People v. Rosen

Filed 9/22/25

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

THE PEOPLE, ) 24APIN00053 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) (Inglewood Trial Court No. ) 215975HA) v. ) ) BARRY W. ROSEN, ) ) OPINION Defendant and Appellant. ) ) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Emily T. Spear, Judge. Reversed. Barry W. Rosen, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

1

Defendant and appellant Barry W. Rosen appeals the judgment following his conviction of failing to stop for a red arrow signal (Veh. Code, § 21453, subd. (c)) 1 in a trial where evidence of the violation was obtained from an automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) (Veh. Code, §§ 21455.5-21455.7). Defendant contends reversal is necessary because the trial court: (1) denied his constitutional right to confront the “actual accusing civilian witness”, (2) denied him the constitutional right to testify in his own defense, (3) committed a Brady 2 violation by permitting previously undisclosed witnesses and evidence to be presented at trial, (4) refused to consider fully exculpatory evidence, (5) denied defendant the right to conduct necessary discovery prior to trial, (6) refused to consider defendant’s “dispositive” motions in limine on the grounds of untimeliness, and (7) was partial and biased. Defendant also contends the notice to appear was invalid ab initio because the City of Hawthorne is precluded from operation of the ATES due to a lack of compliance with section 21455.5, and the citation was not issued by a sworn law enforcement officer. As discussed below, we agree with the final point and reverse the judgment on this basis. BACKGROUND On September 10, 2022, defendant was mailed a notice to appear for the offense, alleging the violation occurred at 2:29 p.m. on September 4, 2022, at the intersection of Rosecrans and Hindry in the City of Hawthorne. On the issued notice to appear, City of Hawthorne Police Department civilian employee Alan Valle 3 checked a box on the notice stating, “violation was not committed in my presence. The above is declared on information and belief and is based on photographic evidence.” (Capitalization omitted.) The notice further instructed defendant to respond to the charge in court on or before January 9, 2023.

1 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. 2 Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. 3 Testimony at trial revealed that Valle became a sworn police officer after the ticket was issued, but was a civilian employee as the time of its issuance.