Humans and Machines Are Now Tied

[Note: Subsequent to this post, the Supreme Court granted review.  See, "Review Granted in Red Light Cases," posted June 11, 2012.]

[This is the second of three guest posts by Christine Peek, a partner at McManis Faulkner.]

Photographs,video, and other data created by a Redflex automatic traffic enforcement system may be admitted without testimony that the equipment was operating properly, according to Division Three of the Second Appellate District in People v. Goldsmith (Feb. 28, 2012, B231678) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2012 DJDAR 2883].   The holding in Goldsmith conflicts with a prior holding of a different division of the Second District, People v. Borzakian (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 525.  [See, "Humans 1, Machines 0," posted Mar. 25, 2012.]  Both cases involved red light violations, and both were unanimous decisions.

In Goldsmith, the People did not call a Redflex employee to testify regarding the maintenance of the system.  Instead, an investigator with six years of experience in red light camera photo enforcement testified on the system’s method of recording violations.  According to the investigator, when sensors detect a vehicle in the intersection in the red light phase, the system is programmed to take three digital photographs and a 12-second video.  The system also prints the date, time, location, and how long the light had been red when each photograph was taken, on each photograph.  Once the system is triggered, it operates independently and stores information on a computer at the scene.  Redflex technicians retrieve that information via the Internet.  Before a citation is issued, a police officer reviews the photographs.

The trial court found Goldsmith guilty.  Goldsmith appealed to the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which held that the data and digital photographs were presumed to be accurate, that Goldsmith failed to produce evidence casting doubt on the accuracy or reliability of the photographs, and therefore the photographs were presumed to be both accurate and authenticated.  The appellate division also found that the investigator’s testimony provided the foundation necessary to demonstrate that the photographs reliably portrayed data and images stored on the computer.  The Second Appellate District affirmed.

The appellate court reasoned in two steps.  First, Evidence Code sections 1552(a) and 1553 established a presumption that printed representations of the data were accurate representations of what was stored on the computer.  Second, the court relied on People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, to conclude that foundational testimony showing the accuracy and reliability of computer records was not required.  Martinez examined whether the official records exception to the hearsay rule applied to criminal history records stored in a computer database.  In challenging the trial court’s trustworthiness finding, the defendant in Martinez argued that CLETS records lacked the “special indicia of reliability” that characterize other business computer records.  Rejecting this argument, the Martinez court remarked that courts generally have not required testimony on the “acceptability, accuracy, maintenance, and reliability of . . . computer hardware and software,” because the accuracy only affects the weight of the printouts, not their admissibility.  The Goldsmith court also declined to require the government to produce testimony on the acceptability, accuracy, maintenance, or reliability of Reflex’s equipment.

Separate and apart from the issue of authentication, the Goldsmith court rejected the argument that the computer-generated evidence was hearsay at all.  The court found the video, photographs, and other data did not meet the definition of a “statement” found in Evidence Code section 225, primarily because in the court’s view, the Evidence Code did not contemplate that a machine can make a statement.