Ticket via speed camera

[movzx]

I was recently ticketed by a speed camera in Scottsdale, AZ for exceeding 65 (Was clocked at going 77). I'm at the point right now where I'm trying to decide if I should fight this or go to traffic school. The information I have is as follows:

Signs are required 300ft in front of the cameras.

In Scottsdale they have a 10mph speed buffer. In this case that would mean I could legally go 75 in a 65.

I found an Arizona law that states excessive speeds are considered to be 85 miles per hour.

The same gov site that talks about the 10mph buffer also states that the machines are off by +/- 1mph.

The method they use for capturing speed is two piezoelectric strips and an induction coil. I know the strips are for speed. My understanding of how the strips work is that they are simply a single circuit that is completed whenever pressure is applied. There is no way to know which lane triggered the strip, so I assume the coil is to detect lane. In doing my research I learned that these devices are only accurate up to 95% of the time when installed correctly and not worn out. The coils (and strips?) are also subject to electrical and magnetic interference from nearby sources. I have many sources (both gov and not) that point out these devices are prone to poor reliability.

A truck on my left actually hit the first piezo strip before I did. I then passed him and hit the second strip.

The questions I have are:

I've been told time and time again that a ticket has to be served in person and any mailed tickets are not valid unless I acknowledge them. I believe I found a law stating otherwise. Can anyone provide clarification?

I'm looking to claim that 1 to 2mph is within the margin of error for the technology, especially given the requirement of perfect installation for only 95% accuracy. The truck may have also skewed results one way or the other. I would also be stating that the truck seemed to be driving poorly, and I was trying to get in front of him to avoid a potential collision.

With the information I've provided (and I have sources for it all) does this seem like a reasonable argument?

I don't recall seeing any signs (There was construction prior to this camera). I need to go verify this, but it has been almost a month unfortunately. Would lack of proper signage be enough to get this thrown out?

My friend suggested filing two extensions in order to drag this out in the hopes that it's "forgotten". I don't believe that will work, but he swears it's worked for his brother two times. Is this a valid plan based in fact?

I've read highwayrobbery.net to the best of my ability (Holy crap that site needs some organization!). It suggested filing discovery requests to give myself a potential out later on (if they try to introduce different evidence, fail to meet the request). Can I do this after filing extensions?


Should I just forget fighting the ticket and pay to go to traffic school? I really don't want to plead guilty to this, but if it's the sanest route I will.

This is just a pic the camera took. I don't know if it's helpful. The video is much lower quality.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/221/imagevieweraspxcz8.jpg

 

[JIMinCA]

That pic shows your car... it doesn't show you. I'm not familiar with AZ law, but doesn't the prosecution have to show that YOU committed the infraction?

 

[movzx]

Well, there were 4 pics and a video. One of the pictures is the plate, one is a slightly later shot that you see, and the final is a pic of the driver. It's true that it's not 100% clear (mirror is obscuring part of my face, I was wearing a hat at the time) I believe it could easily be argued and determined it was indeed me. I don't believe my best recourse would be to claim that it wasn't me given the potential issue of me pissing off a judge. I do have long hair (which was hidden by the hat), and currently am not shaven. By the time a trial rolled around I could be quite grizzly and not resemble the pic as much and provide further doubt, but then a simple request of my driver license would likely be enough to show similarity... But I don't know how clear these photos need to be in order to be *clear*. Get what I'm saying?

 

[The Occultist]

If you do absolutely nothing with this "ticket" you were served in the mail, nothing will ever come of it. I have been sent one, my grandpa has been sent 4, and no problems have arisen from us ignoring them completely. I have also had 4 police officers (admittedly only two of them are Scottsdale PD) confirm that there would be no repercussions to anybody who ignored them. Legally speaking, I'm not advising you ignore them in case something does bite you in the ass, but yes, ignore them

 

[movzx]

28-1591. Traffic violations; civil matters; service

A. A violation of a statute relating to traffic movement and control, including a statute governing parking or standing requirements, shall be treated as a civil matter as provided in chapter 3 of this title or this chapter, unless the statute provides for a different classification as a criminal offense.

B. This article does not require that either the initial notification or a subsequent summons and complaint for a parking or standing violation be issued or served as required by this article.

C. If it is necessary to issue a summons and complaint because there is not a satisfactory response to the initial notice of a parking or standing violation, the summons and complaint may be sent by regular mail to the address provided to the department by the individual made responsible for the alleged violation by the applicable statute or ordinance. Service of the summons and complaint is complete on mailing.

Now that I re-read this.. It may be limited to parking tickets and "standing" violations? Would a standing violation be any violation on record, or a unpaid/no response ticket?


Edit:

Standing: The stopping of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.

I'll have to dig deeper to try and find where it talks about serving speeding tickets. I don't want to be hit with huge fines, license suspended, etc. Everything I've read agrees with what you've said.

 

[JIMinCA]

With respect to the identification of the driver.... understand that you do NOT have to tell the judge that wasn't you. That would be testifying for which you do not have to do. You can, however, tell the judge that the prosecution has failed to provide evidence that conclusively proves who the driver was.

That being said... I'd follow up on Occultist's idea before even going to court. The best defense is never having to fight.

 

[fairisfair]

Although I believe that if you are guilty you SHOULD pay the price. . . .

The legal answer to this question is, you must be served in person in the state of AZ. You Will be arraigned, you of course, will not be there, they WILL request personal service, and you MAY be served. Chances are you will not. Don't think of it as a free ride though, get a couple more, and you WILL MAKE yourself valuable enough to find. Eventually the ticket will be dismissed due to lack of service (of course assuming that you aren't one of the lucky winners who actually GETS served)

by the way, if you are interested, you can follow along with the processing of your ticket here.

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/notification/default.asp

Click on the blue link towards the center of the page, enter your first and last name.

Now, slow the he11 down, my kids and I are on those roads.

 

[movzx]

I appreciate the information. Do you have anything from the statutes that I could read that backs that up? I wasn't able to find anything. No offense, I would just like to have verifiable information that I can turn to.

That link is interesting, but currently does not show any information for me. Maybe it'll take a bit longer for things to get moving.

I normally don't speed, but if the road is relatively empty (It was Xmas eve, practically everyone was home) I don't see the real harm in exceeding the surprisingly slow 65mph limit. No drinking, drugs, not prone to seizures , etc. A fluke of nature or big mechanical failure would have to occur in order for anything to go screwball. This is the first ticket I've gotten in a decade, so it's not like I'm wild and reckless when it comes to driving. Also, rest assured when you're driving your kids. That was my first time into Scottsdale, and it was simply a pleasure drive. My motorized reign of terror is usually confined to the lower parts of Phoenix.

 

[fairisfair]

I appreciate the information. Do you have anything from the statutes that I could read that backs that up? I wasn't able to find anything. No offense, I would just like to have verifiable information that I can turn to.

That link is interesting, but currently does not show any information for me. Maybe it'll take a bit longer for things to get moving.

I normally don't speed, but if the road is relatively empty (It was Xmas eve, practically everyone was home) I don't see the real harm in exceeding the surprisingly slow 65mph limit. No drinking, drugs, not prone to seizures , etc. A fluke of nature or big mechanical failure would have to occur in order for anything to go screwball. This is the first ticket I've gotten in a decade, so it's not like I'm wild and reckless when it comes to driving. Also, rest assured when you're driving your kids. That was my first time into Scottsdale, and it was simply a pleasure drive. My motorized reign of terror is usually confined to the lower parts of Phoenix.

I can show you the procedure that will be taken. Will that help? I am really NOT into even looking for the statutes, but you can.

And 65 is not too slow, you are driving in TOWN for crying out loud, regardless of the fact that you are on a freeway. At least slow down enough so as to not activate the camera. You DO know that you must be traveling at least 76 mph in Scottsdale in order to activate the camera RIGHT??? Think CRUISE CONTROL. . My driving is not relegated only to the Scottsdale area either. So again, I ask that you SLOW DOWN.

Here is a sample of what will happen to your citation.

Citation: D60023377 Count 1: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition Date: Disposition:


Event Date Event Description Party
12/20/2007 PR - PERSONAL SERVICE REQUEST D 1
12/20/2007 ARRAIGNMENT CONTINUED D 1
12/13/2007 CAL: CIVIL DIVISION ARRAIGNMNT D 1
12/13/2007 DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR D 1
11/15/2007 TELEPHONE CALL D 1
11/1/2007 COMPLAINT FILED - ELECTRONIC D 1
11/1/2007 ARRAIGNMENT SET D 1

 

[fairisfair]

by the way, have you heard what they are working on now?? cameras set at intervals along interstates that will measure the distance you have driven in a given period of time. They won't actually have to catch you speeding, you will be issued a ticket anyway as you couldn't have gotten from point a to point b WITHOUT having exceeded the speed limit. I understand they are currently being used on some toll roads in the country to catch toll evaders. The next step will be using them to catch miracle workers who can get further than 65 miles in a 65mph speed zone in less than an hour.

That oughtta put a knot in JiminCA's underoos. LOL

 

[The Occultist]

That oughtta put a knot in JiminCA's underoos. LOL

Hell, it puts a knot in mine! I make a commute between the valley and Flag quite a bit, and would not like to see those on the 101 or the 17!!

 

[JIMinCA]

by the way, have you heard what they are working on now?? cameras set at intervals along interstates that will measure the distance you have driven in a given period of time. They won't actually have to catch you speeding, you will be issued a ticket anyway as you couldn't have gotten from point a to point b WITHOUT having exceeded the speed limit. I understand they are currently being used on some toll roads in the country to catch toll evaders. The next step will be using them to catch miracle workers who can get further than 65 miles in a 65mph speed zone in less than an hour.

That oughtta put a knot in JiminCA's underoos. LOL

Thankfully, I don't live in AZ. However, in CA, that would be considered a speed trap as per VC40802.

Traffic laws are the only good thing that the CA legislature has done.

 

[Hey There]

Is this the documentation you want?

1-17-08

movzx


Jeffrey J. TONNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARADISE VALLEY MAGISTRATE'S COURT and Hon. Lester Penterman, a magistrate thereof, Town of Paradise Valley, a municipal corporation, and the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellants

No. 1 CA-CV 90-429
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department C
171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d 448; 1992 Ariz. App.
May 12, 1992, Filed

JUDGES: Bolton, Judge.1 Contreras, P.J., and McGregor, J., concur.
OPINION BY: BOLTON

Defendants-appellants appeal from a superior court judgment vacating an order of civil sanction entered by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court on a civil traffic complaint issued to plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey Tonner. Appellee filed a special action in superior court to vacate the order of civil sanction, arguing that the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court lacked personal jurisdiction when it entered a default judgment against him. The superior court judge found that service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 4(e)(7)) was not completed prior to entry of judgment and that the judgment entered was void.

On February 11, 1990, the photo radar device operated by the Town of Paradise Valley detected a vehicle registered to General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC") traveling at an alleged speed of fifty-six miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. A summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were mailed to GMAC alleging a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") @ 28-701 (1989), driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent. GMAC forwarded the summons and complaint to appellee and his wife, the lessees of the vehicle. GMAC also sent the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court a copy of its transmittal letter to appellee. The summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were reissued, naming Tonner as defendant and the vehicle's driver at the time of the alleged violation of section 28-701.

