motion to dismiss was denied

[ghart]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? AZ
Hopefully someone can help me with my case....I received a photo ticket for speeding in August from the city of Chandler.
At my hearing I filed a motion to duismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. I cited the Zanoff and Gillespie cases and thought that I had made my case once the certifying officer admitted that no comparison of photgraphic evidence was made with my driver's license, in fact all they did was to check that the gender of the driver matched the gender of the registered owner. From my reading of the appellant decisions - the higher court is requiring, at a minimum, comparison of photo evidence.
The judge howver denied my motion citing Moroney. As far as I can see Moroney speaks to allowing evidence into the court, but does not address the improper certification of the ticket and subsequent lack of jurisdiction.
My questiions....
Do I have any remedy? I did not object in court (not knowing the citation).
Worried that the Moroney case will be used to deny my appeal.
Currently waiting for a hearing on the case at the end of January.
Thanks,
G.

 

[The Occultist]

You fought the ticket incorrectly. It is for this reason that I always recommend the aid of a traffic attorney. Local attorneys know exactly what the courts want to hear, and as such present the highest potential for yielding the most favorable outcomes. Many attorneys will offer free/cheap consultations, so take advantage and sit down with a couple to see what insight they may have to offer.

 

[ghart]

Thanks but.....

Thanks for the advice...I did sit down for a free 30 min. evaluation of my case with an attorney who knows the traffic laws. He seemed to think this was the best way forward as well. Currently trying to talk to other attorneys but so far only zero out of 5 have returned a call...hence my posting here.

While I wait I need to do my research as best I can so I know the right questions to ask....but I thought I had a pretty good case to start with based on the favorable appellant decisions.
So...anybody have any concrete advice or insight? It would be most appreciated.
G.

 

[zudnic]

I find you should take the free consultation with an attorney with a grain of shalt. Kind of like asking for legal advice free over the internet. I'm thinking of moving back to Scottsdale and visit AZ frequently. Going soon for Barrett Jackson!

Your appellate court has thrown out cases where a photo radar ticket was mailed. Your courts have no power to assess fines or sanctions unless the complaint was served or service was waived. I've also received mailed non-criminal tickets in my current "home" state. When the driver mails back a mailed ticket that is the same as waiving the legal requirement that the city serve the complaint personally. Same rule if someone mails service on a lawsuit and you don't show. That person will get a default judgement. What people forget, a default judgement is easy to have over turned on mail service's. If the city does not serve the document by process server in person, then the driver avoids the fine!

By showing up at any photo ticket hearing or requesting a hearing when you receive the ticket you waive service. Your admitting you got a ticket and your the target of that ticket. Cases addressing the legality of photo radar are limited across the U.S. Issues of service of process or verification of the complaint filed by the private corporation who owns the camera's, are also the focus of the Arizona and most other states challenges.

Truth be known, It's a question of fair play with traffic tickets, really. As long as the public thinks the government uses fair and impartial "court" rules. People will lose their challenges when its Police officers, thats annoying. Know its machines dolling out tickets based on reasonable assumption you broke the speed "limit". Traffic hearings are weighted for the ticket giver to win usually based on the sole fact your the receiver of these tickets. It looks like you did not challenge on either grounds. Another appeal probably would just lose.

Lawyers like the current system cause license suspension cases are pretty profitable for all involved.

Even most attornies its a waste to send them into hearings. Unless you've ignored and been served in person.

 

[ghart]

It was an improper certification, denied anyway

No challenge on grounds of service since they got me at home.

The lack of jurisdiction was based on the improper certification of the ticket...my case seemed identical to the appellant ones so I don't know why she denied the motion unless her cited case actually applies somehow...and I don't think it does......

 

[zudnic]

No challenge on grounds of service since they got me at home.

The lack of jurisdiction was based on the improper certification of the ticket...my case seemed identical to the appellant ones so I don't know why she denied the motion unless her cited case actually applies somehow...and I don't think it does......

When I lived in Scottsdale one of the main drags ran past my street. Light for left turn onto my street all of them arrows pointing left. Sign said: "left turn on arrow only" green or yellow or red, arrow, I would turn. Cop pulled me over one day. I said: "the red arrow means you must treat the light as a stop sign officer, see the sign?" Cop agreed and let me go without a running a red light ticket. Few weeks latter sign said: "right on green arrow only."

