Traffic Surveillance Cameras
Visual evidence of the accident can be extremely helpful in evaluating liability, especially early in the case. Investigate whether the accident was captured by a surveillance camera. I recently had a case where the full accident was caught on the security camera of a nearby construction site. The plaintiff’s passenger’s descriptions of the accident were inconsistent with the video footage. Our experts were also able to analyze the crash before we deposed witnesses and responding police officers.
Some cities install webcams at well-known intersections that are broadcast on the internet. Caltrans streams live traffic on its website: http://www.video.dot.ca.gov/. Webcams may be less useful in litigation because they are usually streamed in real-time (or on a short delay) and are rarely recorded. Caltrans specifically states that its videos are not saved.http://www.video.dot.ca.gov/
Local communities also sometimes install security cameras in public places to deter crime. Napa, San Francisco and Hollywood are three California communities that have security cameras installed on public streets that may capture traffic accidents.
Television stations may also film the scene of the accident if it is deemed newsworthy. If the accident was aired on television, search for the broadcast on YouTube or the station website and consider subpoenaing the original footage. The picture and sound quality of internet video is sometimes inadequate for trial presentation.
Determine whether a traffic camera was installed at the scene of the accident. Traffic cameras can include red light cameras, speeding cameras, turn cameras or parking cameras. While many drivers dispute the accuracy of traffic cameras, the photographs and videos they capture may provide essential information, such as the identity of the driver, the license plate, vehicular speed and other traffic violations. Traffic camera images are controversial, as the images are sometimes blurred and consumer groups claim that certain red light cameras are strategically placed at intersections with lights that are times to turn red too quickly for the speed limit. Some California traffic courts have ruled them inadmissible because of their lack of reliability, particularly because the lights are operated and managed by private entities. Additionally, some photos do not show the traffic signal or traffic signs in place at the scene of the incident.
Again, evidence from traffic cameras can be controversial — remember a proper foundation must be laid before such evidence can be admitted at trial. A recent California Appellate Court decision evaluated the admissibility of traffic camera photographs and held that the photographs were inadmissible hearsay and violated a traffic court defendant’s confrontation rights. People v. Khaled 2010 S.O.S. 4217. In that case, the appellant appealed a traffic court decision wherein a declaration by a police officer was used to lay a foundation for introducing photographs from a traffic camera. The police officer was not present at the time of the alleged violation and the camera was maintained by a private contractor. The contractor’s employees who maintained the cameras and data did not testify or prepare any declarations. The appellant objected to the declaration as hearsay and violative of his confrontation rights. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the declaration regarding the traffic camera as a business record, with proper foundation laid by the police officer’s declaration. In reaching its holding, the Appellate Court determined that the plaintiff did not lay an adequate foundation for characterizing the photographs as business records for the hearsay exception to apply. To avoid exclusion of the records, determine the entity that actually records the footage and obtain declarations or testimony from persons with knowledge of how the footage is recorded and maintained to demonstrate that the business records exception to the hearsay rule applies.
