I got an Arizona "Notice of Violation" in the mail today

Nice. Keep us posted on what happens. There are many of us in Arizona who would love to see you get out of it. Good luck!

Well, since I am not an Arizona resident and this is a civil matter I can't see how they can make it stick, unless as the form suggests I "comply with this notice of violation".

That's really what it says! Why would I do that?

One way to make yourself immune is to have your car put in your spouse' name, and put hers in your name. Then all the citations would arrive with the driver being the wrong sex, and you can just say "it's not me you fools".

You do not have to weasel out anyone, you don't have to testify to whom was the driver, as long as it's not you.

They can't make you tell. It's illegal.

To Arizona residents, one thing to remember is this: As far as I can tell they do have to serve you. Mailing you a notice of violation by first class mail is not service pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1591-3.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/01593....

Now if you don't call them up and acknowledge the citation, and you don't go on their website and put your citation number in, they have no acknowledgement. That shouldn't matter since the law plainly says they have to send the notice certified mail.

The citation will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(i), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

So if you get a "notice of violation" by first class mail, just ignore it.

I won't be ignoring it, I am going to try to get the California DMV to stop giving them identity information. I read the law related to that and I will be drafting a letter to that effect to the California DMV and the attorney general of California.

All the media reports have repeatedly said that these new speed cameras are not like the redlight cameras. If you get a redlight camera violation, you do get served. The media has reported that the speed camera violations if unpaid, after a some undetermined amount of time will affect your ability to get your license renewed. Time will tell. Unfortunately, the State of Arizona is in severe fiscal deficit and this is the only way they can increase revenues.

This country is based on the rules of law, and I do love law (no I an not and never have been a lawyer). However, I don't like the automated law system. If I break the law, I too want to be cited by an officer in uniform or with proper id. I don't recommend it for you, but I probably would toss the letter in the trash and forget it. But, then again, I don't intend to be in Arizona for a long time to come.

This is interesting for me because we have a similar setup here in Montgomery, Alabama. I'm anxious to hear how this turns out.

The honest thing to do is to forward the citation to the person that was driving the car for them to pay.
I guess this works both ways. A long time ago I got a citation for illegal parking in California with a statement that I would be forced to appear in court if I didn't pay it when my home address was in Arizona . Since I was shipping out for Vietnam the next week I didn't respond and hoped they would come get me.

If you are the registered owner of the vehicle, then you are liable for the damages caused by that vehicle, even if you are not driving the vehicle. This fact exposes you to unneeded liability.

On the other side you do have the right to face your accuser. There is someone fighting a similar case and he is using the right to face his accuser in court as his defense. Now the loophole is how will the accuser (camera) come to court and testify?

For the matter of the vehicle registered in your name, you should either change the name of the registration to the current driver of the car or buy a big umbrella policy to protect you from the liable exposure from which you are involved.

No, the honest thing to do would be for the government to cite the actual driver of the vehicle, not some third party.

The honest thing would have been to demand a drivers license on the spot and issue the citation to the correct person, not to go on a fishing expedition for money by US Mail.

Dear Mike,

We Vietnam-era vets remember conscription. The State of Arizona cannot draft us to be agents of their state or agents of their contractor. Moreover, if you want me to perform a service for you even as a draftee, you must pay me for my services.

david

Red light tickets are just like parking tickets. If you are the registered owner you are responsible for the ticket/fine. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Yeah, I am not sure how this all works. I would suggest researching some more, or contact a traffic ticket attorney.

Bummer.

Just curious, who was driving your car?

Doesn't mean you have to pay, I am still in protest on a ticket that is going on two years now. I have refused to pay the city, and there is nothing they can do. They don't even take you in front of a judge.

So just don't pay them. In my case my wife was driving and the car is in my name, so they ticketed me. I basically told them to take a flying leap. and still have not paid. The crazy thing is, these tickets are handled through the parking ticket division.

Bob

Bob

If you weren't driving, you shouldn't be responsible for the ticket.

It may be difficult to fight from California though.

