Posted: 9/12/2012 6:26:45 PM EDT
|
I've seen a lot of red light camera threads, but not too many speed camera threads.
Former neighbor of mine got a notice in the mail from the Surprise PD (not Redflex or whatever) that showed a picture of his vehicle speeding. He was not driving, but someone who lives with him was. He asks me what to do with it. I have no idea what to tell him, but of course he's heard everyone talk about how to get out of them. The notice wants him to ID the driver and send it back. My initial impression was that this isn't a ticket, but rather a notice of violation. Still, it came from a PD, not from whatever private company provides the city with the cameras. Does that carry any more or less weight? Is the ignore/trash/dodge the process server rule still in effect on ARF for AZ residents? That seemed to be the recommended course of action for all the red light cam threads I've seen. He lives in Benson, if that matters (distance from the city issuing the violation etc, would they contact a local process server or send one from Surprise?) |
|
Quoted: If it didn't come by registered mail, you didn't get it  Pretty sure registered mail still doesn't count. Redflex was desperately trying to get legislation passed a couple years ago that would change the definition of proper service to include registered mail. Last I heard that failed. Someone correct me if they managed to squeak it through somewhere. If you don't waive service (why would you?  ) then:(d) Service of Summons Upon Individuals. Service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than those specified in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of this Rule 4.1, shall be effected by delivering a copy of the summons and of the pleading to that individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at that individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the pleading to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. |
|
Quoted:
They would serve it if it were an actual citation. The form he received is not a citation. It is simply a request (a poorly worded one), for the owner of the vehicle to identify the driver so an actual citation can be issued. So if he doesn't ID the driver, wouldn't that mean he is obstructing justice? |
|
Quoted:
What ever happened to be accountable for ones actions? The friend needs to accept responsibility for the ticket. I agree, the city in question should be responsible for their lost revenue due to replacing a human with a machine, so they should pay for it, ticket after unpaid ticket. There's no free lunch, if a city wants to collect revenue in this manner, they need to pony up and use DOT or police officers to do it. |
|
So if he doesn't ID the driver, wouldn't that mean he is obstructing justice?
He is not obligated to identify the driver. The only obstruction of justice I see is the Surprise PD not doing their job. Cities use these cameras instead of law enforcement officers. Then they expect us to do their jobs for them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
They would serve it if it were an actual citation. The form he received is not a citation. It is simply a request (a poorly worded one), for the owner of the vehicle to identify the driver so an actual citation can be issued. So if he doesn't ID the driver, wouldn't that mean he is obstructing justice? No. Speeding, for the most part is a civil violation issue, not criminal. He has no obligation to identify the driver. That burden falls on the police. The police can ask for him to voluntarily complete the form, but there is no requirement to do so, nor any penalty if he declines. |
|
Trash it. Statute of limitations for a traffic infraction is 120 days from the date of the violation. If the violator isn't identified and legally served in 120 days, it didn't happen. I don't know what shenanigans various agencies are playing with the legal service these days. Some of these fucks put points on your license, some just want he cash, no points. People need to stop ignoring the issue and vote for making traffic cams illegal. |
|
Quoted:
What ever happened to be accountable for ones actions? The friend needs to accept responsibility for the ticket. No. In this nation of laws, the police have a responsibility to issue a a proper traffic citation or a summons within 90 days of the offense. End of discussion. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: What ever happened to be accountable for ones actions? The friend needs to accept responsibility for the ticket. No. In this nation of laws, the police have a responsibility to issue a a proper traffic citation or a summons within 90 days of the offense. End of discussion. That and the whole victimless crime thing. Is it even a crime if it's victimless? I say no. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What ever happened to be accountable for ones actions? The friend needs to accept responsibility for the ticket. No. In this nation of laws, the police have a responsibility to issue a a proper traffic citation or a summons within 90 days of the offense. End of discussion. That and the whole victimless crime thing. Is it even a crime if it's victimless? I say no. Speeding less than 85MPH or less than 20MPH over the limit is a civil infraction, not a crime. It's no different than getting a ticket for a barking dog. If you get popped for 21 over or 86MPH, you MAY be charged with misdemeanor criminal offense. Unless you're a real dick, you probably will not be though. |