Chain-of-Custody / Evidence Authentication Challenge
Photographic and video evidence from automated enforcement and parking officer body/dash cameras must be authenticated. La. C.E. art. 901 (Code of Evidence) requires authentication 'sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.' Demanding authentication often discloses weaknesses (missing custody logs, unsigned officer affidavits, software-edit metadata).
Legal basis
La. C.E. art. 901, 902; La. C.E. art. 1001 (best evidence rule); La. R.S. §44:1 (public records to obtain chain)
Sample appeal wording
Central Adjudication Bureau Re: Citation [CITATION_NUMBER] DEMAND – AUTHENTICATION OF EVIDENCE (La. C.E. art. 901) If the City intends to introduce photographic, video, or LPR evidence at the hearing on citation [CITATION_NUMBER], I demand: 1. Authentication under La. C.E. art. 901 by the officer/operator who created the record; 2. Production of original digital file (best evidence, La. C.E. art. 1001); 3. Chain-of-custody log; 4. Metadata showing date/time/device. Failure to authenticate is grounds for dismissal. [NAME] | [DATE]
Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.
Scan my ticketSources
- La. Code of Evidence art. 901, 902, 1001
- La. R.S. §44:1