Exhibit 1 Poor Record

8/12/2019 Exhibit 1 Poor Record

1/7

1

Exhibit 1

Poor Quality Record

Poor Quality of Recording for Trail - 0013033378

Parts of the recording were difficult to understand either because ofstatic or various parties were not talking into the microphones. Iattempted to use the context of what was said before or after thedifficult part to write the transcript of the case. Because of the qualityof the recording, Would this be grounds to retry the case in a newtrial based on ArizonaRule 29, Rules of Procedure in Civil TrafficViolation Cases.

(a) The condition of the record shall be subject to review by theSuperior Court. If the Superior court adjudges the recordinsufficient or not in proper condition to adjudicate the issues, atrial de novo in the superior court should be granted.

(b) The contents of the record shall consist of only thefollowing:(viii) the record of the hearings

(d) If it appears to the trial court that the record is insufficient for anappeal on the record, the trial court may on its own motion or theon a motion of a party, reset the matter for a new trial within 45

days from such a determination

Initially I asked the judge if I could record the proceedings. She toldme that it would not be necessary because the trial would berecorded and I could get a recording of the case afterwards for $17dollars. After I began transcribing the case I found that even though Iturned the volume up on my computer it was hard to hear parts of therecording especially the police officer prosecuting in my case. Inaddition, static periodically made it impossible to interpret what wasbeing said. On Monday December 3rdshortly before lunch, I returnedthe disc to room 401 at the Tucson City Court and asked if somethingcould be done about the quality of the recording. This was theProbation and DUI Assessments section where I picked up the discsome weeks earlier. I told the lady with blonde hair who had sold thedisc to me before, that I would pay for another copy if necessary.


2/7

2

She told me that nothing could be done about the quality of the discand if I tried to get another disc it would have the same issues.

She told me that lawyers representing clients run into the sameproblems. She said the poor quality of the sound with the policeofficer and occasionally the judge, is often caused by the judges andpolice officers forgetting to talk into the microphone when speaking.

To summarize I had the most problems recording the officersstatements so the most parts that I could not accurately recordoccurred while officer Kates was speaking. It began while hepresented his evidence during the first 16 minutes of the trial. Duringthe next phase I questioned the officer but using context I was able tofigure out more what he was saying. At the 57-60 minute period

while I was presenting my alternate video, the judge and officer weretalking and most of what they said I could not hear. Finally when theofficer presented his rebuttal near the end of the trial from 66-69minutes there were large portions of that speech I could notunderstand.

Below starting at 7 minutes I broke the transcript into 3 minutesegments. In each segment I made a tally for every second where Icould not understand the recording on a piece of scratch paper. Foreach of the segments I counted the tally marks and placed thenumber of seconds where the recording was unclear, under the time.Under that I did a brief summary of what was being said during thatpoint in the trial.

The first 5 minutes and 40 seconds of the recording were clear butafter that time the recording would become full of static or the partieswere turned away from the microphones while speaking. I wentthrough the recording mostly in segments of 3 minutes each. When I

could not understand what one of the participants were saying eitherbecause they were turned away from the Mike or from static I made aslash for each second within that time period that I was unsure ofwhat was being said. Usually the static cycled in and out every 10 to15 seconds and remain for 2-4 seconds. This varied however.


3/7

3

For example, in the time frame marked 6-9 minutes I placed 17 tallymarks, meaning for at least 17 seconds of that time frame I could notclearly understand what was being said because the party speakingwas turned away from the mike and/or static in the recording discinterfered with my ability to hear the speaker. After listing thenumber of seconds I found unclear l summarized what was talkedabout during that time frame using the transcription of the trial Icreated from the recording. I included a copy of the transcript toillustrate areas where I could not interpret what was being said forcertain. I enclose the transcript as Exhibit 2 in this section.

First 5 minutes and 40 secondsThis part of the transcript was clear with no static and I clearly heardwhat was being stated. In this part of the recording the judge stated

the charges against me and reviewed the procedures for what willhappen during the trial. The police officer also reviewed the citationand I was asked if I objected to it being admitted as evidence. Iobjected but the judge admitted it anyway. The officer then explainedhow the cameras work.

5 minutes and 40 seconds to 7 minutes12 seconds unclear.The Police officer is explaining the A Frame Photograph

7 to 9 minutes17 secondsof the recording are unclear.The B Frame and License Photos are explained in this part. I statedto the court that the Forensic Video Expert advising me on my caseexplained that there were parts of the photos that violated federalguidelines but I could not explain this to the judge

9-12 minutes25 secondsof the recording were unclear

The judge clarifies that I object to that piece of evidence based on myvideo consultant but I dont know the nature of his objections. Thepolice officer then shows the video of my citation.

12-15 minutes30 secondsof the officers testimony were unclear.