Years ago my uncle and I received "excessive speed" tickets in the middle of Nevada on our motorcycles for going over 100 mph. Back then the speed limit in Nevada was "reasonable & proper" and the ticket was just for $25 or something like that. We both didn't pay the ticket and my uncle got an ominous letter saying he better pay up, which he did. I never received an letter and the ticket never showed up on my record. Go figure! Maybe the cop lost mine.

So if anyone else has said it already then you know. There is no "accuser" necessary when the vehicle is on camera breaking the law. Who you would face would be the prosecutor if you chose to "contest responsibility". That does not mean go to court to prove it wasn't you driving and then it is over. That means either admit it was you and try to get out of paying the ticket(which will not happen) or tell them who was in your vehicle. Most people as you say fill out the other drivers information because they will have to take a day off work just to be presented with the same outcome if they go to court. They do not need you to testify against anyone as again, it is on camera.

The putting the cars in each others name trick will buy whoever was driving an extra couple weeks but will not stop the ticket. You will be in the same situation of either having to pay the ticket yourself or giving the information of the driver, in that case your wife, so they can issue a ticket to her. My wife got a ticket in my truck. The ticket came to me since the vehicle is in my name and then I had to give her info. She got the ticker a couple weeks later.

If you follow BobDees advice and just not pay it make sure you never get pulled over in Arizona. You will be arrested.

Completely untrue. You are not required in any case to tell them who the driver is. They cannot compel you either. And they can only cite a person, not a car. That's why they take such steps to ensure the driver's face is visible in the picture. Have you ever seen a photo enforcement ticket without the face of the driver visible? No, and you won't either. They throw those out.

It will in California, and it will in Arizona. If the sex is wrong they usually throw them out.

You are NOT required to tell who the driver is. They cannot make you testify by mail.

All they can do is get you to weasel out your wife by subterfuge, which they apparently did.

They admit they cannot make these tickets stick to any vehicle that is in a company name either, because the company has no driver's license and they can't even get a response out of any company. It just never happens.

Well, I doubt that. They said they dismiss them if you don't respond in 4 months. These are special civil violations, remember. Not like any other moving violation in the world. The system is run by a vendor, completely, to make money, and that's it. I feel pretty sure they don't want too much trouble or noise about these things. They are making money, if people get too outraged that might stop.

Personally I'd like to get an initiative on the ballot setting the fine for all automated enforcement at $5. and with all the money going to affordable housing. Heh.

Here's the talk radio interview with Suzan Kayler, Esq., an arizona attorney who wrote a book about this issue in Arizona.

http://ktar.net/blogs/dankarlo/category/podcasts/#

The interview starts about 50 minutes into the podcast.

She essentially debunks the whole thing, says the tickets are dismissed in 120 days, and the government is counting on your not fighting it. They have not served you, and you don't have to tell the government who the person in the picture is.

im not sure here in indiana the statute says good faith to beleive that the violator has done.... so i think it would be legal but i know the BMV here the police can get the pic if they request it to check the photo and see if it matches

I noticed in the paper that with Gov. Napolitano leaving to be Homeland Security Secretary for the Obama administration the state of Arizona legislature has a bill taking out all the speed cameras on the state and interstate highways.

It seems they got a lot of complaints from constituents about the program and they wanted it out.

This does not affect those enforcement cameras run by cities.

That's interesting that you mention your photo...I didn't know that these systems captured your face. Here in Washington (Seattle) the systems appear to focus on the back of the offending vehicle, which would seem to be a bit more defendable. Is the image clear?
I too have a real problem with revenue motivated law enforcement. And I really question this crossover of private companies with Government in these efforts. How did it so easily become law that a private company can become so integrally involved in the enforcement of law? It has a funky smell to it.....

You could always get a right hand drive car like this person in Germany.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081607/Sp....

In criminal cases you can not be forced to testify against yourself. In a civil case (and red light camera violations are civil matters in my state), you have no such immunity. You can be called by the other side and be required to testify, even if the answer harms you (unless the answer would tend to incriminate you in a criminal case, which would not apply here).

