In Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority v. Kaufman (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, the court addressed a citee's appeal from a judgment of the superior court on a trial de novo affirming a decision by an MRCA administrative hearing officer decision finding a violation of the MRCA Ordinance for failing to stop at a stop sign on property under MRCA's control. The citee in Kaufman did not defend the administrative citation by directly challenging the legality of MRCA's automated video camera traffic enforcement system. Rather, on a factual front, the citee testified that he was not "'the driver of the vehicle cited for the moving violation.'" (Kaufman, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 4.) On a legal front, the citee argued that the video taken by MRCA's system did not show that he was the driver. (Ibid.) The trial court found the citee guilty of the moving violation. On his appeal to the appellate division, the citee argued that sections 4.0 and 4.2.1 of the MRCA Ordinance were preempted by the Vehicle Code. (198 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 5.) The citee argued that he could not be cited under the MRCA Ordinance at all, but only under the Vehicle Code. The Kaufman court rejected the citee's argument on appeal, finding there was "nothing in the record" before the court to support the citee's contention that the MRCA Ordinance "was enforced on a highway within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 360." (Id. at p. Supp. 7.)