People v. Rekte
181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Rekte received an ATES (red light camera) citation for running a red light; images and a 12-second video were captured by Redflex and provided to the Riverside Police Department, where operator Teagarden reviewed them and issued the citation.
- The photos had digital time/metadata showing the vehicle entered the intersection when the signal had been red for 0.96 seconds; Teagarden relied on Redflex data indicating a 3.65s yellow interval.
- Defense expert Sean Stockwell measured the yellow interval at the intersection on multiple occasions and found it to be ~3.5s (±0.07s), less than the MUTCD 3.6s minimum for a 35 mph route.
- Stockwell also testified the camera alignment obscured about 41% of the signal from a driver’s perspective, arguing the geometry and shorter yellow made the ATES evidence unreliable.
- Trial court admitted the ATES photos/video over foundational objections; defendant was convicted. Appellate division affirmed; matter transferred to the California Court of Appeal, which reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City/People) | Defendant's Argument (Rekte) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of ATES photos/video under Evid. Code §§1552–1553 | Presumptions under §§1552/1553 support authentication and admissibility absent contrary evidence | Expert rebuttal showing inadequate yellow timing and obstructed visibility rebuts the presumptions and undermines reliability | Presumptions are of the burden of producing evidence; defendant’s expert rebutted them, shifting the burden to the City which failed to prove accuracy; photos were therefore inadmissible |
| Effect of alleged MUTCD noncompliance (yellow interval) on reliability of ATES evidence | Yellow-interval dispute irrelevant or insufficient to defeat the presumption; photos still show red light violation | Shorter measured yellow and obscured signal made safe stop impossible and made images unreliable | Measured shorter yellow and geometry evidence materially undermined reliability; this rebuttal required exclusion of ATES evidence absent further foundational proof |
| Use of People v. Gray in trial court reasoning | Gray supported city practices | Gray had been depublished/reviewed; irrelevant to foundational/authentication issues here | Any reliance on Gray was harmless; Gray’s subsequent Supreme Court opinion also does not change result here |
| Remedy when sole evidence is later found inadmissible | Remand for retrial urged by People | Reversal because inadmissible evidence was the only evidence of guilt | Reversal: when inadmissible evidence was the sole evidence of guilt, retrial is not viable — judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258 (recognizes Evid. Code §§1552–1553 presumptions affect production burden but do not lessen prosecution’s burden beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Gray, 58 Cal.4th 899 (addresses ATES program notice requirement; Court discusses preconditions to enforcement; referenced and superseded in the record)
- People v. Beckley, 185 Cal.App.4th 509 (discusses vulnerability of digital images to manipulation and need for authentication)
- County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (describes limits on resting conviction solely on presumptions)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and confrontation principles relevant to reliance on out-of-court declarations)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (confrontation clause limits on admitting lab-style reports/declarations without live testimony)