You don't have that kind of discretion with dang camera's. Most traffic camera cases brought in some of that discretion. Hence why they started having a guy show up from the camera company. The case cited by the judge might tighten the certification standards of the "evidence" that you committed the infraction and are the intended victim of the ticket.

Soon it seems you will sell a car and the new owner forgets to change the registration and you get stuck with the ticket. Service and certification of the "evidence" are the only two ways I can think of that people challenge and win in most states including Az.

 

[zudnic]

Just thought of this. Id subpoena evidence, like how often do these camera's require to be repaired and calibrated, the companies maintanance records, etcetera. I have a suspicion about the accuracy of those cameras used for ticketing. Just how does the company keep them in working accurate order and what happens when they break. How often are they found to be innacurate.

 

[ghart]

Will do, but still seeking advice

I will be seeking maintenance and calibration records etc, I just don't feel my chances are good challenging on those grounds as I'm sure the court hears a lot of whining from people i.e. "I wasn't speeding, honest, and my word is more reliable than a $30K machine designed to issue citations".

What I need to know is -
Can I make a late objection to my motion being denied?
Is the issue of improper certification/lack of jurisdiction preserved for an appeal?
In light of the Judge's cited case, do I in fact have any grounds to appeal?

 

[zudnic]

I will be seeking maintenance and calibration records etc, I just don't feel my chances are good challenging on those grounds as I'm sure the court hears a lot of whining from people i.e. "I wasn't speeding, honest, and my word is more reliable than a $30K machine designed to issue citations".

What I need to know is -
Can I make a late objection to my motion being denied?
Is the issue of improper certification/lack of jurisdiction preserved for an appeal?
In light of the Judge's cited case, do I in fact have any grounds to appeal?

The issue of improper certification needed to objected to as evidence during the hearing. the lack of jurisdiction, if they lacked that you would not have responded to the ticket and not requested a hearing. Most states decriminalized traffic infractions by 1981. The whole system in place is based on smoke and mirrors of making people believe they are more serious then they are. These camera's are worse than receiving a ticket from a cop. Cause you can't cross exam a machine. Once you admit to receiving a ticket or even in person service of a ticket. Your chances are slim to non to fight it at hearing. Almost zero on appeal. The system is designed to trick you into admiting into "evidence" hearsay.


Lawyers like the system cause failure to respond, pay to comply. Gets the DMV involved in suspending your license or non-resident privilege to drive. First time misd. offenders are most times offered a plea deal, so little work for your lawyer, who scares you into thinking a plea deal is the best route. Hence why OP is not getting a good lawyer response, put a fork in him he's done. Unless he refuses to pay and gets nabbed for driving while suspended.

 

[The Occultist]

Zudnic, please note that your knowledge of these photo-radar speeding tickets is outdated. The state has redrawn the laws regarding these; these mail-outs are validly served tickets, and "ignoring" these will no longer protect you the way they once did.

 

[ghart]

Actually....

If you manage to avoid service, these tickets are still dismissed. I just had a Scottsdale ticket dismissed this way (almost exactly 120 days after complaint filed), I never actually avoided service, they just never bothered to come find me.

Registering to a PO box address, or to a corporation will also ensure no proper service of the complaint. Occultist - if you have info regarding new laws please share! You also offer that my defense was incorrect....any clarification on that?

All comments and advice are appreciated!

G.

 

[zudnic]

Zudnic, please note that your knowledge of these photo-radar speeding tickets is outdated. The state has redrawn the laws regarding these; these mail-outs are validly served tickets, and "ignoring" these will no longer protect you the way they once did.

They changed the law in that if you acknowledge receiving the ticket in the mail. I.e: request a contested hearing within the specified time for last date you can appear. You waive in person service.

Even for regular police officer given tickets, some safeguards do exist. I'll use WA cause can find the law faster. In WA when a cop gives a ticket you have 15 days to respond and request a hearing, appear in court, etcetera. Some people go to court a few days late and most court clerks will pretty much tell you all you can do is pay up. Everyone assume's after 15 days because FTA, the court has found them guilty. In WA, like most states you can appeal that decision within 90 days after the 15 and the court may on good cause grant your motion to review the decision at any time.

Its easier to fight police given tickets when you FTA in most states! With camera tickets its not only easier you have avoided service dismissal defense option.