In states where you do have to be served (notice by mail being insufficient), be careful that you do not waive the right to be served by "appearing" in the case. Laws vary, but in your state you may have "appeared" by responding on their web site or by writing a letter. So resist that urge to send a nasty letter (or e-mail) to the authorities.

I was so glad to see her go, I was afraid Obama wouldn't take her after failing to deliver Arizona that she had promised him. Now we can move back towards smaller Government and away from her tax and spend agenda. She was the main force behind all the red light and speed cameras being installed.

Now Arizona has republicans in control of both the Arizona House and Senate, two Republican US Senators and now a Republican Govenor.

Sorry, but Arizona courts have not made this leap. In Texas this may be so, but not here. Please be careful when you make broad generalizations. If you are aware of a new Arizona court case that rules otherwise, please cite it. Remember, state laws differ significantly. Don't say something unless you know it is right in the state of the person concerned.

Oh, just stop it, please. Not all Republicans are angels and not all Democrats are evil.

AND this is not the place to preach your bias.....even if your method of bringing it up is "almost" on topic.

And you being from Illinois are not showing your bias?

It's not almost on topic it is right on topic. Her bias was very evident in what she supported and pushed. If you look at the red light and speed camera files in Arizona you will see that Maricopa County (the Phoenix area) that didn't support her election ended up with hundreds of cameras and Pima County (the Tucson area) which was the only Arizona area that strongly supported her ended up with just 4 cameras. She was the main push behind the camera installations. Most of her efforts and much of her time were devoted to Pima County.

The new Govenor and legislature is already moving to get rid of all the cameras not installed by a City.

Absolutely brilliant......NOT!

And I never heard anything back from the Arizona DPS.
The next thing they will have to do is to serve me.

Then I will be able to do discovery, this being a civil matter and all. I did send a letter to them as my response, saying I was not the driver and I am not shown in the picture.

And I asked them these questions:

====================================================
As regards the attached notice of violation, that is not a picture of me driving.

I am not required to testify about anything by US mail so I decline to give you any further information.

However I have some questions for you. If you would kindly answer each of these questions by written mail response I would appreciate it.

1. What state government official personally reviewed and signed this notice of violation on or before November 14, 2008, what is that person’s first and last name, title, and what is their office address and phone number?

2. What state government official personally requested the registration information from the State of California, what is their first and last name, title, office address and phone number?

3. What California government official did that person request it from? State the first and last name, title, office address and phone number.

4. What California government official did that person receive that information from? State the first and last name, title, office address and phone number.
====================================================

Naturally, they have not responded to my questions, nor did I expect them to.

That ticket is a misdemeanor. The statute of limitations is around 2 years. AZ is not going to come to CA to arrest you for a misdemeanor, so just don't get caught in AZ or in a place in AZ where your vehicle can be booted and they can take a flying leap. The more people do that, the more headaches for AZ.

It's not a misdemeanor. It's a civil violation. It has no driving record points.

It's illegal, and it was worded very carefully.

And it was not my picture, and not me driving.

They are trying to get people to send in their civil fine money voluntarily since they didn't serve me and they don't serve people who live in Arizona either.

They really have no leg to stand on, which is one reason the legislature is moving to yank them. They mailed a civil violation to the registered owner, who was not the driver.

What do you think would happen? I'd be arrested, taken to jail in Arizona, taken to court days later and arraigned?

At the arraignment they would have the violation picture and it's not me. And that's precisely what I told them.

What then?

Wouldn't the entire state government and court system look like a bunch of lunatics?

Just throw the stupid thing away....end of story!

A Phoenix area attorney has written a book about photo radar in AZ. Check out the FAQ section. In it, she says the answer is to not even respond to the civil violation sent in the mail. By responding, you are waiving your right to be served in person.

http://www.photoradarlaw.com/faq-home.htm

There's some good interesting informaiton in there about what your rights are with respect to AZ speed cameras. This does not apply to red light cameras, though, as most of those are criminal violations.

You don't know the law in AZ. It's not a misdemeanor.