4/7

4

The officer ask that the video of me not reaching the intersectionbefore the light turns red be placed into evidence. I object on thegrounds that the phase of the yellow light is perhaps 4/10 of a secondshorter than that stated on the ticket. Judge notes my objection andplaces video into evidence anyway. Then the officer offers variousequations to show that I had plenty of time to stop for the yellow light.

15 to 18 minutes15 secondsof the record was unclearThe officer completes his testimony and the judge asks me if I haveany questions to ask the officer. I misunderstand and say no thenafter a while the judge redirects me to ask questions. I ask if anyonefrom ATS is available for me to cross examine. Then I ask the policeofficer if any one certifies the accuracy of the red light cameras.

In the next several sections their were lots of static parts but if I couldunderstand what the party was saying, I did not include it with tallymarks. Since I am asking the officer questions and many of hisanswers are short, I am pretty sure of what he is saying in the unclearsections of the recording. If he gave more lengthy answers then Icould not figure out what he was saying.

18-21 MinutesAbout 6 secondswere unclear.I asked the officer who independently monitors the accuracy of thecameras and is there a federal state, city or local agency that is incharge of monitoring and regulating the camera companies.

21-24 MinutesAbout 2 seconds unclear. We are still discussing who regulates thecamera companies.

24-27 minutes

5 seconds or more unclearI ask the police officer if he knew how often the city checks thetimings of their lights and how often they do maintenance on thelights. He answered I would have to ask the city that question. I toldhim I had tried/

27-30 minutes


5/7

5

18 secondsof recording were unclearI mainly asked the police officer who did the training for interpretingvideos for citations. Was it only from the camera companies are weresome consumer advocates for the motorists included?

30-33 minutes9 seconds unclearI ask the officer about the nature of the police violation videos andwhat how they define the length of the yellow light.

33-36 minutes8 seconds unclearI ask the police officer if he is aware of any Federal violations inrelation to the red light camera photographs taken of my citation. The

officer was not aware of any violations or anything in the extreme. Iasked him if he had any idea why the city of Tucson gave themselvesa low grade concerning the maintenance and care of their trafficsignals.

In the next section I gave my own testimony. Usually when I spokethe microphones picked up my voice. As I stated before, I had themost problem with the microphones picking up the voice of the policeofficer.

36-57 minutes.28 seconds of the recording were unclear.During this time I gave testimony and for the most part I understoodwhat I said. I mostly reviewed how I could not get documentationabout the accuracy of the cameras or their maintenance. I could notobtain records from the city regarding how often they checked thetimings on their lights or how often the lights were maintained. Istated I sent several letters to various city officials and only got a few

of my questions answered.

57-60 minutes23 seconds unclear.I am still presenting evidence and am now presenting the video of thealleged violation sent to me from the video consultant who wasadvising me on my case. During the presentation the judge and the


6/7

6

police officer are conferring during several points but I cannot hearwhat they are saying. Also when I describe the stopwatch in thevideo the judge confers with the police officer and I cannot hear whatshe said.

60-63 minutes7 seconds unclearThe judge asks the police officer if he has any objection to putting thevideo from the video consultant into evidence. She and the officerconfer for a while and I cannot hear what they said, then I hear thepolice officer state to the judge that my video is definitely faster thanthe citation video clip from the Tucson Police Department.

63-66 minutes

4 seconds unclearI presented other aspects of my defense including possible conflict ofinterest, my inability to question my accusers including the policeofficer who gave me the ticket, and the camera company who createdthe camera that gave me a citation. Nor could I question thereliability or validity of the camera or light itself.

66-69 minutes25 seconds unclear.20 seconds of the unclear part occurred with the officers rebuttal tomy testimony. The judges verdict was clear and understandable.Then she discussed payment options and right to appeal.

69-70 minutes and six seconds15 seconds unclear.The judge adjourned the case and I dont think much of importancehappened at this time.

The trial lasted approximately 70 minutes. 4 minutes or more of the

testimony contained words or phrases I could not comprehend.There were times when all the parties were inaudible. However, thevast majority of the incomprehensible statements came from thepolice officer who was prosecuting the case.

Here are my questions. What is the standard for accuracy forrecording devices in a civil and a criminal court? If I recorded in the


7/7

7

private sector what kind of accuracy would my customers demandfrom me? At what level of accuracy does it become difficult todetermine if both the judge and the police officer representing the cityof Tucson in my trial followed proper procedures?

I am not comfortable with the quality of the recording of my trial. Irequest the lower court review the quality of the recording todetermine if it is sufficient or insufficient for an appeal. If the CityCourt will not do so, I request that the Superior Court review therecording to determine if it is sufficient or insufficient for an appeal asper Rule 29. Record of Appeal; Contents of Record.

Documents

Exhibit 1 Poor Record