t ion . Eachl ayer o f hearsay must meet th e foundat ional elements of t h i sexcept ion o r ano ther hearsay except ion, o r the wri t ing i sinadmiss ib le . (People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal . 4 h 217, 224-225 ("Aswith a l l mu l t i p l e hearsay, th e quest ion i s whether each hearsays ta tement f e l l within an excep t ion to th e hearsay ru l e . " ) ,People v . Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4 th 988,995; People v. Baeske(1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 775 (po l ice r ep o r t contain ing con ten ts o fphone c a l l to pol ice department inadmiss ib le under o f f i c i a lrecord excep t ion ) . )

However, sec t i o n 1280 does permi t the cour t to admit ano f f i c i a l record o r repor t without necessa r i ly requ i r ing awitness to t e s t i f y as to i t s i den t i ty and mode o f prepara t ion ifth e co u r t t akes j ud ic i a l not ice or if su f f i c i e n t independentevidence shows t h a t the record o r r ep o r t was prepared in such amanner to assure i t s t r u s t w o r t h i n ess . (Bhat t v . Sta te Dept. of

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

9/12

1 Health Serv ices (2005) 133 Cal.App.4 th 923, 929 [c i t a t ions2 omit ted] . )3 Here, the record i s t o t a l l y s i l e n t as to whether the t r i a l45 co u r t took j u d i c i a l not i ce o f anything, nor does it show6 " su f f i c i e n t independent evidence ... t h a t th e record or repor t was7 prepared in such a manner to assure i t s t rus twor th ines s . " The8 only evidence, outs ide of the con ten ts of Exh ib i t #3, descr ib ing9 the workings of the photo enforcement system and recorda t ion o f

10 informat ion from t h a t system came from Off ice r Berg who,11 admi t ted ly , was unable to t e s t i fy about th e spec i f i c procedure1213 from th e programming and s to re of the system in fo rmat ion (SS14 1:24-26) . Consequent ly , the t r i a l co u r t e r red in admi t t ing t h i s15 evidence as an o f f i c i a l record .16 Bus iness Records Except ion (Evid. Code, 1271 ) .17 These exhibi t s a l so do not f a l l under the bus iness record18 except ion under sec t ion 1271.4 In order to es tab l i sh the proper19 foundat ion fo r the admission of a bus iness record , an2021 appropr ia te witness must be ca l led to lay t h a t foundat ion22 (Bhatt , supra) . The underly ing purpose o f sec t ion 1270 i s to23 e l imina te the necess i ty of ca l l ing a l l witnesses who were2425 4 "Evidence o f a wri t ing made as a record o f an ac t , condi t ion or event i sno t made inadmiss ible by th e hearsay ru le when of fe red to prove the ac t ,26 condi t ion, or even t i f :(a) The writ ing was made in the r egu la r course o f a business ;27 (b) The wr i t ing was made a t or near the t ime of the a c t , condi t ion o r28 (c )

(d)

event ;The cus todian or other qua l i f i ed witness t e s t i f i e s to i t siden t i ty and the mode o f i t s pr epa r a t ion ;The sources o f informat ion and method and t ime o f prepara t ionwere such as to ind ica te it t rus twor th ines s . "

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

10/12

1 involved in a t r ansac t ion or event (People v . Cross l in (1967)2 251 Cal.App.2d 968) . General ly , the witness who at tempts to3 lay the foundat ion i s a cus tod ian , bu t any witness with th e45 r equ i s i t e f i r s thand knowledge of the b u s i n e s s ' s record-keeping

6 procedures may qua l i fy . The proponent of the admiss ion of th e7 documents has th e burden of es tab l i sh ing th e requi rements fo r8 admission and the t rus twor th iness of th e in fo rmat ion . (People v.9 Beeler , supra , 9 Cal . 4th a t p . 978.) And th e document cannot be

10 prepared in contempla t ion of l i t i g a t i o n . (Palmer v. Hoffman11 (1943) 318 U.S. 109; Gee v. Timiner i (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 139.)1213 Here, Off i ce r Berg did not qua l i fy as the appropr ia te14 witness and d id not have th e necessary knowledge of under ly ing15 workings, maintenance , or record keeping of Redflex Traf f i c16 System. The foundat ion fo r th e i n t roduc t ion of the photographs1718192021222324

25262728

and the under ly ing working of the Redf lex Traf f i c System wasouts ide the persona l knowledge of Off i ce r Berg. I f the evidencef a i l s to e s t a b l i s h each foundat ional fac t , ne i the r hearsayexcept ion i s ava i l ab le (People v. Matthews (1991) 229 Cal.App.4 th930 ,940) .5

Accordingly , wi thout such foundat ion , the admission ofExhib i t s #1 and 3 was erroneous and thus th e t r i a l cour t abusedi t s d isc re t ion in admit t ing these e x h i b i t s . Without these

5 This i s not a s i t ua t i on where, in compliance with a l awful ly issuedsubpoena duces tecum, th e custodian submitted a dec la ra t ion a t te s t ing to thenecessa ry founda t ion fac ts (Evid. Code, 1560 e t . seq . ) . See a lso Taggart v .Super Seer Corp. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 1697. No such subpoena duces tecum wasi s sued or in t roduced here .

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

11/12

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

documents, t he re i s a t o t a l l ack o f evidence to suppor t theveh ic le code v io la t ion in ques t ion .

The judgment i s reversed and with di rec t ions t h a t thecharge be dismissed (People v . Bigh ina t t i (1975) 55 Cal.App.3dSupp. 5, 7 ) .

. PRICKETT, Act ing Pres id ing Judge*

Judge

N L. ROBINSON, Judge

* Si t t ing by ass ignment of th e Chief Jus t i ce of the Cal i fo rn iaSupreme Court .

8/9/2019 ca-khaled

12/12

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF ORANGE

Date: 05/25/2010Judicial Officer Presiding: Appellate PanelClerk: Jorge A GomezReporter/ERM:BailifflCourt Attendant:

MINUTE ORDERTime: 08:36:00 AM Dept:

Case No: 30-2009-00304893-Cl-MC-CJC Case Init. Date: 09/23/2009Case Title: People of the State of California VS. KhaledCase Category: Civil - Limited Case Type: Misc Complaints - OtherAPPEARANCES

Appellate Panel Judge(s):Honorable Gregg L. Prickett, Assistant Presiding JudgeHonorable Gregory H. Lewis, JudgeHonorable Karen L. Robinson, JudgeTrial Court Case Number: SA 128676PEThe court having reviewed and considered the matter finds the opInion meets the standards forcertification for publication set forth in CRC Rule 8.11 05( c (2) and (c )(6). It applies existing rulesgoverning the admissibility of evidence to the specific context of citations issued through an automatedenforcement system. We are aware of no prior published authority which addresses specifically therequirements for admission of evidence in this context. The opinion addresses an issue of "continuingpublic interest," in that use of automated enforcement systems has become increasingly common inOrange County and throughout California. Published guidance on the admissibility of evidence in thesecases is essential to trial courts hearing the cases, as well as law enforcement, municipalities employingautomated enforcement systems and the motoring public. The opinion is therefore certified forpublication.

Date: 05/25/2010Dept: MINUTE ORDER

Page: 1Calendar No.: