photo-enforced-speeding-ticket-nate-cox-virginia-copblock

How to Beat a Photo-Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

Published On May 12, 2013 | By Nate Cox | Articles

by Nate Cox

Last year I received a letter in the mail from the Washington D.C DMV claiming I was speeding. As you can see it was one of those Photo-Enforced Speeding Tickets and they had multiple pictures of my CAR. I knew better to just submit and pay a fine like the majority of people do in this country, unfortunately. I am in the habit of not taking “plea deals”, and I am always in the habit of fighting my tickets and NOT pre-paying them so I don’t have to go to court – like many folks do. I just about always record my interactions with the police, whether it’s a traffic stop or not, that way it keeps the entire situation objective, transparent and I can hold the public servant accountable if he/ she violates my rights.

IMG 0002 1024x884 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

IMG 0003 1024x885 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

I can’t recall why I got the next letter, but I think it was because I didn’t respond promptly enough.

Front: IMG 00011 786x1024 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

Back: BackPg2 793x1024 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

As you can see these criminals issuing these tickets are hoping that the people will just get scared and pay, or not want to waste their time with it. However the government has to provide evidence that it was actually ME driving, it’s their burden of proof. Just because they got pictures of my car doesn’t mean I was driving. So, in response to the first letter, I mailed them back the following letter (copied and pasted):

To Whom it May Concern,

I received a letter claiming I committed a violation of a speeding law in the District of Columbia on 04/21/2012. As per the instructions, I am writing to plead ‘not guilty’ to this charge. Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings. As there is no evidence of my involvement with this alleged ‘crime’, as well as the fact that I am not granted my 6th amendment right to face my ‘accuser’ (a camera); I see no way the government could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government’s responsibility to prove a person’s guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter.

If it is the government’s decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the “offense”; as well as, all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved.

Sincerely,

Nathan Cox
United States Army Veteran

HUGE thanks to super activist Meg McLain. I was slammed with work and was about to miss the deadline to mail the rebuttal letter in. She was my roommate at the time, I told her about how I needed it to read and she came up with a fantastic piece. I HIGHLY recommend Meg for any of your Graphic Design or Video Animation needs – She’s stellar!

After sending that letter I received this post card:
IMG 0004 1024x689 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

MANY months later (much more than six months), just the other day I get this post card showing that the ticket is DISMISSED.

IMAG2481 1024x577 How to Beat a Photo Enforced Speeding Ticket (or Red Light Ticket)

So PLEASE, NEVER EVER opt to pay these Photo Enforced Speeding AND Red Light tickets! You do NOT have to incriminate yourself OR implicate anyone else. It’s the government’s responsibility to provide evidence that YOU were the person driving, don’t help them in their “investigation”. ALWAYS go to court and fight your tickets, if there is NO VICTIM.. there is NO CRIME!

This write-up was first posted to VirginiaCopBlock.org by Nate Cox on May 10, 2013.

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

  • Burn The Obedient

    Nicely done. I used the same theory to prevent tax payer waste when I received a camera ticket from Iowa.

    Fine Job.

  • Joseph Edward Bodden

    Um, I just follow the speed limits… most cameras are posted in high traffic areas with a high incidence of accidents… the last speeding ticket I got was on my motorcycle. I simply appeared, related to the judge that motorcycles on long trips have a degree of ‘road hypnosis’ that makes it begin to seem like you could just jump off and run faster than the motorcycle – until you look at the speedometer and see you are doing NINETY… case was dismissed on my promise to do my best to never let it happen again. This was an officer ticket btw…

  • BillDerberg

    I live in New Jersey and received one these camera tickets for failure to come to a complete stop when making a right on red. $85.00. I failed to pay this. Three months later I received a letter from the DMV that my license would be suspended unless I paid this. I then went to traffic court to find out that I had a warrant out for my arrest!!! I stated that I was never served notice and received anything in the mail. Since the prosecutor could not prove I was served, he suspended the late charges and let me pay the fine. I wonder if NJ has to comply with the same procedure here, having to prove WHO was driving. Is that a state thing?

  • BillDerberg

    Answered my own question:
    When these camera tickets were introduced in NJ the Legislature reached a compromise. To settle the debate on the constitutionality of these summonses and the inability to confront the witness against you, NJ enacted the statute to preclude the assessment of points. That’s right, there are NO POINTS assessed for these traffic camera pictures. They don’t even show up on your driving abstract. The other interesting issue is that there is “strict liability” associated with these tickets. If the car is yours, even if someone else is driving, YOU are responsibile. Unless you bring the real driver to court with you, you pay the ticket. Justice? Probably not.

  • RadicalDude

    Well done, I don’t particularly like “pleading” not guilty, I’d rather frame it as a demur or motion to dismiss than a not guilty plea, since by pleading you are acquiescing on jurisdiction.

  • Fram

    I love how on the first “ticket” you received, it states “You have 60 calendar days from the mail date of the ticket to pay or contest the ticket. If you do not pay or contest the ticket within 30 calendar days or the mail date of the ticket your fine will double.” Why the 2 different time periods and what happens if you don’t pay or contest within the 60 days?

  • wiguy

    Like

  • Steve H.

    ATS and Redflex measure success by measuring the first time compliance rate. Meaning if the “violator” sends in the money when they get the first notice and a total of more than 50% send it in, the program in that area is successful. That is why the cameras were shut down in LA, because the compliance rate fell to about 30%, so nearly 400 cameras were discontinued. The vendors don’t care what happens to the “tickets” after the first letter goes out, the due process after that is up to the jurisdiction.

  • Steve H.

    In FL, if you don’t pay the first notice, you are supposed to get a UTC in the mail for the regular statute of running a red light which is about 2 times the fine on the first notice. This is causing fits of anger with the county clerks’ offices because many of the tickets are for rented cars from tourists. The rental company takes more than the allotted time to get the notice to the driver who rented the car, so the clerk has to do enormous amounts of paperwork, nearly 3 times the normal for a red light ticket issued by the leos. There is an attorney in Ft. Lauderdale who is 1000-0 on these “notices” in court.

  • Steve H.

    It’s becoming obvious to everyone here in FL, that paying the fines on these notices is pretty much voluntary. But overall, about 70% pay them right off, so that’s good at least for the jurisdiction’s treasury. The cameras have also seemed to change behavior at the intersections because the number of tickets issued have fallen in half over the course of the program.

  • Steve H.

    Naples, FL discontinued their contract with ATS because of complaints from tourists and snowbirds. You don’t want to piss off the tourists in FL.

  • Steve H.

    50% of the tourists in FL are from countries across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Try figuring out how to send them tickets in the mail and collecting on them, and suspending their licenses.

  • shawn

    I’m no fan of speeding, and especially redlight running, but these cameras have far more to do with revenue. In Tallahassee FL, a man proved in cort they shortened the yellow light.

  • Joseph Edward Bodden

    As for shortening the red light, I must wholeheartedly agree that this qualifies as a ‘trap’, or entrapment.
    Apparently local governments (especially) will bleed the citizenry white (yes, all color citizens) to balance their ‘budget’… and break themselves in two to avoid taxing those who derive the greatest and most disproportionate benefits from the ‘system’…
    which I guess makes the situation fit the literal definition of ‘systematic abuse’.

  • Joseph Edward Bodden

    sorry, yellow light.

  • Joseph Edward Bodden

    ps, I suspect the judge in my case owned that big ass fancy Harley in the parking lot… (grins)

  • ian

    Funny, Common Sense has nothing to say here.

    Guess his daddy doesn’t own a speed camera company.

  • RadicalDude

    Red light cameras tickets are being discontinued in California, since there is no admissible evidence(the cop who watches the video and writes the ticket has no working knowledge of the machine so he’s not qualified to testify as to evidence gathered from the machine.)

  • Dr Kranknstein

    WOW did cop block install some anti troll software…I am not seeing our usual suspects here yelling “Dirty hippie…Lame ass activist…etc etc”

    Either way, nice letter and congrats on the dismissal…Well played sir

  • Steve H.

    Our law in FL “tickets” the owner of the vehicle. You would think it would be obvious that the owner of Alamo rent a car, who is the many stockholders of the company, is probably not the one driving the car. But not for most cities in FL and not for the legislature either.

  • Johnny

    Good article indeed. It is interesting that I stumbled across it on Sunday and decided to put it in favorites – “just in case” – and… today I get one of these (red light/right turn) in the mail. Go figure! :) I got the letter (Illinois-based) which states the following: “please note, all individuals appearing on the vehicle’s license plate registration are legally responsible for this violation”. Since I’m not too familiar with intricacies of jurisprudential language variations I’m wondering if “legal responsibility” is a stronger identifier than “liability”? I’m considering using a similar defense to the charge, but I’m unsure if the state I reside in has stricter laws on the matter?

  • Johnny

    One more point. After viewing the citation video, it is apparent that the vehicle did fully not stop before making that right turn on red. So, in light of that, can I still invoke “the burden of proof” clause in my defense?

  • Johnny

    *typo – did not fully stop

  • RadicalDude

    Ya, I doubt these things will even still be running 20 years from now.
    Obviously a violation of due process when you are basically being accused by a robot.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/27/local/la-me-0727-red-light-cameras-20110727

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/local/la-me-0329-red-light-cameras-20120329

    http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsLosAngelesContd.html

  • t.

    Not a big fan. Red light cameras tend cause more accidents than the prevent.

  • Joseph Edward Bodden

    I seem to see in this situation and the comments that there was a good idea, to free up officers for more important duties, even life saving duties, by applying automation to relatively minor, routine matters.
    Like so many good ideas, the technology has been altered and manipulated to pick pockets instead of actually addressing the matter of traffic safety.
    While is it our duty to obey the laws that protect the rights and freedoms of others, in doing so protect our own, it is also our duty to object, resist and deny power to those who want to corrupt the tech from it’s advertised purpose, instead being just another money generator based on the principle of extortion, that we will mostly just pay a ticket instead of spending ten times the money to resist a bogus citation.

  • Greg McGowan

    How does a red light camera cause more accidents than they prevent?????
    Please enlighten me.

  • Otto Maddox

    It’s amazing that these tickets are considered legal, when no one has actually signed them.

    But heaven forbid someone gets pulled over in person and not want to sign their ticket. You’ll get tasered out of your car and arrested. YOU MUST SIGN THAT TICKET.

    But if you get one in the mail I guess it’s just the same?

    Makes you think the whole signing the ticket thing is just a way of making someone admit their guilt ever so slightly.

  • t.

    @Bodden: There were never a big fund generator. The companies who administrated the system bled of almost all of the funds

    @McGowan: “Fear” of the photo cause many people to stop when they shouldn’t have. Slamming on their brakes in heavy traffic to make sure they stopped as soon as they saw a yellow and in the case with most drivers….the people behind them aren’t paying attention and suddenly there’s a crash. I think my city now only has 2 cameras left. The accident rate (fender benders mostly, but a crash is a crash) jumped at the location that they were installed at….which were selected as location of high crash incidents, they failed. There are places were they definitely have been successful, speed cameras tend to be better than red light cameras, but I’m still not a big fan.

  • RadicalDude

    Otto Maddox says:
    May 17, 2013 at 12:38 am

    Makes you think the whole signing the ticket thing is just a way of making someone admit their guilt ever so slightly.

    ^^^It is basically to coerce you into a “contract” with the court to either go to court or pay up and it is kind of a “proof of service” as well. But ya, it’s not really a valid contract if you only sign it because of the threat of violence, like the stories of Suge Knight violently forcing people to sign business contracts through gang intimidation, kind of a similar strategy.

  • Ariel

    Yep, any study I’ve seen outside of the corporations supplying the cameras has been that accidents actually increase, but the severity goes down (so you have a lot of people hurt bad from rear-enders, but not hurt really bad from a T-bone, that doesn’t weigh well). t. is right on the revenue in that a large portion goes to the corporations contracting with the cities.

    I’m still, reservedly, for the cameras on parkways, expressways, freeways, or any name you give them. They do tend to keep speeds down without the accident problem of red-light cameras.

    My reservation is the obvious one of how these pictures are used to charge the speeder.

  • Tony

    Im wondering how much it made a difference that Nate Cox signed this as ‘US Army Veteran’.

  • Shaun Olinger

    This won’t work in Oregon…. Not only do they get your vehicle coming and going, they also get YOU…. right through the windshield. It’s hard to fight it when they have a pic of my mug grinning like a fool as I stomped the gas in my hot-rod Chevy Suburban. Emphasis on “fool”. ESPECIALLY in cities where this is used a lot…. just take it easy. You only save yourself about a second per mile for every mile per hour faster you go. Over a REALLY long drive, it might add up to being worth it… but on your daily commute…. CHILL… and skip THIS hassle.

  • Ben Apraxin

    Here is my personal experience with DC speed camera tickets. If you are NOT a D.C. resident and do not have D.C. tags, then there is nothing D.C. can do to you. Other states, Maryland included, will not enforce these speed camera tickets against you. I tried using this guy’s tactic with a letter and all sorts of scientfic mumbo-jumbo. I got a notice from D.C. saying it would take them 6 months to reply. After 9 months went by, I figured they let it go. But no, after 1 year, they wrote back rejecting my claims. I did not pay the tickets. They doubled the fines and sent them to a collection agency. The collection agency can bite my ass. There is nothing they can do. Now, they may try to report this to credit agencies. If this bothers you, then you should pay the tickets. I don’t care about this, so if they report it, who cares? I don’t need loans, so in 7 years it just falls off anyway.

  • Nick T

    How do you make this work with a Florida ticket? It says that you don’t reply if you are contesting, but my mom got one and she wasn’t in the car and I want to use this letter to get dismissed so she doesn’t have to go to court. Help?

  • http://ix.productclass.collegefan.org/ idepul54
  • C

    Ironically I received a red-light ticket in the mail the same day I found this article. Can this technique work if I live in the same state where the incident occurred? What are my rights in TN?

  • http://www.motorists.org James C. Walker

    People who get camera tickets in DC need to contact their own Congressional Representative and both Senators from their state with a request that Congress ban all photo enforcement in DC.

    This is YOUR capital city and the ticketing is primarily aimed at commuters and visitors who do not live in the District. It is predatory, it rakes in nearly $1 million dollars a year, and it is based on deliberately improper traffic safety engineering with posted limit set way under the safe travel speeds and yellow light intervals set will short of the lengths needed for the actual travel speeds. It is literally a racket, run by the DC government.

    Tell the elected officials from your state that you want it stopped. Now.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association (frequent area visitor to see family in southern Maryland)

  • Yousuf

    I ran a red light camera where you’re supposed to make a complete store before turning right, I live in California, does anyone have any suggestions for me

  • t.

    Yes….

    Drive more carefully, obey the traffic rules and pay the fine you admit you earned.

  • http://www.motorists.org James C. Walker

    For t.

    If the traffic lights and posted speed limits were set to maximize safety and reduce violations to the minimum, then tickets from either officers or ticket cameras would be meaningful.

    But this is NOT the case. Traffic control parameters in many cities are deliberately mis-engineered to create speed and red light traps for money – at the expense of reduced safety. It is an evil racket.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • Yousuf

    Hey t.^,
    There’s no way in hell I’m gonna simply pay this ticket when I receive it, twice before I payed my red light tickets because I was speeding outrageously and I deserved them, I payed my speeding ticked and accumulated a 3rd point for that.. I then took traffic school to remove one of my points, so I’m back to 2, if I get another point on my record my license will get suspended again since I’m a minor.. Whether or not I deserve it is out of the question, I can fight it and I will. It was a perfectly safe right turn with literally no one else around. An actual cop probably wouldnt have cited me. I’m not a sucker, and I sure as hell ain’t gonna just pay before trying my options

  • t.

    @Walker: So…YOU are maintaining that that speed limits, red .lights and stop signs make the roads less safe? What is your evidence of that? I completely understand the “first blush” idea when you get frustrated by traffic or you are alone on a stretch of hughway, why can’t I drive asrer? Or at that stop light / sign that you roll through and no ones around…who does it hurt right?

    On this site a little while back there was a guy bitching because he “safely” made an illegal u-turn at a spot that is part of his daily commute…something his does everyday. On this occasion he said that it was safe because he “saw that no one was coming” but yet he never saw the officer that he turned directly in front of. And he was mad because he got stopped.

    So is it the traffic controls that are causing the thousands of traffic accidents each day? The millions in property damage? How about the speed related deaths and serious injuries each year? Is that because the other drivers aren’t driving fast enough?

    What is it you are basing you opinion on?

    Housed:
    You admit that you are a crappy driver and a danger to everyone else on the road. Pay your ticket and be quiet.

  • RadicalDude

    @Yousuf:
    When was your ticket issued? Red light tickets are being phased out in California, where was yours at?

    Also, they have no way to enforce it when you just ignore them. Have you already responded or set up any court dates? If you have responded to them, then you can’t just ignore it at this point.

  • t.

    Take Dude’s advice. Its famously….interesting advice.

  • Yousuf

    @radicaldude

    The camera got me yesterday night, I live in the Bay Area and I was in Fremont around Automall if you’re familiar with that area. So I can just ignore whatever I receive in the mail and my mom won’t get a call like she did for one of me speeding tickets being ignored? Thanks for the info btw

  • Yousuf

    @t.

    What is that supposed to mean? Bad or good?

  • RadicalDude
  • RadicalDude
  • RadicalDude

    I did advise someone on their red light ticket, and they did get it dismissed. This was in Glendale a few months back. They did not ignore it, they went to court.

  • Yousuf

    @radicaldude, what kind of arguments are supposed to me made if I do end up going to court for the ticket? Just the same stuff from the articles?

  • RadicalDude
  • Yousuf

    Will my mom end up facing any possible ramifications of ignoring the ticket if she’s the one who actually signed my DL application and I’m a provisional licensee under her!

  • Yousuf

    ?*

  • RadicalDude

    “Yousuf says:
    July 19, 2013 at 8:58 am

    @radicaldude, what kind of arguments are supposed to me made if I do end up going to court for the ticket? Just the same stuff from the articles?”

    Well, you can cite the cases where the higher courts have been finding against them if you have to argue, but imo you should keep your argumentation to a minimum.

    Imo, what you can do is send the cop who is the “issuer” of the ticket and present him a tough evidenciary challenge.

  • RadicalDude

    *Send the cop a discovery request with 25 written interrogatories.

  • RadicalDude

    “Yousuf says:
    July 19, 2013 at 9:03 am

    Will my mom end up facing any possible ramifications of ignoring the ticket if she’s the one who actually signed my DL application and I’m a provisional licensee under her!”

    If you could post the citation online somewhere I can look @ it.
    Is it to your mom, or to the “vehicle owner” or is it to you? The more info you can give the better. I take it you got the ticket in the mail after you rolled through a right turn on a red light while driving your mom’s car.

  • Yousuf

    I rolled through a right turn driving my moms car, however I’ve had 2 camera citations mailed specifically to me in the past. Im just prepping myself; I haven’t actually even received it in the mail yet, but I’m sure I will because the flash of the camera was really apparent since it was dark out. Ill be sure to post it somewhere later if you want, thanked for all the useful information

  • RadicalDude

    Sorry, I should say, don’t confess on the internet.

  • Yousuf

    It’s not really a confession when I have anonymity, and I’m not admitting guilt

  • RadicalDude

    “Yousuf says:
    July 19, 2013 at 9:12 am
    I’ve had 2 camera citations mailed specifically to me in the past”

    What is the disposition on those? Did you pay them? How did they know it was you?

  • Yousuf

    Yes I paid those before their deadlines

  • Yousuf

    And they probably knew it was me because they know that the registered owner signed for me to get my license, that’s what I think anyways

  • http://www.motorists.org James C. Walker

    For t

    Go to our website and read the sections on speed limits and speed cameras to understand how 85th percentile limits tend to produce the smoothest and safest traffic flow with the fewest crashes. I have research items dating back to the 1941 National Safety Council Report on Speed that all say the same thing. I have personally studied this since my freshman year in college in 1962/63.

    Then read the section on red light cameras to understand the critical nature of setting the yellow intervals long enough for the ACTUAL approach speeds of at least 85% of the vehicles.

    My statements are based on research, not opinion.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • RadicalDude

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp

    You could cite
    Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
    and the Bezorkian case if you have to in court.

    Further, these tickets have a couple of legal flaws in that there is no legit cause of action, no standing by the plaintiff, no real case or controversy.

  • Ralow

    Be careful when writing a letter like this. In many states, these camera tickets clearly state on the citation that they are CIVIL cases and therefore these 4th and 6th amendment rights don’t apply (these only apply in criminal cases…the 5th amendment too but its use is more limited in civil cases).

    It appears that this DC ticket doesn’t have this distinction so it worked. Most other states that send these as civil suits will just ignore these defenses and still try to make you pay. Plus, in a civil case, their burden of proof is not as high (no “beyond reasonable doubt” standard…just a 51%, more likely than not standard).

    Like RadicalDude said, your best bet to fight it is to try the “best evidence rule” defense. i.e. make them prove that the camera was working properly, what their procedures are, etc.

    If you simply ignore it, you will likely receive a default judgement against you, they will send it to a collection agency for collections, and it will mess up your credit. There will be no warrant for your arrest though…how can you be arrested for a CIVIL case? If that happens, get a lawyer and sue them for violation of your civil rights.

  • dal745

    Received a photo enforced speed ticket (13 mph over) in Cleveland OH. I live in Georgia and was visiting Cleveland at the time of the ticket. The vehicle was a rental car in my name, however I was not driving. I have not contacted the state back nor paid the fine yet. Trying to decided best course of action being that I’m not a local Ohio resident. Advice?

  • RadicalDude

    This is not legal advice, I’m not a lawyer.
    dal745,
    One of the first things you should do, in my opinion, is to send a discovery notice with written interrogatories.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

    And this is something you should do soon, don’t wait until court/arraignment. The point is to “Stump” the opponent with an evidenciary challenge that shows they do not have evidence to make their case.

  • t.

    Walker: I’m no fan of speed cameras.

    But the rest of your comment reminds me of a situation from like 15 years ago. A buddy of mine got several complainants downtown of of our metropolitan city (over 1,000,000) concerning a parking lot business that moved cars around all day long….leaving cars in the street while doing so, causing back ups. Having received multiple complainants over a long period of time…he stopped dealing with the lowly workers and went to the operator several times, first discussing and then warning him about the hazard created. Yet more and more complainants about it. Finally my buddy dealt with it via citations to the employees creating the hazards. So the operator complains about my buddy. It finally works its way up to the division major. The major looks at him and says ‘I’ve been working in this town since 1972 and that intersection hasn’t changed. Why do you have a problem with it?’. To which my buddy correctly replied ‘you’re right major, the intersection hasn’t changed since 1972…but the amount of traffic going through it certainly has’.

    Now, I tell that just as a reminder to use caution when approaching a problem. There is MASSIVE growth in many metro areas. The increase in traffic is staggering. Even non-metro areas have seen growth that way outpaces capacity of many roadways. Add to that the crumbling infrastructure of the nations bridges…along with drunk / high drivers, distracted drivers, frustrated drivers, increased speeds…..all factors BEYOND speed limits / cameras.

    Its not just “I can handle driving that fast”. Lots of other things involved.

  • http://www.motorists.org James C. Walker

    For t. We are all aware of the problems that increased traffic flows have brought to our cities and to some rural areas.

    My point is that artificially low posted speed limits set well below the actual safe speeds of travel are NOT the answer. Yet “lower the speed limit” is the ineffective knee-jerk reaction from A) people who don’t understand the science of traffic safety engineering and B) people that want to profiteer from speeding tickets given primarily to safe drivers.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • RadicalDude

    For dal745:

    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/civil/CivilProcedure.pdf
    RULE 33. Interrogatories to Parties
    (A) Availability; procedures for use. Any party, without leave of court, may serve upon any other party up to forty written interrogatories to be answered by the party served. A party serving interrogatories shall serve the party with an electronic copy of the interrogatories. The electronic copy shall be reasonably useable for word processing and provided on computer disk, by electronic mail, or by other means agreed to by the parties. A party who is unable to provide an electronic copy of the interrogatories may seek leave of court to be relieved of this requirement. A party shall not propound more than forty interrogatories to any other party without leave of court. Upon motion, and for good cause shown, the court may extend the number of interrogatories that a party may serve upon another party. For purposes of this rule, any subpart propounded under an interrogatory shall be considered a separate interrogatory.
    (1) If the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, the organization shall choose one or more of its proper employees, officers, or agents to answer the interrogatories, and the employee, officer, or agent shall furnish information as is known or available to the organization.
    (2) Interrogatories, without leave of court, may be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon the party.
    (3) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall quote each interrogatory immediately preceding the corresponding answer or objection. When the number of interrogatories exceeds forty without leave of court, the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served need only answer or object to the first forty interrogatories. The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers and objections within a period designated by the party submitting the interrogatories, not less than twenty-eight days after the service of a printed copy of the interrogatories or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow.
    (B) Scope and use at trial. Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired into under Civ. R. 26(B), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence.
    The party calling for such examination shall not thereby be concluded but may rebut it by evidence.
    An interrogatory otherwise proper is not objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion, contention, or legal conclusion, but the court may order that such an interrogatory be answered at a later time, or after designated discovery has been completed, or at a pretrial conference.
    (C) Option to produce business records. Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the business records, including electronically stored information, of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served or from an examination, audit, or inspection of the business records, or from a compilation, abstract, or summary based on the business records, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to the interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect the records and to make copies of the records or compilations, abstracts, or summaries from the records.
    [Effective: July 1, 1970; amended effective July 1, 1972; July 1, 1989; July 1, 1999; July 1, 2004; amended effective July 1, 2008; July 1, 2009; July 1, 2012.]
    Staff Note (July 1, 2012 Amendment)
    The introductory paragraph of Civ.R. 33(A) and the provisions of Civ.R. 33(A)(3) are amended to eliminate difficulties raised by the 2004 amendment to Civ.R. 33(A) that requires a party serving interrogatories to “provide” an electronic copy to the served party. This amendment is enabled by the 2012 amendment to Civ.R. 5(B) which permits documents after the original complaint to be served by electronic means.
    Civ.R. 5(A) requires that copies of all documents in an action be “served” on the parties. When the Civ.R. 33 requirement for an electronic copy was established in 2004, there was no provision for “service” by electronic means and it was deemed impractical to require that an electronic copy be “served” by mailing a computer disk or otherwise delivering it by one of the other methods permitted under the existing Civ.R. 5(B). Thus the 2004 amendment to Civ.R. 33 provided that a printed copy must be “served” (by one of the methods listed under Civ.R. 5(B)), and that an electronic copy also must be “’provided’ on computer disk, by electronic mail, or by other means agreed to by the parties.” That requirement was problematic not only because of the required dual format but also in determining a party’s recourse when a paper copy was served but an electronic copy was not provided – a problem addressed by the 2009 amendment to Civ.R. 33.
    The 2012 amendment simply requires that an electronic copy be served, which can be accomplished electronically under the 2012 amendment to Civ.R. 5(B), or by any other method provided under Civ.R. 5(B). Although service of a paper copy is no longer necessary, it is not prohibited and would be appropriate, for example, when a party who is unable to provide an electronic copy is relieved of that requirement by the court.
    Similar amendments have been made to Civ.R. 36 relating to requests for admission.
    Staff Note (July 1, 2009 Amendment)
    Recognizing that computer word processors have replaced the typewriter, Rule 33 was amended in 2004 to delete the former “minimum one-inch space” requirement in favor of a requirement that the party propounding interrogatories provide the responding party with an electronic copy of the interrogatories for use in preparing a new computer-generated document containing both the questions and the answers. The 2004 amendment continued to require that the printed copy be served, and only required that the electronic copy be “provided” to the party served. The amendment further permitted the electronic copy to be provided by means other than those described in Civ. R. 5(B) for service, specifically
    including “by electronic mail.” Finally, the amendment permitted the court to relieve a party “who is unable to provide an electronic copy” of the duty to do so.
    The 2004 amendment did not specify a consequence for the failure to provide an electronic copy. Because the time designated in the interrogatories for responding runs from service, and only the printed copy is served, the amendment left uncertain the obligations and appropriate remedy for a party served with a printed copy of interrogatories, but not provided with an electronic copy. The 2009 amendment specifies the consequence and appropriate remedy for this situation.
    First, the amendment specifies that the electronic copy must be “reasonably useable for word processing” to enable the responding party to transcribe the responses. Next, the amendment confirms that the period for responding, which is designated by the propounding party and cannot be less than twenty-eight days, shall run from the day of service of the printed copy, and that the failure to provide an electronic copy does not alter the response period. However, if before the designated period has expired, the responding party requests that the period be enlarged pursuant to Rule 6(B) because the propounding party has not provided an electronic copy, that reason shall constitute good cause for granting the requested extension, and the court’s order may require that an electronic copy be provided.
    The amendment strikes a balance between the respective duties of the parties when a provision which merely makes it easier to transcribe interrogatory answers is not followed. It enforces the duty of the party propounding interrogatories to provide an electronic copy unless otherwise relieved of that obligation by the court. At the same it time makes it clear that a responding party served with a printed copy of interrogatories cannot rely on the failure to receive an electronic copy as reason to do nothing and simply disregard the response time. A Civ. R. 6(B) request for enlargement of the period is an appropriate remedy for a responding party in this situation, and the amendment merely provides guidance in that regard. The rule states that the failure to receive an electronic copy constitutes good cause under Civ. R. 6(B). The amendment also confirms the court’s discretion to relieve a party of the duty to provide an electronic copy when unable to do so, for example, when compliance would be difficult for a pro se party.
    Similar amendments were made to Civ. R. 36, addressing the failure to provide an electronic copy of requests for admission.
    Staff Note (July 1, 2008 Amendment)
    The text of Civ. R. 33(A) is broken into three subparts. This is intended as a stylistic change only to make the material more accessible.
    Amendments to Civ. R. 33(C) clarify that the responding party’s option to produce
    business records in which the information sought in interrogatories may be found includes the option of producing electronically stored information.
    Staff Note (July 1, 2004 Amendment)
    Rule 33(A) Availability; procedures for use
    The 2004 amendment added two provisions governing the service of and response to interrogatories. New language was added to the fourth paragraph of division (A) that requires a responding party to quote the interrogatory immediately preceding the party’s answer or objection. This provision ensures that the court and parties are not required to consult two documents or different parts of the same document in order to review the full text of an interrogatory and the corresponding answer or objection. The provision is similar to the second sentence of S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 26.1.
    To facilitate the responding party’s obligation to include the interrogatories and answers or objections in the same document, the first paragraph of division (A) was modified to require the party submitting interrogatories to provide the responding party with both a printed and an electronic copy of the interrogatories. The electronic version must be provided in a format that will enable the responding party
    to readily include the interrogatories and corresponding answers and objections in the same document without having to retype each interrogatory. A party who is unable to provide an electronic copy of interrogatories may seek leave of court to be relieved of the requirement.
    Corresponding amendments were made to Civ. R. 36(A) relative to requests for admission.
    Rule 33(D) Form of answers and objections to interrogatories.
    The 2004 amendment deleted language that required a party submitting interrogatories to allow sufficient space, not less than one inch, following each interrogatory in which the answering party could type an answer or objection. New language was added to division (A) governing the service of and response to interrogatories.
    Staff Note (July 1, 1999 Amendment)
    Rule 33(A) Availability, procedures for use
    The 1999 amendment was to clarify that any party may file up to forty interrogatories without leave of court. Several non-substantive grammatical changes also were made.
    Rule 33(B) Scope and use at trial
    The 1999 amendment made grammatical changes only; no substantive change was made.
    Rule 33(C) Option to produce business records
    The 1999 amendment made grammatical changes only; no substantive change was made.

  • RadicalDude

    @dal745
    So think of the toughest evidential challenge you can think of and come up with the forty toughest questions you can think of, put them in a discovery request and serve them to whoever wrote the ticket and/ or is prosecuting the ticket in court. It is important to do this as soon as practicable. You should challenge cause of action, jurisdiction, standing, and the chain of evidence, competency of the witness among, probably, some other things. This is in my opinion the first thing you should do, in terms of handling your ticket. If they don’t answer your interrogatories in a timely fashion, move to have the ticket dismissed for failure to prosecute.

  • t.

    Walker: I’ve read and participated in lots of traffic studies. Heck, lots of what we (police) do is incorporated into your studies.

    As I said, speed is but 1 factor of many.

    But I’ll ask you then……
    If there is a section of roadway that exhibits a higher than normal number of crashes. Now, IMO the overwhelming amount of crashes are “attention deficit” crashes where people just aren’t paying attention. But, since speed appears to be your fixation let’s say its a controlled access roadway / highway. As a controlled accesses roadway, the speeds are higher and the injuries and property damage are also higher. So how do you suggest that issue be handled? You don’t like speed limits. You don’t like speed cameras. My guess is the you don’t like any police presence (and what would we be enforcing anyway with high speed limits). Do we spent a several million dollars (anywhere from 10-200 million per intersection) trying to re-engineer the roadway? Or are you just willing to sacrifice those people?

    Now I’ll say that there are lots of places that I travel to and I honestly don’t see the reason for some of the low limits (not crazy low .limits, but lower than I would think the road would support). I also don’t see excessive “enforcement” in those areas either.

    Speed is just 1 factor. Unfortunately, when you combine high speeds any of the other factors….the result isn’t a good thing.

  • http://www.motorists.org James C. Walker

    For t. Thanks for your analysis and thoughtful questions. Points:
    1) I LIKE proper posted speed limits set at the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions because they tend to produce the smoothest and safest traffic flow with the fewest crashes AND allocate more traffic to the safest roads. This is what my friends in the Michigan State Police favor and I agree entirely with them. I have worked for 20+ years to help make that the policy in Michigan. NMA members around the country work to try to get this to be the policy in every area, but the forces that want the revenue don’t agree.
    2) I agree that inattention is the real cause of most crashes.
    3) Speed is a factor, not so much by itself (within reason), but as a contributor to the severity of a possible crash. Speed alone in the reports I have read is the root cause of well under 10% of crashes, more typically in the 3% to 6% range.
    4) Speeds on limited access freeways are higher and the crashes are more severe in many cases. That said, the fatality rate per mile traveled is less than half that of slower surface highways. You get serious net safety gains by having more cars on 75 mph freeways and fewer on 55 to 65 mph surface highways.
    5) I see excessive enforcement ONLY where the posted limits are set well below the 85th percentile speeds the limits should reflect. Excessive enforcement is not profitable in areas with proper 85th percentile posted limits, so it is rare.
    6) I LIKE police presence in areas where the posted limits are properly set. There are many types of violations where the drivers are not safe and worth sanctioning – including DUI, reckless, careless, very defective equipment, inattentive, tailgating, not keeping right except to pass, improper passing, aggressive behavior of many types, road rage, etc., etc.
    6a I don’t like heavy police presence in areas with limits set 10 to 15 or even 20 mph below the 85th percentile because they are almost always doing speed enforcement that catches mostly safe drivers going along with the normal and safe flow of traffic speeds — for money.
    7) I don’t like speed cameras because they are ONLY located in areas where the posted limits are set well below the 85th percentile speeds – it is the only way they can issue enough citations to even pay their own high costs.
    8) Areas with particularly high crash rates almost always have some engineering flaws that can be addressed. One very effective change if room permits is to use a roundabout instead of a signalized intersection. This typically yields at least a 40% to 50% reduction in crashes and a 70% to 90% reduction in serious injuries and fatalities. They don’t work everywhere, but they work in a LOT of places they could be used. Roundabouts are one of the secrets of lower British fatality rates. Dedicated turn lanes with protected turn-only light cycles drastically reduce crashes at some intersections.
    9) Speed limits set at the 85th percentile speeds (usually higher than current limits) PLUS appropriate warning signs and advisory speeds for the small number of short actually dangerous areas would go a long way toward getting drivers to pay attention where needed. Simply posting a 45 mph limit on a long road segment that justifies 55 or 60 in most places to try to make the short dangerous area that needs 45 limits safer is lunacy. It does NOT work and never will. Drivers inherently understand the safe 55 to 60 mph areas and arrive at the 45 area UNWARNED of the danger for that 100 yards. We have an engineer in my town that does this.
    10) Improperly low limits since 1974 on our major highways have caused a very high degree of disrespect for traffic laws in general and the officers who enforce them. This was a terrible negative result of the counter-productive National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) from 1974-1995 that we are still living with 18 years after repeal of the NMSL. Areas of I-294 in far suburban Chicago have 85th percentile speeds of 75-80 mph with 4 or 5 lanes each way — posted at 55 mph since 1974. This is lunacy.
    11) In areas where these low limits are used for excessive enforcement against mostly safe drivers, patrol officers are seen as hated road tax collectors – a terrible consequence of improperly low posted limits. We should never have used police for this purpose in this country.
    12) I have done Lidar speed studies on 80 mph zones of I-10 in Texas. The 85th percentile speeds were 81-84 mph with only 1.2% of the cars at 90 mph or higher. This is in areas where a competent driver in a modern car could go 100 mph all day in very light traffic without endangering anyone. But people don’t. VERY few people feel safe and comfortable above about the mid-80s in speed, so they don’t drive that fast – even where traffic and enforcement are very light, interchanges are far apart in very rural counties and visibility distances are usually well over a mile.
    13) People respect reasonable limits, they don’t respect unreasonably low ones. That has many negative consequences.
    14) Officer-enforced low limits are useless for anything but revenue. No government has enough enforcement resources to be in any one place more than a small percentage of the time. So the speed traps have almost no effect on the travel speeds most of the time. Officers can go the “sweet spots” month after month, year after year, and the percentage of “speeders” will be about the same. Studies show the effects of heavy enforcement on a freeway construction zone lasted less than 1 mile.
    15) You can raise a low limit by up to 15 mph or lower a good one by up to 20 mph and the actual change in the 85th percentile speed will be 3 mph or less, usually 1 mph – if that. (Federal research study by Martin Parker, a brilliant engineer that I know.)
    16) State police corrected the limits on two Ann Arbor Interstate business route segments from 30 and 35 mph to 40 and 45. The 85th percentile speeds before the corrections were 40 and 47 mph. The 85th percentile speeds 1, 2, and 3 years after the corrections were 40 and 47 mph. NO CHANGE, except the revenue traps are gone.

    The NMA supports rational traffic laws based on sound engineering and safety. We strongly oppose arbitrary laws and predatory enforcement for revenue. Note that I am 69 years old, have studied these issues for 50+ years, have well over 1 million miles of driving experience in 21 major countries. There ARE proper ways to enact and enforce traffic laws for safety. They are not used in much of country and that is what we want changed.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • t.

    Walker: Very fair. I like the “round about” but it has been an absolute disaster in the area and they are being removed and chalked up as an expensive experiment. They work well in some places but they clearly aren’t a guaranteed fix for all places.

    Have a great day.

  • http://www.motorists.org James C. Walker

    Thanks, t.
    If your area has trouble with roundabouts, they may be from an older design. Modern roundabouts work really well. If you can say, what is the area involved?

    We now have 7 in Ann Arbor and another important one is under construction to relieve congestion near a new Costco store. One controls an exit from US23 where AM rush hour traffic from a traffic light used to back up right down onto the right lane of the limited access freeway with VERY high crash risks for the last person in line. The roundabout fixed this instantly.

    The city engineer who sets the speed limits wants most limits set below the 30th percentile and one is at the 1st percentile with 99% of the traffic under good conditions in violation. But he likes roundabouts, so I go to public meetings to support the roundabout issues – even though I disagree totally with almost everything else he does. It is a curious relationship.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • tlcal44

    I received a “Notice Of Violation” last month for a civil penalty due to a red light violation in Willis, Texas, Montgomery county. I live near this town but rarely go into it. This is the first time I’ve ever received a red light notice. I haven’t had a ticket in quite some time (10 years maybe?). The notice claims that failure to pay can result in county tax-assessor refusal of renewing vehicle registration. I responded in writing, asking the ALRE to drop the case and/or provide camera-related documentation.

    I received a response (but no documentation), very short and to the point, that the “hearing date” is 10/3 at the police department in Willis. Not at a courthouse – at a police department. The building for this police department is like no other. It’s a small, plain metal building. I do not feel comfortable showing up for this hearing. I have this feeling that it’s not really a hearing at all, just simply a way for me to come in and pay $75. I can reschedule by calling their customer service. At first, I thought, I’ll reschedule within 24 hours prior to hearing date, each and every time as long as I can. I looked up the number and apparently it amounts to a collection agency. Once you call it, they got you and they will call you constantly.

    Overall, I feel that this entire procedure is a way to harass people. If the so-called violator calls the number or responds, she opens the door to let these people in. If it were an actual live police officer that had stopped me and issued a REAL ticket, I most likely would acknowledge my wrong-doing and pay, simple as that. At least I would have been able to provide an immediate response or plea to the officer. The Willis police department is allowing this 3rd party from Arizona to infiltrate our legal system. Willis is the only town in Montgomery that continues this Red Light nonsense.

    I am considering my options at this point. I have considered: 1) ignoring it all together now, or 2) showing up, or 3) rescheduling, or 4) contacting the Willis PD directly. The only option I refuse to do is simply mail my payment to Tempe Arizona.

    Any thoughts?

  • ferret1

    Does anyone know if you weren’t the registered owner at the time of the red light ticket how much effort they put into finding you? I had bought the car with my bff on July 7, not registered it yet, my gf died on July 11, the ticket went to the old owner. The ex-owner called me and told me I had the ticket. She is an older lady and only has my phone number.She didn’t keep any records but we did fill out everything correctly when sold and she sent to DMV. I bought the car in Sacramento, got the ticket in Sacramento CA and will register the car in Oregon most likely but definitely not CA. Maybe in Texas. She had turned in all the paperwork into DMV in July 15. So, The ex-owner will fill out the paperwork that it isn’t her. Unless I help her she hasn’t a clue who I am. That is why she called me. Will, the Sacramento courts chase me down at my Oregon address with this ticket based on her hearsay that is who she sold the car too? That is assuming they will go back to DMV records. Until I register the car that is all it is. After I register the car, then it is different. Also, after it is registered it will be registered in a dead persons name and mine. Does that cause any problems for them?

  • RadicalDude

    @tlcal44:

    In my opinion, you should send them a discovery request asap.

  • RadicalDude

    @ferret1: Sorry for your loss. Why do you want to put it in the name of the deceased? Be careful not to do any kind of fraud.
    About the ticket: Don’t sweat it unless they do contact you. I think it’s pretty likely to just blow over.

  • elnino1217

    ok guys so i am not sure that the fourth amendment argument was right???!!! matter fact it is the sixth amendment .read below

    Use of the camera photo is a violation of your Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Constitution guarantees you the right to confront your accusers. That means the photo technically cannot be allowed into evidence without allowing you to cross-examine a witness who maintains the records and system associated with the camera.

    but in any ways there is really so many ways to beat the system, i represented my self in the past, once in a federal court,once in a civil suit court, i won both times….this time i am going to trial to fight against 5 camera red light tickets(for not coming to a complete stop before turning)…what kinda garbage is that …140$$$ a pop, 700$$$$ total, they really think that we have that kinda of money to pay these corrupt AHOLES….. of course state of new jersey ,the worse.good luck everyone

  • RadicalDude

    It’s all about financial predation, it’s what government is all about. It’s all a scam.

  • suzcard

    I received a speeding ticket violation in Cleveland. I want to deny the ticket and request a hearing. Should I send a letter along with notice of deny. Should I use the original letter above but state about the 5th amendment instead of 4th and 5th. I was reading on line in one year this camera issued over 18,000 tickets. How can I prove that the camera is incorrect. Thanks for you help. I need to respond ASAP.

  • suzcard

    The 6th amendment I meant to type.

  • elnino1217

    ok ,suzcard….,first and foremost ,u can’t just deny the ticket,if you do have a court date, you have to show up in front of the judge,then you plead not guilty,then you have the chance to take your case into trial,but when you gonna ask the judge for a trial, right then you have to ask for (discovery), it is every single documents the prosecution gonna use against you ,the letter listed above is very basic, it could work but it could not in your case!!!! what is your ticket for ??…and it is the 6th amendment not fourth.

  • RadicalDude

    Don’t plead to the judge, just ask the judge “Has jurisdiction been alleged?”

  • Fluteloops

    @RadicalDude You seem to be very knowledgable on the topic and I have a very conflicting situation. I happened to be driving my old man’s car and got flash-cammed. I later realized he basically got the ticket, then sent it back in claiming it was me who had the car. Now I have a ticket and a photo of me from over a month ago and am having a hard time coming up with the required ticket money. Is there any easy way out of this or should i just pay up?

  • sth9669

    Maybe some of you guys can help me out here? I just got a call from DC DMV Adjudications collections that claimed I was charged with a speeding camera infraction in April of 2004!!! I never received notice of this in the mail (this was years ago right after college when I was living with roommates and moved around every 6 months or so until I finally got my own place a year or so later).

    Now they want me to pay up, but I’ve never seen a ticket and have no idea what the pictures show or the evidence against me is. Isn’t there some kind of statute of limitations on these things? They are claiming that if I don’t pay, that they will notify the national registry of DMVs and my license/registration will be suspended. Sounds fishy to me. . . Do you guys think I can send in this letter with a notice to appeal form (since apparently if you don’t respond in 60 days they automatically find you guilty) and it would work?

  • http://www.motorists.org jcwconsult

    sth9669
    If you decide to try to fight this, be SURE you send in the letter with notice to appeal by Certified Mail with a return receipt mailed back to you. Send a copy of the letter to the collections department that contacted you, also by Certified Mail with a return receipt. Clearly state that you never received any notice of the ticket in 2004 or anytime since up to now. Request evidence that the violation happened.
    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • Fluteloops

    @sth9969 http://www.r6-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54247 read that and scroll to Tomas Paines Case

  • RadicalDude

    “Fluteloops says:
    October 8, 2013 at 12:28 am

    @RadicalDude You seem to be very knowledgable on the topic and I have a very conflicting situation. I happened to be driving my old man’s car and got flash-cammed. I later realized he basically got the ticket, then sent it back in claiming it was me who had the car. Now I have a ticket and a photo of me from over a month ago and am having a hard time coming up with the required ticket money. Is there any easy way out of this or should i just pay up?”

    I don’t claim to be a legal expert, this is just my opinion, not legal advice. You absolutely should fight it to the fullest extent you can. The first thing would be to send a discovery request with written interrogatories. They must, per the rules of civil procedure, answer questions of evidence prior to trial. Ask them the questions that expose the holes in their non-sense. The whole thing is just an excuse to try and take your money, there is no case.
    1. Is there evidence that there is a cause of action?
    2. [yes/no]Is there any evidence of any injury-in-fact sufficient to constitute a basis for a civil cause of action?
    3. What evidence is there of a palpable injury-in-fact?
    4. Who is the plaintiff?
    5. Is there any evidence that the prosecutor represents who he claims to?

  • RadicalDude

    There is a good chance they won’t even respond, so if they don’t you just file motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

  • Fluteloops

    @RadicalDude Okay so would the discovery request come before or after the official written “not guilty plea” before said Trial De Novo. I am wondering how I would incorporate those into the written version since technically I won’t be appearing in court.. YET. Depends on how it goes. I have written up a plea and so far I have this:

    Statement of Facts
    Case No.: S61900A

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 21453(c). I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21453(c).

    I received this citation in the mail 30 days after I allegedly ran a red light.
    The statute legalizing automated red light enforcement requires the photographed motorists to be informed of the citation within 15 days of the date of the alleged violation. CVC 40518 states: “Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of… Section 21453… recorded by an automated enforcement system… and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation…[this] shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea.”
    Not only does this not constitute a valid complaint due to undue prosecutorial delay, it is in direct violation of due process law.
    I have driven through hundreds of intersections since this period without fail and with regards to this; this photo cannot legally be used to prove the traffic light was properly operating and any introduction of the camera photo into evidence (lest this be taken to court), by law, is considered hearsay. This follows the relevant text of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment reads as follows: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Seeing as there is not sufficient evidence to prove my guilt on these charges or to support this Vehicle Code in question, and that any action to prove my guilt on these charges is in direct violation of the 6th Amendment as well as illegal under due process law with respect to CVC 40518, I ask that this case be dismissed.
    If it is the courts decision to move forward with this I would request all maintenance records of the camera(s) involved.
    If the court does not find in my favor in the case, I request a Trial de Novo.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct.

  • RadicalDude

    I think your strategy has a good shot. I would do things kind of differently. You are saying you “would” request those records. When you mail in your document, actually request them in a discovery request that you send out at the same time, imo. Send a discovery request ASAP in my opinion. Are you in California? In California, I think you can ask up to 25 written interrogatories, and if they are relevant they must be answered in order for them to proceed. Personally, I would not plead not guilty, because by pleading you are acknowledging the jurisdiction of the court, and how do we know they have jurisdiction? Faith? I would just go ask the judge “Has jurisdiction been alleged?” “Where is the allegation of jurisdiction?” “Has any party to this matter alleged that this court has jurisdiction?” “Yes or no, is there any evidence of jurisdiction before the court?” Etc…

  • RadicalDude

    I would demand the judge explain the basis of their jurisdiction. If they refuse to address the issue, object. If they try to dodge the issue of EVIDENCE of jurisdiction, yet assret that they have jurisdiction, ask them, “Clarification, does your finding that you have jurisdiction have any evidenciary grounds to support it, or is it wholly arbitrary?”

  • RadicalDude

    I know not everyone would feel comfortable doing so, and I think your strategy also has a pretty good chance of working. But, I would absolutely file a discovery request either way.

  • Fluteloops

    @RadicalDude The main thing however is I will not get a “second chance” if I go straight to court. That’s why I’m going about the written way. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you HAVE to plead guilty or not guilty in the written one. I don’t think I could just send in the written interrogatories. Also the main thing being that it isn’t yet considered a “criminal case” so I don’t know if the discovery would be able to apply yet. And also in reference to the “evidence” the ticket does have my photo on it.. no question there. So I don’t want to give to much leeway to the fact that they think they have viable evidence. Also I really don’t know how I can get them off my back without acknowledging them at all. I’m sort of unsure what order to do things I guess.

  • RadicalDude

    Discovery is part of the civil procedure as well, it’s not just for criminal proceedings. You serve discovery on the plaintiff.

  • RadicalDude
  • RadicalDude
  • RadicalDude

    2030.030. (a) A party may propound to another party either or both
    of the following:
    (1) Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are
    relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
    (2) Any additional number of official form interrogatories, as
    described in Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710), that are
    relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
    (b) Except as provided in Section 2030.070, no party shall, as a
    matter of right, propound to any other party more than 35 specially
    prepared interrogatories. If the initial set of interrogatories does
    not exhaust this limit, the balance may be propounded in subsequent
    sets.
    (c) Unless a declaration as described in Section 2030.050 has been
    made, a party need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared
    interrogatories served, if that party states an objection to the
    balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground that the limit has
    been exceeded.

  • RadicalDude

    So, I guess you can send them up to 35 questions that they must answer, I think it used to be 25, maybe I was mistaken.

  • RadicalDude
  • RadicalDude

    Ask them the questions they don’t want to answer, the ones that expose the fraudulent nature of the proceedings.

  • Fluteloops

    So i can just straight up mail in those questions instead of the not guilty plea?

  • RadicalDude

    No, it’s not instead of. Personally, I would not plead not guilty. But if that is the way you want to do it, you would do both. I’m not saying the not guilty plea through the mail wouldn’t work. It’s more on the principle that I wouldn’t do it.

  • Fluteloops

    Okay gotchya sounds good. Well I will probably mail in the first attempt I posted and see how that goes. If that fails i’ll prepare the discovery for the next court date whenever that gets set and let you know what happens

  • RadicalDude

    Ya please do let me know.

  • Fluteloops

    i’m writing up my interrogatories but i cant seem to find where it requires them to answer prior to the court date. Is this official because that would really help my case and allow me to not have to legally send in money until they are answered. Thanks man

  • Fluteloops

    Scratch that last message. I have re-arranged my entire statement of facts to fit as a sort of lead in to the discovery. tell me what you think.

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 21453(c).

    I received this citation in the mail 30 days after I allegedly ran a red light.
    The statute legalizing automated red light enforcement requires the photographed motorists to be informed of the citation within 15 days of the date of the alleged violation. CVC 40518 states: “Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of… Section 21453… recorded by an automated enforcement system… and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation…[this] shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea.”
    Not only does this not constitute a valid complaint due to undue prosecutorial delay, it is in direct violation of due process law.
    I have driven through hundreds of intersections since this period without fail and with regards to this; this photo cannot legally be used to prove the traffic light was properly operating and any introduction of the camera photo into evidence (lest this be taken to court), by law, is considered hearsay. This follows the relevant text of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment reads as follows: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Seeing as there is not sufficient evidence to prove my guilt on these charges or to support this Vehicle Code in question, and that any action to prove my guilt on these charges is in direct violation of the 6th Amendment as well as illegal under due process law with respect to CVC 40518, I ask that this case be dismissed.

    I have included a list official written interrogatories with respect to the Code of Civil Procedure sections:
    2030.010. “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapters 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010) and 3 (commencing with Section 2017.710), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”
    2017.010. “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”
    2030.020. (a) A defendant may propound interrogatories to a party to the action without leave of court at any time.
    The court must, per rules of civil procedure, answer the questions of evidence prior to trial.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct.

    Date: October 11, 2013

    (and then on a separate attached document)

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

    PLAINTIFF

    vs.

    ME (DEFENDANT)
    Case No. S61900A

    DISCOVERY REQUEST

    Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 1054 and 1054.1, and California Government Code section 26500, the defendant in the above-entitled matter does hereby request under discovery the following:
    • A copy of the Project Report for the traffic signal in this case as required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as modified by the California Supplement, (MUTCD) Section 4B.102.
    • A copy of the Cooperative Agreement for the traffic signal in this case as required by MUTCD Section 4B.109.
    • A copy of any contract in which the State agrees to provide traffic signal control system engineering services for the traffic signal in this case per MUTCD Section 4B.110.
    • A copy of the Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals and all attendant Warrants for the traffic signal in this case as set forth in MUTCD Section 4C.01.
    • A copy of the Signal Plan Schedules for the traffic signal in this case as required by MUTCD Section 4D.102.
    • A copy of the most current Review of Traffic Signal Operations including timing records for the traffic signal in this case as required by MUTCD Section 4D.114.
    • A copy of the Engineering and Traffic Survey as defined in pages 51 through 54 of chapter 2B used to set the speed limit which in turn determines the timing of the yellow light for the traffic signal in this case per MUTCD Table 4D.102 as required by Vehicle Code section 21455.7.
    • A copy of the contract between the County of Los Angeles and the supplier of the automated enforcement system.
    • Identification of the plaintiff.
    • Any evidence proving that the prosecutor is in fact who he/she claims to be.
    • All documents in your possession which support your responses to these interrogatories.
    • Identify each person, other than counsel, who provided information or assisted you with respect to the preparation of the answers to the foregoing interrogatories, and identify the specific interrogatories for which each person provided information or assistance, and the substantive information provided by each person and/or the type of assistance each person rendered.

    Please note: PC 1054.1 uses the imperative, “shall disclose.” The only place in the law where we find any choice in this matter is in Government Code 26500, which states in part:
    The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses. (emphasis added)
    Obviously the public prosecutor would not violate the law, therefore we will have to interpret a failure to provide the documents requested under discovery as an exercise of the discretion provided for in GC 26500 and a decision not to prosecute this case.

  • RadicalDude

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=02001-03000&file=2024.010-2024.060

    2024.020. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any
    party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery
    proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning
    discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially
    set for the trial of the action.
    (b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or
    postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery
    proceedings.

  • RadicalDude

    So 30 days before trial they must answer your questions.

  • RadicalDude

    So that’s why you want to be timely, so they can’t claim that you didn’t give them enough time to answer.

  • RadicalDude

    It’s generally not THE COURT that has to answer discovery, and you don’t send it straight to the court. Discovery is directed at your adversary(the plaintiff) and/or their lawyer. So, you send it straight to whomever is prosecuting the case, whether it is the city attorney, DA, cop or whoever it is…

    Then, if they don’t answer it you go to the court with a motion to be heard @ least 15 days prior to trial saying they are failing to provide discovery/evidence(Motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute).

  • RadicalDude

    I think you are on the right track so far with what you have. You also, in my opinion, should challenge them on:

    Is there evidence that the prosecutor actually represents the alleged plaintiff?

    Is there any evidence of Cause of action?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_action

    Specifically, is there any evidence of an injury?

    What evidence is there to show damages demanded?

    Is this a wholly predatory legal action or has the alleged plaintiff actually alleged an antagonistic assertion of rights?

    Did the alleged traffic violation impact the plaintiff’s rights?

    If so, how?

    Etc…
    The real issue is that they have no case, no antagonistic assertion of rights, this is a predatory lawsuit. They aren’t claiming you injured them, they are just trying to drum up an excuse to con you out of money.

  • RadicalDude

    Is there evidence of a complaining party?

    What is it?

  • Fluteloops

    Alright sounds good. im planning to send it to the local district attorney and ill probably fire one in the direction of the court as well.. just for proof purposes. I have also included a cover letter to both the court and attorney that i got off of this: http://www.helpigotaticket.com/proc/discover.html

    so im hoping this covers about everything

  • RadicalDude

    good luck

  • RadicalDude

    Another thing you may want to include is a request for admissions.

    Admit/deny: There is no antagonistic assertion of rights.

    etc…

  • RadicalDude

    What rights, if any are they asserting?

    Admit/Deny: The plaintiff “State of is a mental abstraction.

    Request for evidence: Produce evidence, if any, that the plaintiff exists in any tangible non-abstract form whatsoever.

  • RadicalDude

    Prove that the plaintiff is not wholly imaginary.

    Is there evidence that the plaintiff is not wholly imaginary?

    What is the evidence, if any?

    Admit/Deny: The “State of California” is an imaginary construct.

  • RadicalDude

    You can include a request for admissions in your discovery request, as well as a request for evidence, where you can demand they produce evidence to support their claims, if they have any. Failing to produce the evidence negates their claim to that factual allegation. They have the burden of proof.

  • RadicalDude

    So, yeah, prove the “State” exist outside of your imagination, for one, if you claim to represent it and that it is a plaintiff.

  • RadicalDude

    File a counter claim in the name of Santa Clause saying that they have been bad boys and girls and he wants the presents back. Name spider-man as co plaintiff, since imaginary plaintiffs are allowed. “I represent Santa and spider-man, just trust me on this.” Get my point? Their non- case is a frivolous legal action because you did not injure the imaginary plaintiff’s rights.

  • tlcal44

    Here’s something interesting about the “ticket” that was sent to me: 1) there is NO signature, 2) there is NO address/phone number for the county courthouse, 3) the officer listed on the ticket had resigned from the police department, many months before the citation.

  • RadicalDude

    Interesting

  • elnino1217

    TICAL44, buddy ur ticket is a slam dunk dissmissal, all those factors which r not present on ur ticket, are a subject on instant dissmissal,few of us deal with a lot more complicated tickets, I personally have to fight the city of rahway nj about the fact that red light cameras are indeed implied for safety rather than implied for $$$ reasons!!!!they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the red light cameras are installed for safety, so just to make the trial worthy !!! I am gonna subpeona, the ingenior who installed the camera, the officer who issued the ticket, some times discovery are not viable, you have to argue the fact the the officer used his personal jugement to issue the ticket , there is so many startegies to fight tickets!!! You don’t want to go too technical coz in the end we are not certified laywers!!!! You wanna fight your ticket smartly and yet make their lives miserable if u got the balls !!! I am gonna take the city of rahway in a long friking ride , just to piss them off!!! You want my friking $$$ then they work hard for it.

  • elnino1217

    As far as radical opinions and strategies, they are good, but don’t forget they are limited only for the state of california which is very easy to fight when it comes to red light tickets !!!nj,ny,pa,conneticut! Massachussets, all east coast are hard to fight , coz the judges are corrupt,they don’t play or judge by the rules, they bully people around, but guess what, they want to fuck with me !!! Here we go , I am gonna make a monkey of the prosectuor of the city of rahway!!! I am gonna squash him!!! I am already working very hard on my case, in the end I am gonna prove that the red light cameras are not improving safety but they are installed for income purposes !!!!! You want my money MFER come and get AHoles …..

  • elnino1217

    When I have time I will share about 25 strategies how to fight tickets(red lights included)….new strategies, 2013 strategies guys, let’s defend our rights (our second amendement, that calls for no pictures ,voice recording nor videos taken whiout ur conscent)….red light tickets are against second amendement,4th amanedement,sixth amendement, it is infact a hersay…. Also guys very very very important, when you ask for your discovery ( ask for the red light camera contract between the city and the private business who installed it)….study it word by word,if you find anything stating $$$ in it , that is not onlyhuge ground for dissmisal but also it is ground for appeal in a higher court :)….. Let’s do this guys

  • RadicalDude

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r4-17.htm

    Here’s a link to the parallel nj statute. Pretty much any civil court should provide discovery.

  • RadicalDude
  • RadicalDude

    So, the strategies I suggest could be used in most places. Yes judges are corrupt in california, too. And in the lower courts there is also the issue of incompetence a lot of the time, too.

  • bradleyjay96

    Facing your accuser is covered by the 6th amendment. The 4th amendment has to do with illegal search and seizure.

    elnino1217, have you even read the Bill of Rights? The 2nd amendment is the right to keep and bear arms.

  • Fluteloops

    @RadicalDude Alright so after i sent in the whole discovery to both the superior court and the DA i just now got a letter in the mail from them. Basically it acknowledged they got my discovery and all that good stuff although they basically just regurgitated that i need to post the $500 bail money and officially plead “not guilty” as i did not do yet. I am afraid that pleading not guilty will void my right to a discovery by acknowledgment of the charges so I am a bit confused on my next move. Any advice?

  • tlcal44

    I did not go to the so-called hearing. I received a “Notice of Determination” that due to my failure to appear, I am “liable”. Yep, they’re determined…to get my money, and I’m equally determined to laugh it off. This time, this notice is from City of Willis, with the police department’s address. But here’s the clincher: the remittance coupon goes to the Automated Red Light Enforcement in Cincinnati. So we’ve moved from Arizona to Ohio. And again, this paper is not signed by anybody. It also states that to appeal, I must request an appeal by paying a $50 appellate fee. Get real. The City of Willis has very little information about red light violations, so I looked up a town nearby (Conroe). Some important things: 1) “This is a civil Violation that is not reported to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles”; 2) “his is a civil Violation and is not reported to any insurance agencies”, and if the payment is not made, “The City of Conroe will begin collections of the civil penalty through a collections agency.” So, all we really have here is a bill that I can just let go unpaid and let it go to collections. If everyone just ignored these, these red light companies would go out of business.

  • missmolly

    So, I received a speeding ticket today in the mail from Sept 28th when I was driving from Maine to Montana on my way home from a wedding. The Ticket is from Sioux City Iowa going 73 in a 55 zone. Here is the thing, I generally never go more than 5 over the speed limit. But, I was taking turns driving with boyfriend who does sometimes speed. The problem is that I had become a little more lenant with my speed on the trip because I had gotten used to just going the speed of traffic. SO my point is I have absolutely know idea which one of us was driving. So who should pay the ticket, or should no one pay the ticket?

  • http://www.motorists.org jcwconsult

    Sioux City Iowa runs a speed camera racket with cameras located in zones deliberately under posted far below the safest 85th percentile speeds of travel. It is purely a “gotcha” money grab and people who are not local are often the most common victims.

    Fighting the ticket requires the car owner who is “guilty until proven innocent” to finger the other driver who then has to pay or the ticket reverts back to the owner. Justice, fair play, the principle of innocent until proven guilty, etc. play NO part in the money grab racket.

    Realistically to protect your credit rating you should probably let them have the theft of the fine. If you were local, it would be worth fighting.

    Join us to help fight these criminal money grab rackets.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • vickis

    Want to ask James C. Walker,I had a similar situation as one of the guy above. Yesterday received a letter from a collecting company saying I have a speeding citation at DC on Feb 2012。 now the fine is doubled and my case was reported to credit bureau. But we did not receive anything since Feb 2012, no ticket, no photoes, no letters or anything. I was dring a rental car at the time. Iam thinking to waive the later fee at least. In the appeal letter, there are two choice “deemed admission” which seems suite my situation because it is for people not response in 60 days, however, it says moving violation can not use this form. The other is “default judgement” which is for people not appear on a scheduled hearing. Would I choose “default judgement”? But it seems that that form is for people who think they are not liable for their tickets. I don’t think I can get away with the fine (event bough I didn’t see the ticket ever), but want to waive the late fee. Thanks

  • RadicalDude

    “Fluteloops says:
    October 18, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    @RadicalDude Alright so after i sent in the whole discovery to both the superior court and the DA i just now got a letter in the mail from them. ”

    From the DA or from the court?

  • RadicalDude

    “Fluteloops says:
    October 18, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    Basically it acknowledged they got my discovery and all that good stuff although they basically just regurgitated that i need to post the $500 bail money and officially plead “not guilty” as i did not do yet. I am afraid that pleading not guilty will void my right to a discovery by acknowledgment of the charges so I am a bit confused on my next move. Any advice?”

    Pleading not guilty doesn’t void your right to discovery. This isn’t advice as such, it’s just my opinion. I can’t really characterize it as legal advice and I’m not a lawyer. I helped someone else on a similar red light ticket in Glendale. She went to the courthouse and told the clerk that she wanted to contest the charges and that paying the bail would be a financial hardship. They set up a court date.
    Basically, you could do something similar. You can also file a motion to dismiss and/or demurer or plead not guilty. I would personally not plead not guilty. When you plead with the court, you are acknowledging the court’s jurisdiction, which I would not do as a matter of principal.

  • RadicalDude

    “missmolly says:
    October 21, 2013 at 4:38 pm
    So who should pay the ticket, or should no one pay the ticket?”

    Fight it imo.

  • RadicalDude

    “tlcal44 says:
    October 19, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    If everyone just ignored these, these red light companies would go out of business.”

    Exactly, that’s why we should never go along with it.

  • Pingback: Win red light camera ticket | Joe Blogs About IT

  • http://www.motorists.org jcwconsult

    For vickis I cannot give legal advice, but it would seem that going for the compromise to pay the ticket but waive late fees might make sense. Camera tickets are treated more like parking tickets, not moving violations with points. If the ticket is paid, it does not require identifying the driver.

    Google on the internet for the language of a “cease and desist” letter to stop the collection company from harassing you. Then send your appeal to the city for the compromise on the basis you were never notified. Send both letters by certified mail so you can prove delivery.

    Good luck.

  • Fluteloops

    @RadicalDude Yeah it came in from the court btw. I am thinking of just waiting out until the thirty days have passed in which i delivered the discovery request. Then when they don’t reply filing a plea for dismissal. I ask because I dont plan on pleading guilty or not guilty, however since they have not responded to my request I don’t want to deal with an increase in the fine and all of that nonsense.

  • vickis

    Thanks JCWconsult. Can I write my own cease and desist letter? I’m afraid I use the inappropriate term and they just gona throw it away. The ticket after double is $250 and it is not worth the money to hire an attorney (some internet said the flat fee for an attorney to write such a letter is $500). My real question is, if I do write a letter myself and basically just ask them to stop collecting, the letter won’t turn out at the end to against me, right? Thank you so much for your wonderful suggestions.

  • http://www.motorists.org jcwconsult

    For vickis
    Getting debt collectors to stop contacting a person is a common thing to do. I strongly suggest you google to find the wording to send and then use it.
    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • Fluteloops

    @RadicalDude Alright well the thirty days have passed and they have not responded to my discovery request. I’m not really sure what my next move out to be. Does anyone have any insight?

  • yoshi71089

    I have three red light “tickets” that all came in the mail the same week for my car, all from Fort Worth TX. Two are for “running a red light”, and the third for “not stopping completely” on a right-hand turn.

    I have several problems, and am wondering what your advice is:
    1.) My parents own my car, so can I technically appeal the tickets, or would my parents have to? My father would not be willing to show up in court, so should I just send in a letter and hope they don’t call my bluff?
    2.) Since I have three for this vehicle, will appealing any one have any adverse effects on the other two tickets?
    3.) What is my best course of action in trying to appeal these “tickets”?

  • yoshi71089

    Also, should I send in three separate appeal letters, with basically the same wording, or send in one letter for all three tickets?

    As an FYI, I haven’t had any “red light tickets” on this car in at least three years…so I find it odd that I got 3 in one week…

  • http://www.motorists.org jcwconsult

    In most states, including Texas, the money grab camera system deliberately does not try to identify the driver – tickets go to the vehicle owner. This is part of the scam to get most people to just curse and write the check, rather than fighting in court.

    It is almost certain the two “running the light” tickets were at lights where the yellow intervals were deliberately set too short for the actual approach speeds of traffic. It is part of the business plan with the camera company and the city to trap safe drivers into split second violations for the money.

    Slow rolling right on red turns almost never cause crashes, so ticketing these safe drivers is another part of the money grab business plans of the cameras companies and the cities.

    The person who needs to appeal – or designate someone else to get their pocket picked – is the vehicle owner. Check the court rules and if there is no significant cost to appeal in the first round, then try it- there is little to lose.

    The real answer is for you, your father, and as many friends as you can persuade to write letters to the state Representatives and Senators demanding that red light cameras be banned by law.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  • RadicalDude

    “Fluteloops says:
    November 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    @RadicalDude Alright well the thirty days have passed and they have not responded to my discovery request. I’m not really sure what my next move out to be. Does anyone have any insight?”

    Motion to dismiss or demurer for failure to prosecute.

  • Fluteloops

    @RadicalDude Alright i’ll give it a shot. Another thing that has been bothering me is after they returned my discovery request they extended the date. I never waved my right to a speedy trial and I feel like this might be somewhat related.

  • DEK

    Need help! I just got photo-ticket in mail for disobeying red light in Orange County, California. The photo and online video shows that I was making a right turn at an intersection while the signal ahead turned red. I did notice the “Photo Enforced” sign but no “No Turn On Red” and there was a “No Stopping At Anytime” sign posted right at the corner where I was making the turn. I also noticed that video seemed to have a slight delay to my turning right and hence the red light. There were neither traffic nor pedestrians and it was safe to turn which I did slowly but without stopping (also shown on video). In another mail, I got a statement of $500 fine/bail. What must I do or get away with and I don’t have that much money to begin with? I sincerely believe I did nothing wrong and made the turn just before the red light came about. Please advise. Thanks.

  • PiousMonkey

    Hi all I recently received a red light citation. To being with I’m a nursing student so 1) have no money 2)I’m taught not to just accept things on face value without asking questions. I’m not opposed to people being ticketed for a correct offense but these so called citation is infuriating. For one the number provided to call for this “ticket” is a 1-800 number not even a police number and has no court date or address to contest the “ticket” just a box to fill in to request a court date. It doesn’t even list if this is a criminal or civil citation. The citation shows the duration of the redlight was 62.7 seconds and “conveniently” shows only the last 10 seconds on the clip with me clearly stopped stopped for the first two seconds of the clip. Would someone on here mind viewing the video clip and seeing if I have a case to request a dismisal. Here is the website and login info to see it (there is no personal identifying info the only option is to pay and watch a clip of the “citation.” I’m outside of Chicago if it help.
    https://secure.redlightviolations.com/
    notation number: 1704600264874620
    license plate number r661970
    Thank you all for the time and loved the article.

  • mihai

    would this work on parking tickets? I just received one in DC last weekend after my friend drove and parked my car. it’s $50. it’s pretty much the same situation. the only photos they have are of my license plate.

    http://www.eztag-dcdpw.com/ticpixportal/DCCustomerPortal.jsp

    Ticket : 8123251555 | Plate : VA MEHIGH

    anyone can look it up

  • lesscan

    So not only did you break the law by speeding, but you also lied about it and encourage others to do the same?
    Wow! Youre an upstanding citizen who probably deserves to spend some time in jail!

  • RadicalDude

    @PiousMonkey:

    Is your car the one behind the pckup truck in the video? If so, ya it’s definitely a green light.

  • tlcal44

    whatever you do, don’t call the 1800#. once you do, they have your # and will call to harass you. they recently sent me another notice in which they’re charging me a $25 late fee. ignoring it.

  • jefe00

    Hello from Florida.

    I tried to put two simple things together to maybe get a better understanding:

    The red light camera citation is issued under F.S. 0316.0083. If you do not comply within 60 days, they send you a Uniform Traffic Violation in violation of 0316.075.

    Statue 0316.075 stipulates that the citation is issued against the driver. If they cannot prove the driver, does that not make the UTC void?

  • PiousMonkey

    @ RadicalDude
    I’m the 2nd car in the video. I’m only stopped for about 1 second. However, upon reading the law it says you must come to a complete stop but does not specify a time you must remained stopped for. I requested a hearing, which is tomorrow. I learned a lot about
    the law regarding the traffic cameras in Illinois. Interesting fact is that the city of Dundee, IL took in about 800,000 in Revenue from this withing the first 3 months and that the amount of rear end collisions have increased since the red light cameras were installed in 2009. http://www.wdundee.org/apps/vwide/publicnotice.nsf/7B3661F58EACC52E86257808000C5C9E/$file/Redlight-Info.pdf

  • tlcal

    @PiousMonkey – how did it go? i had once scheduled myself a few months ago but decided to skip it. i figured it is all part of the scam. i’m curious how yours went.

  • PiousMonkey

    I went and it was dismissed, I won my case so i didn’t have to pay the $100! The cities here in Illinois have made it a municipal ordinance violation and not something to go to a traffic court, so while it doesn’t effect your license the cities are allowed to take away your right to a trial by jury or judge. When I went to the the “court” it wasn’t even at city hall it was at a community center and the guy there (non a judge, but an attorney) told me that not stopping on red is illegal and knowing this do i plead liable or not liable. I stated my name and said not liable. He reviewed the video tape, he didn’t know which car was me and one of the cops told me he thought it was the car in the middle. (there was a car stopped at the red light, I slowed down and stopped and made a right turn as a car pulled up behind me.) He watched the tape two times, scolded me for “following a car into an intersection.” Then found me not liable. I think my login credentials to view the video are in a post from Nov or Dec if you want to watch the tape. I did however get to watch the other red light violations about ten in total and EVERY one was for not stopping completely at a red light, not one was for running a red. Of course the whole thing is a scam, the city I got the ticket for has only 3,000 people and has never had more than 7 accidents at that intersection in the last 5 years and not one fatality in that time.

  • Smoochy

    My wife and I just drive each others cars, so if we ever do get a picture we just claim that we weren’t driving. It has always worked in the state I live in, but not sure if it works in every state.

  • JC

    Or you can just not open it and write on the ticket envelope “return to sender”, “resident moved.” That’s what did in Iowa, and I never heard from them again….that was almost five years ago and it didn’t effect my insurance or driving record.

  • Gaylen

    I just wanted to tell anyone living in Washington state how to beat any speeding ticket involving any type of radar gun. All you have to do is go to court and tell the judge the speed measuring devise certificate is deficient and violates Washington state law RCW 9A.72.085. So the radar gun is not certified as accurate and the speed measurement needs to be stricken from the record, which eliminates the “evidence” that you were speeding. Case dismissed!

    If you look at that law, it basically says any testimony or certification in the court has to be signed, dated and the location where it was signed and dated given. Every radar gun has a certificate saying it was tested and is operating properly. But they never date or give the location where it was signed at on the certificate. This is the gold mine the lawyers are using to make a lot of money in our state.

    Every speeding ticket issued has a cops affidavit filed at the court clerks office along with the ticket. And the clerk has to give you a copy of the affidavit for free. They also have to give you a copy of the “speed measuring devise certificate” for the radar gun the cop used against you. So you bring in that certificate the court’s own clerk gave you and show the judge it violates state law.

    One other thing. If the cop was a state patrol, the certificate will be here: http://www.wsp.wa.gov/traveler/smdhome.htm
    Just enter the number for the gun on the ticket or affidavit at that site and you can get a copy of the certificate.

    Presto! You just beat your first speeding ticket! The court may violate a lot of things, but if they violate state law, they will no longer be a judge REALLY fast. I have beat the three speeding tickets I’ve had over the last 5 years. And it was a lawyer who told me about that law. I watched two of those bums get 4-5 tickets dismissed by just saying the certificate is deficient according to RCW 9A.72.085. And the judge just dismisses it on the spot. But the slimy judge will question you to see if you know why it’s deficient. So just remember to say it does NOT state the date and place of its execution according to line 3 in RCW 9A.72.085. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.085 They do sign it, so don’t mention that.

  • KH

    Beware of Star Valley, Arizona.
    Those traveling between Interstate 40 to Interstate 10, taking route 87 (277/377/etc), should beware of a small town/area known as Star Valley. Most of the driving up to that point is 55-70 mph through twisting (though very scenic) roads and hills. When you get to this small town area, the speed limit will be 45 mph as you begin going up a hill. Midway up, it oddly increases to 55, then midway down on the other side, it drops back down to 45. Shortly after that, 2 sets of 2 cameras are posted and you will likely see a flash of light as you pass them. Classic speed trap to fill their pockets (about $210 a pop) from unsuspecting traveling passing through. Beware – avoid this route at all costs.

  • TH

    So I did this and followed the letter you wrote to the ‘t’ and it didn’t work. I got a letter back (many months later like yours) that says the ticket is upheld. So you got lucky.

  • Derrick Hall

    TH, where do you live? I just got a photo ticket and it was not me driving the car at the time. I am the registered owner and that is why they sent me the ticket. I am trying to figure how to respond. At the time of the ticket I was at work with proof of that.

  • CF

    I also copied the letter and my ticket was upheld. Anyone know of alternative ways to deal with this that doesn’t involve me paying? Thanks.

  • marvin walker

    I also received a photo enforced ticket in the mail the other day. I was not even in the car. I am going to take it to court to make them prove it was me. That is my right. Now lets see what they are going to do. Get back with you.

  • Rochelle MacDonald

    My state has an officer listed as the custodian of the camera. Also my identifiable likeness is visible in the photo. I’d like to fight this not on the speed but on the lack of the city’s right to issue such a ticket.

  • daniel smith

    My name is Mr Richard Coleman,I am a private lender who give out
    loan to private and corporate individuals. Have you been turned down
    by so many banks? Do you need finance to establish your business? Do
    you need finance for the expansion of your business? Or do you need a
    personal loan?. contact us now:: [email protected]

    BORROWERS DATA FORM

    1)YOUR NAME
    2)SEX
    3)YOUR COUNTRY
    4)YOUR OCCUPATION
    5)YOUR MARITAL STATUS
    6)PHONE NUMBER
    7)MONTHLY INCOME
    8)ADDRESS
    9)PURPOSE
    10)LOAN REQUEST
    11)LOAN DURATION

    contact us now:: [email protected]
    Best Regards
    Mr Richard Coleman

  • Jay

    Don’t commit a traffic infraction?

  • Michael Mayo

    The following information is valid in most states. Not all but many.

    Yeah, most jurisdictions allow you to appeal the mail in verdict. When you appeal, you go in front of a judge for a trial de novo (new trial). The mail in verdict is thrown out. You get a fresh start. The first thing you do is challenge jurisdiction. Make the prosecutor supply you with something proving jurisdiction. Chances are he can’t, or he won’t. If the judge is colluding with the prosecutor which they almost always are, he won’t require proof of jurisdiction even though he is required by law. Just have it on the record that you requested proof of jurisdiction and they didn’t provide it. If you ever appealed it, you’d win on the jurisdiction issue alone. The problem is the cost of appeal is more expensive than the ticket. But it’s nice to have on the record anyway.

    Next, prepare and ask as many questions as possible. I mean hours of questions. Not about your case but general courtroom procedures and protocols. What kind of court is this? Is this a criminal court? Is it a civil court? Who has the burden of proof? Who does the prosecutor represent? What is “the state”? Who does the judge represent? Are you guaranteed a fair trial? Are you entitled to a jury trial? (That question has helped many people. Judges often say you are not entitled to a jury trial for a traffic ticket. That is not true. If you are in a criminal court, you are entitled to a jury trial. This often causes the ticket to be downgraded to a traffic infraction. If that happens you’re good to go because infractions don’t come with the possibility of jail. Only a fine. So if you don’t pay the fine, they can’t throw you in jail. And you can tell them to go f themselves because you’re not paying. They may try to file with a collection agency. They will have to provide the collection agency with the details of the debt. You challenge the debt on your credit report. This will require the credit agencies to investigate. Infractions are civil and not criminal. And in all civil cases there must be a victim. There is no victim in your case. Use the credit reporting agencies resources. The credit agency will require the court to provide legal documentation of the debt. They don’t have it because there is no victim.)

    If the judge gives you shit, tell him you would like to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings but can’t because your questions are not being answered. The trial cannot move forward until you understand the nature and cause of the proceedings and it’s on the record that you understand. That’s why judges always ask, do you understand the charges against you? If you say yes, you’re giving him permission to move forward.

    Keep asking for dismissals ever so often. If that doesn’t work claim you have not received a verified complaint. A verified complaint must be filed with the clerks office before you can be charged. So claim since no verified complaint has been filed, there are no charges that you need to defend. A ticket is not a complaint. Claim your rights to due process were violated because you can’t subpoena a camera. Any evidence obtained through a video camera is hearsay. If you give them shit, there’s a good chance they won’t follow through and just dismiss the ticket, or at least lower it.

    I could keep going but I won’t. I’ve never had to use the methods above but if I were to receive a ticket, that’s what I would do. It sounds crazy but I would just head them off at every turn. Make your court dates last for hours. Make them work for it. There’s a good chance they’ll just get fed up and drop the charges or dismiss the case.

  • Erica in DC

    The reason the sample letter is no longer working is because the language of the DMV letter has changed. Nate wasn’t lucky. His argument was valid in response to the original DMV letter but the issues he raised were negated when the DMV changed the letter to read more narrowly–basically now it says that the registered owner is liable–essentially no matter what. Nate’s argument about no government witness might still be valid but not the parts about self-incrimination or implicating someone else.

  • illexis

    if you’re in CA, that citation is issued against the “driver”, not the “vehicle”. So if you’re NOT identifiable as driving the car in the pic/video, they are required to dismiss – but you WILL have to ask them to do that. Show up to Court, and ask “the citation is a moving violation issued against the DRIVER, not the vehicle…correct?” (It is). They have no legal choice but to dismiss.
    (In mine…though I knew I was driving my car (no one else would have been), I was a complete BLUR within the very clearly-identifiable vehicle. Because the driver could not be identified, they had to dismiss. and don’t even get into “well, it COULD have been someone else…etc etc…or, maybe it was so & so…” Don’t even bring that up. The burden is on THEM to show it was YOU in the car, driving, committing the violation. Since the only evidence they have is the pic/video…if you can’t be identified, they have no evidence…so if you know you’re about to run a red light in an intersection w/ a cam…start headbanging or shaking your head very quickly side to side lol…blurry/unidentifiable pics = dismissed! : )

  • http://www.copblock.org Bob

    I recently received a notice that I owed the city of Council Bluffs, IA $100 for running a red light. I modified the letter a little bit, and it worked. I received a letter today saying that they are DISMISSING the citation and it will not be necessary for me to attend the hearing or pay the fine. The letter does work!!

  • Gilbert_Sundevil

    I’m in AZ and when I get a photo ticket in the mail I ignore, ignore, ignore and then I ignore some more until I am officially served by an officer of the court or a licensed process server. Because an officer did not pull me over and have me sign a paper stating I received the ticket, they have no evidence I actually received the ticket until I am officially served. After a period of 90 or 180 days – varies depending on jurisdiction – the ticket is dismissed.
    Some municipalities have set up a website where I can go and view the photo of me by inputting information found on the mailed ticket. NEVER do this and this provides some evidence that you did in fact receive the ticket.
    Open the envelope if you want, but then shred it and put it in the trash.
    It should be noted, that if you are officially served, most courts will add an additional charge on top of the ticket.

  • ace1981

    I received a ticket for going 55 in a 40.

    It was a rental.
    I was the primary renter, but I wasn’t driving. It was one of two other people, can’t tell in the pics.

    Further, from the pics, it seems like there is speed entrapment taking place in DC. The road was wide, clear, and straight in a non residentail/commercial area. Basically a highway. There is no logical reason for the speed limit to be that low other than to set people up.

    Can it be fought based on the registration, since it was rented to me with permission for two other drivers?

    What would you do?

  • OhioJDEsq

    “Infractions are civil and not criminal. And in all civil cases there must be a victim. There is no victim in your case. Use the credit reporting agencies resources. The credit agency will require the court to provide legal documentation of the debt. They don’t have it because there is no victim.”

    You must have gone to a very exclusive law school where you learned this exclusive informtion.

  • Suffolk Blows

    I did this recently in NY. Received the exact same ticket back in the mail a month or so later basically asking me to plea guilty or not guilty again. I sent the same exact letter back once more to Maryland who was issuing NY’s red light safety program letters. If the ticket came from Nassau county it was dismissed, if it came from Suffolk – well this is the letter I received:

    “Thank you for your recent communication concerning the Suffolk County Red Light Safety Program citation referenced above. However, Suffolk County local law does not provide for written administrative appeal. The authority to adjudicate appeals of red light enforcement citations issued in Suffolk County is reserved to the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency. There is no dispensation provided in the law for out-of-state residents.

    An additional (15) day period has been established from the date of this letter to allow you to either pay the original amount due or request a court date, should you desire to return to Suffolk County to appeal the citation. Your response is due by: (date). Should you have any questions concerning payment or court hearings, please call this office at – “

  • SE

    I just received a $200 ticket in the mail for speeding 21-25 over the limit in DC. Any recommendations on how to contest it? My letter does say the register user is responsible for the fine and the violation.

  • shelby

    Where did u send The response letter to? The Dmv? Or the police station in the city which the ticket was received from?

  • Dean

    Why don’t you just take responsibility for your actions? Oh wait, that would knock you off your self-righteous pedestal. Well, keep up the “good” fight.

  • Cillendor

    What gives the government the right to do this? Speeding isn’t a crime; setting up cameras to spy on citizens in order to steal more money from them is a crime.

  • Eve

    lol, where is speeding not a crime?

  • Doug Rogers

    Here is an idea. How about driving the speed limit instead of trying to beat a legitimate enforcement tool.

  • Cillendor

    Okay, it shouldn’t be a crime, especially on the interstate. Speeding itself is not harmful to anyone. If I go 70 in a 65-mph zone, I am not harming anyone. Speeding can, in some cases, increase the risk of harming yourself or someone else, but driving 70-mph “illegally” in a 65-mph zone is no more dangerous than if I drive 70-mph in a 70-mph zone.

    Illinois recently changed their interstates to 70-mph from 65, which is PROOF that speed limits are arbitrary. They didn’t change the roads to make them safer before doing that. They are the same roads, but now we can magically drive 5-mph faster than before. This was done at the whim of some politicians, just like the original limit was also set by politicians.

    Speed limits are in place to generate revenue for the state, and that is all.

    You might argue that they help to prevent accidents in town. They help to prevent people from speeding in neighborhoods and whatnot. But you know what? Not being an asshole is what prevents that. The people who drive at dangerous speeds in residential areas are the people who don’t care about anyone besides themselves, and probably don’t care about the speed limit anyway. Saying that speed limits will prevent them from speeding is like saying that a Gun Free Zone sticker will prevent criminals from carrying a gun.

    The much better way to prevent speeding in cities is to teach people to respect one another and treat each other decently.

    Speed limits (and stop lights, but that’s another topic) may actually increase drivers’ aggression and likelihood of getting in an accident. If you are constantly referring back to your speedometer instead of keeping your eyes on the road, you are being distracted. It is much safer to go the speed of traffic than to try to match an uncomfortable, artificial standard.

    As for raising aggression, this comes into play when a cop decides to tail you for whatever reason, so you have to worry about him as well as everything else. Suddenly instead of simply trying to get to your destination, you have the risk of being pulled over for whatever reason. Even if you don’t get a ticket, you will probably be pretty agitated by his intrusion into your activities.

    For example, the other day I pulled into an intersection “too fast”. The light had just turned green, and I apparently hit the gas a little recklessly. There were no cars in front of me, and I didn’t speed at all, but the cop a few cars back obviously didn’t like it. He tailed me closely for a good couple hundred yards (even as another car raced past us). I paid more attention to my speedometer than I did the road because I can’t afford a ticket. After he was finally convinced that I wasn’t going to speed, he pulled around me, passed me in the right lane, and zoomed on ahead—at least 5-mph over the speed limit! That kind of harassment is more dangerous than if I had actually sped.

    Most drivers who speed are in good control of their vehicles. They only drive that fast because they are confident in their abilities. The only danger they’re in is if a freak accident occurs, and those things are typically unavoidable no matter how fast one is driving. The individual driver ought to be allowed to determine for himself how fast he drives. He can judge an appropriate speed by observing the cars around him. And without having to watch for cops and illegal traffic cams, he will arrive at his destination safely and WITHOUT a ridiculously hefty fine.

  • SQU

    Here an idea move to England and enjoy being on camera everywhere

  • godisafairytale

    Suffolk Blows, I’m in Nassau County! Are you saying you sent the above letter from the article to the county and they dismissed it? I would really appreciate a follow up as my fine is due in a couple of weeks and I’d love to try and fight it. Thanks for your feedback.

    By the way, it was actually going over the limit in a school speed zone so the fine is part of the The School Safety Enforcement Program. Not sure if that changes anything. I did 38mph in a 25mph zone, in the 2nd lane of a big 4 lane major road which also had a wide shoulder, so it was like 5 lanes. I was driving safely.

  • Cillendor

    Really, you’re innocent until proven guilty. I don’t know why you even need to defend your alibi. If they don’t have proof that you were the driver, that is enough. But as others have said, the new verbiage says that the owner, not the driver, is responsible for the ticket (which is bullshit).

  • Cillendor

    I think you need to look up the word “legitimate” in the dictionary.

  • ruth

    Damn, I just got one and there is a picture of me behind the wheel

  • autumnblues

    were you driving down south oyster bay rd? my father and I both got a ticket at the same camera :( any help would be appreciated!

  • godisafairytale

    autumnblues, sorry for the delay. No, it was on Jerusalem Ave by the Charles E Schwarting School. Please let me know what you do.