In 2012, the Legislature amended those statutes to expressly clarify that they apply to printed representations of video or photographic images, and computer-generated information, stored by an ATES. Evidence Code sections 15 provide a rebuttable presumption of authenticity for printed representations of images stored on a video or digital medium, and printed representations of computer information or a computer program. The Court noted that authentication may be established not only by the person who took the photograph or witnessed the event being recorded, but may also be established by a statutory presumption. In other words, as the Court stated, “No elaborate showing of accuracy is required.”Ī photograph or video is typically authenticated by showing it is a fair and accurate representation of the scene it depicts. The Court determined that the showing normally required to authenticate a photograph, video, or other writing is sufficient to authenticate ATES images and data. In Goldsmith, the ATES evidence was offered to demonstrate what occurred at a particular intersection at a particular time, and it was offered as substantive proof of the defendant’s violation-not to support the testimony of a witness who saw what occurred. The proof that is necessary to authenticate a photograph or a video “varies with the nature of the evidence that the photograph or video recording is being offered to prove and with the degree of possibility of error.” The purpose of the evidence will inform what must be shown to authenticate it. The Court concluded that the ATES evidence was adequately authenticatedĪuthentication of a writing, including photographs, is required before it can be admitted into evidence, meaning the proponent of the evidence must adequately show that the writing is what the proponent claims it is. In affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Young’s testimony provided sufficient authentication to admit the ATES evidence, and that the ATES evidence was not hearsay. The California Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the trial court properly admitted the ATES evidence over the defendant’s objections of inadequate foundation and hearsay. The defendant’s conviction was upheld on appeal by both the appellate division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and the Court of Appeal. The trial court overruled the defendant’s objections to the testimony based on lack of foundation and hearsay, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of failing to stop at a red light. Young provided additional testimony based on the ATES evidence. Young explained that three photographs are taken, and that the ATES imprints a data bar on each photograph reflecting the date, time, location, and how long the light had been red at the time the photo was taken. Young further testified that the ATES information is stored as “reported” on the hard disc of a computer at the scene, and that Redflex technicians retrieve the computerized information throughout the day through an Internet connection. Young testified, among other things, that Inglewood’s ATES was operated by the police department but maintained by Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., and that the computer-based digital camera system operates “independently” and records events that occur within an intersection after the light turned red. Only one witness testified at the defendant’s trial, Dean Young, an investigator with the City of Inglewood Police Department assigned to the traffic division in red light camera enforcement. The evidence presented against her included several photographs and a 12-second video, all of which were generated by an ATES. Goldsmith was cited for failing to stop at a red traffic light at an intersection located in the City of Inglewood. In a unanimous decision published yesterday, the California Supreme Court concluded that the evidence generated by an automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) was adequately authenticated by the testimony of a city officer, and that the ATES evidence did not constitute hearsay.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |