Posted: 5/18/2005 4:29:35 PM EDT
| Did we ever figure out if mail was proper service of summons for a red light camera ticket, or does it have to be delivered via process server? |
So will they bother to serve the process or just blow it off? What's the fee? |
They'll prolly try and serve you. Maybe more than once. Could depend on where you live. Just don't answer the door or have any member of your household answer the door to ANYONE you can not positively identify. Persons asking for you by name are a big red flag. I think eventually they give up standing at your door for 10 minutes at a time up and realize your not going to be easily served. That's what I've heard, anyway. I've even heard they will leave their fast food trash in your driveway!  AFAIK, all misdemeanors have a one year statute of limitions. I don't think the servers try for nearly that long, though. |
... Where's Old_Painless? "Red Light Camera - Box-O-Truth, on the fly" |
It's not a misdemeanor. It's civil. Don't answer the door Cross register your car with your wife. You don't have to worry about the process server then. No sir, those aren't my tits. I don't have tits. Well, I do, but not that big. I don't like people running red lights, for the record. . . but red light cams are not about safety. They are about money. Policing the streets is not a business. They are supposed to get paid by taxes, not by generating 'product'. The city of phoenix is talking about hiding the cameras. If that doesn't tell you what they are really after, then I don't know what will. |
You just admitted that you received the mailing in a public forum. |
this actually works, my wife beat a ticket because her truck is in my name. they sent me the summons and I sent it back saying I was not the driver. there is a box on the form for you to identify the driver if it's not you, but it's not mandatory. naturally I chose to leave it blank. the burden of proof is on them. |
|
I just went through this crap. I got a copy of Susan Kayler's book "Smile for the Speed Camera". She's an attorney out of Scottsdale that became an expert on photo radar. There is some good information in her book. Which would be relevant but from some PMs with some other "Zonies" that got photoradared it appears that the rules of evidence for Phoenix traffic court are not as stringently adhered to as they are in other civil cases. It's about revenue. Public safety is the dogma preached but money is the motivator. |
Do you have a point, or are you just trying to show your ass? If you will read carefully you will see that the question that was asked is whether or not mailing a summons is considered proper service. Can you give a definitive answer as to whether or not US Mail is considered proper service of a summons, Counselor? |
My point: You have been properly served. It was mailed to you. You received it. That is proper service. That is the way it is supposed to work. You have now made a public admission that you received it on May 19, 2005. Next step: Pay the fine or lawfully contest the charge. |
Thank you for your input. You are hereby elected the ar15.com hall monitor. You also have "publicly admitted" that you know absolutely nothing about civil/traffic law. At this point in time, proper service for civil citations comes in only two forms- certified mail and process servers, both of which are used to serve photo radar citations. Until you receive a ticket in one of these formats, feel free to wipe your ass with it. |
AUS174 is correct. Unless served at the time of the offense by an officer, you can only be officially served by a certfied letter or process server. |
|
Dude, be a man, take responsibilty for your actions. You got caught. Don't try to weasel out of it. You and the rest of the "photoradar is bullshit" crowd is why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. "I got caught running a red light, but I don't think it's fair because it was done by a camera, waaaaahhhhhh!" Here's a suggestion, don't run red lights. I don't, and amazingly I have never gotten a ticket. It's not like we need to have a multi-million dollar study to figure out the corelation between not running red lights and not recieving tickets. |
I believe the complaint is that these devices are portrayed as a deterrant. "They will make your streets safer by their mere presence." Unfortunately, that is BS. As it is, city govt. recieves (perhaps) hundreds of thousands of dollars by utilizing red light cameras and photo radar traps. Do they deter speeding or red light running? Nope, they cause people to cover their faces as they blow through intersections and past radar vans. Alternatively, they cause drives to slam on their brakes out of fear that they may unknowingly be speeding since they haven't looked at a speed limit sign in the last 200 yards or may not know the exact timing of the yellow lights in that particular part of town (welcome to AJ). Now, if they installed spikes that popped up out of the pavement if you ran a red light, THAT would be a deterrant. The only one receiving anything as a result of a device like that, is local tire shops. |
There is case law indicating that (at least for photo tickets) service by mail does NOT constitute proper service. The recipient has to sign and return the ticket in order for service my mail to be considered valid by the courts.
US DOT Here is a link to the actual case. |
So you're saying that everyone just covers their face and blows through the intersections? That people might not worry about the ticket they may recieve. I don't buy it. I know personally that I'm cautious of any intersection with a camera, and that's one of the reasons I don't push my luck. I'm sure there is a lot of people like that as well. |
| I am not as concerned about running red lights as I am about photo radar. Now, in Scottsdale, red light cameras are also measuring speed with timed strips in the road. Photo radar is nothing more than a revenue generating machine for the city that I refuse to contribute to. |
|
This whole thing is pretty typical of what they say about arguing on the internet. I agree with the statements of guardian855 above in his posts. Again, the question was whether service of a red light ticket by mail was proper service. Despite what is being said above, first-class mail is proper service. That's right out of the rules of civil procedure. The flip side to that would be saying service by mail is improper service. That is false. If someone does not return the waiver of service, then the fucknut gets served by "other reliable means." The State cannot proceed in absencia if the subject ignores the citation mailed via U.S. Mail. However, that is not the issue. That is a completely different discussion. asu174 -- keep doing 70 in a 35, and get in a collision. You won't have to worry about service via mail. You'll be getting anally raped by a group of WSC gangstas. |
|
32 legal opinions later.......who in this thread is an attorney practicing law in the State of Arizona? And no, watching reruns of Perry Mason, delivering copy paper to an attorney's office or having a cousin who lives next door to an attorney do not count. Anyone? |
"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" That is straight from the AZ Court of Appeals Opinion by: Bolton. I believe it is the crux of this thread.
I believe everyone in this thread except you thinks that the above is the issue. Saying that service of a red light ticket by mail is proper service may be factual according to Rule 4.1 (c). However, it's misleading to say that unless you also mention that such service requires certain action by the recipient in order for the summons to be valid. Just admit you made a mistake instead of trying to split the conversation into two different issues (one of which you conveniently weren't talking about). Jeez. |
The above scenario is Aggravated Assault, a felony. That charge doesn't get sent out in the mail. |
Oh, you neglected to mention that I mowed down a family of 4 in the above scenario. |
|
I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV ... according to MS. Susan Kayler, Esq. of Scottsdale AZ in her book "Smile for the Speed Camera" receiving a ticket in the mail is not service in Arizona. If you live out of state then it is another story. Good luck. |
According to the County Attorney in the locale I reside, you cannot properly serve a civil traffic complaint via first class mail. In fact, the local court gets very upset when they need to serve a civil traffic complaint by mail, because THEY only use certified mail for this, and it is a headache managing all the little green stubs. Of course, that is probably because the County Attorney informed the court clerk of a legal brief requiring them to perform service in this manner. |