On March 7, 1990, a copy of the summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint were sent by first-class mail to appellee with a return, postage-paid envelope. The summons directed appellee to appear on March 22, 1990, in the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court. Appellee never signed and returned the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint nor did he appear on March 22, 1990. On that date, based on appellee's failure to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted, and an order of civil sanction was entered against him. The Town of Paradise Valley argues on appeal that use of first-class mail for delivery of a summons and complaint is sufficient for service and to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil traffic matters. We disagree.

The requirements for service under Rule 4.1(c) are clear. A summons and complaint may be served by first-class mail along with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint and a postage-paid return envelope, but service is not complete until the acknowledgment of receipt is executed. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(1), (2). If the acknowledgment of receipt is not executed, service is not complete under this method even if there is evidence that the summons and complaint were received. See Worrell v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841-42 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3191, 105 L.Ed.2d 699 (1989). Until service is complete, no personal jurisdiction is obtained, and any judgment entered is void. Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App.1984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980). Appellant argues that requiring execution of the acknowledgment of receipt creates a conflict with A.R.S. @ 28-1076 (1989) because that statute requires the civil traffic complaint to state a time and place for appearance before the magistrate, and if the person summoned fails to appear, the allegations of the complaint will be deemed admitted, a judgment in favor of the State will be entered, and a civil sanction will be imposed. We find no conflict between Rule 4.1(c)(2) and A.R.S. @ 28-1076. Section 28-1076(D) provides that a "person served with a civil traffic complaint" must appear at the time directed or "the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted and the court shall enter judgment for this state." (Emphasis added.) To serve a civil traffic complaint, the State must comply with A.R.S. @ 28-1073 (1989), which requires service "by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure." A.R.S. @ 28-1073(A).

Appellant attempted service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) by complying with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(1). Without a defendant's voluntary complaiance with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(2), service is not complete, and no personal jurisdiction over a defendant is achieved. In that event, a plaintiff may attempt service by any other method authorized by Rule 4.1 with the costs of service shifted to the defendant who failed to execute and return the acknowledgment of receipt. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Nothing in section 28-1073(A) eliminates or modifies any steps required to complete service. Section 28-1076(A)'s requirement that the summons state a time and place for appearance and section 1076(D)'s provision that failure to appear shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint, requiring the court to enter judgment for the State and impose a civil sanction are not inconsistent with the rules for service by mail or the rules for service by any other means authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant's recourse when a defendant fails to execute the acknowledgement of receipt is to continue the hearing and serve the complaint by some other authorized method. See Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Until the magistrate's court obtains personal jurisdiction, it has no power to enter an order of civil sanction against a defendant. See Endischee, 141 Ariz. at 79, 685 P.2d at 144; Kadota, 125 Ariz. at 134, 608 P.2d at 71.

We agree with the superior court judge that the order of civil sanction entered against appellee by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the superior court.

Footnotes

1. Note: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, was authorized to participate in the disposition of this matter by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.



Best Regards,
Hey There



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

 

[movzx]

Thanks for the information. It sounds as if the person had to snag a lawyer in order to go this route. Essentially I have to wait until that court date, and then they will suspend my license/bill me. I assume they will send another notice. That's the notice I would have to respond to about the first summons being invalid.

Is this correct?

You are summoned to appear, pay the fine amount, enroll in a defensive driving school, if eligible, or request a hearing on or before (court date) at the Scottsdale City Court, 3700 N. 75th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85251. If you fail to appear or respond as directed in this complaint, you will be subject to personal service of this Complaint and Summons and the cost of personal service will be assessed to you. In addition, you will be subject to a default judgment, the assessment of a fine, surcharge and fees, and the suspension of your driver license. Your driver license or non-resident operating privilege will remain suspended until the fine is paid in full.

I'm just trying to find the cheapest route. I'm not rollin' in the dough.

 

[The Occultist]

I've never gotten a second notice over anything, and I have no warrants out for me. Same with my grandfather. You really don't have anything to worry about.