Why do people post on this subject as if they're the authority when they don't know the facts and the law on this matter?

I have been reminded of this myself, so I am passing this along to you! ENOUGH politics!
Thank you for your time.

burn it!

Cancel That. I agree with wegasque.

------------------------------------------------------

Were you in Arizona on the date in question on the citation? Just call or write them a letter stating that you live in California and did not reside in the state. Otherwise, just don't go to Arizona. See how long it takes for it to clear their records. It could be anywhere from 1-7 years.

My sister received a parking citation from New York. My sister has never set foot in the state. She wrote them a a letter and in 2 months they cleared it. I hope you have the same luck.

According to the AZ DOT representative on a TV newscast, the worst that can happen is you MAY get legally served and have to pay that fee in addition to the cost of the ticket. Since it's reported that a huge percentage don't bother to pay the ticket, I'd gamble the $25 fee by not responding to the LETTER.

RT

My wife got hit by a speed camera on I-10. We let the deadline expire and are now i the waiting zone to see if the State is going to send someone to serve her. The violation was not sent certified mail, so there's no guaranteeing that you even received it. I told her we'll play like we don't know anything about it. I'll keep everyone updated on what happens.

Got to love those dang speed cameras. I live in Phoenix too and I got it down to a science now. I drop down to about 7 miles above the speed limit when I approach the cameras and then I can speed up as soon as I get past those lines. BTW I am not an extremely fast speeder. I usually only go about 10 miles above.

Just a word of caution ... as noted in another thread on POI Factory,
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/17374?page=4
the police have been spotted pulling over drivers just past the speed cameras.

RT

I read a news that someone got hit by speeding camera, and then got caught by cops down the road not too far away. That driver ended up paying two tickets.

Just a warning about something called "alternate service" that could be very ugly:

http://www.azfamily.com/news/3oys/stories/phoenix-3oys-news-...

Agree, people need to slow down to avoid tickets. I go about 3-5 mph over the limit. Just this weekend I had seen a couple of cars that were racing between the lights. Would hurt if they got multiple tickets thinking they were beating the game.

What ticks me off is also the drivers who go 5 mph under the speed limit because they're afraid of the cameras. And they hog the car pool / left lanes to boot!

Ok I agree I may drive a little too fast. I have gotten much better on that. I have to agree with the people who go under the speed limit because they are afraid of the cameras. That drives me more crazy then anything else.

I agree too. It can be very frustrating. Why doesn't DPS ticket slow drivers in left lanes like other states?

The slow ones don't move over in AZ and it is frustrating although I had to laugh one morning. The HOV lane was poking along at 60 in a 65 mph zone. When I finally made it around the slow traffic it was a red corvette slowing everyone down. Go figure!

I'm not sure how the law reads in AZ but in Indiana the person who the vehicle is registered to is responsible for all persons driving it. For instance, I could be off duty in plain clothes and see a serious traffic violation, enough to catch my attention, all I would have to do is get the plate info and send the ticket via mail to the person the car is registered to. Regardless if the that is the person driving or if your address is updated with the State. It doesn't happen very often but it is allowed by law. I'm not sure about allowing the person to fill in the info for the person they say was driving. Doesn't sound very reliable.

Being able to ticket a slow driver would depend on the traffic laws for the state. I know some states have minimum speed limits and others have "obstructing or impeding traffic" laws. In one state that is a haven for tourists during the summer there is a law on the books where it is illegal to impede travel on any road or highway. The law further defines impeding traffic as having five or more vehicles behind you, so a driver doing 55 in a 65 could be cited if there were 5 or more cars being held up. Still other states have minimum speed laws and I can recall signs posted along the highways stating Minimum 40.

I don't even know what the law regarding that is in my state, but that sounds very unfair. Any one can loan out a car or the car could have been stolen, I don't see why the registered owner should be responsible. That would be kinda like a guy stealing a wallet, and then committing a murder, dropping the stolen wallet at the scene, and the police police convicting the person on the drivers license inside of the wallet without hearing his side of the story.