Saturday, November 8, 2008

Truth and Compromises

When someone is pulled over and given a "ticket" by a peace officer, that officer is actually "serving process," i.e. he is serving you with papers the same way an officer serves a search warrant or an arrest warrant, or the way a process server will serve lawsuit or divorce papers. Service of a traffic ticket is free (included in the cost of a court fine) and instant (right after you committed the violation).
In many states (including Arizona, where I got pinched by a robo-tard) , it is not legally proper to serve papers by mail, they must be served in person. When they mail you a ticket, you must respond in one of four manners ("I wasn't driving"; "I'll be an idiot and just pay it"; "I'll take traffic school to make it go away" (my favorite); or "I'll see you in court, bastard"). If you don't respond, they have 120 days to serve you your official papers in person. That's right, a mailed ticket is not "official." When you respond to a mailed ticket, you are waiving your right to proper service.
But if you do wait for them to serve you (while hoping they take longer than 20 days), and they do successfully get you to open your door and take the papers, the court will happily charge you for the service, something you get for FREE from a real cop with a real ticket in his hand. It's something like $30 on top of your $171 photo-radar fine if you are properly served, and more like $150 if they need to pay an out-of-state process server to catch up with you.
In other words, get pulled over by a cop, and the requirement of proper service is completed instantaneously at no additional expense to you. Get a photo-radar ticket, and you wait up to a month for an "unofficial" letter allowing you to give up your right to service. Demanding your right to proper service then costs you $30 to $150 extra, and they have 120 days to do it.

The proper thing to do, of course, would be to rip out all the cameras, sideline the talivans, and put real cops back on the roads. But if I were to present a compromise, it would be this:
  1. If you are detected speeding by a scamera, the local police department has three days to first attempt personal service to the vehicle owner. Should the vehicle be registered out of town or state, a process server may be hired at the court's expense. Simultaneous attempt shall be made to reach the vehicle owner by telephone and mail. Although telephone and mail are not proper service, the vehicle owner will at least have knowledge of the offense as soon as possible. However, if legal service is not attempted in three days, and not completed in ten days, then the violation is voided. It doesn't matter if the person is out of the state or the country or just hiding under the bed. You may not know where the violator is -- but you had your chance to properly serve him with the ticket when he committed the violation. It's not the violators fault you had no real cops there.
  2. The papers served and mailed will provide the phone number to reach the actual officer that reviewed the photograph and other camera data. That officer, much like the officer that would hand you the ticket if you were really pulled over, would have the descretion to modify the ticket or void it entirely based on the situation as explained by the vehicle owner.
  3. The vehicle owner would have the option to, under oath and in front of a notary, swear that he was not the driver -- but should the owner excercise this option he would agree to have the picture from the scamera compared with his legal drivers license photo. He would not be required to provide a copy of his license (see US Bill of Rights, 5th amendment), the police department or prosecutor would be responsible for locating this picture, which is on a state computer somewhere. If the pictures match, there may be just cause for a perjury violation. If the person was properly pulled over by a real cop, this cop simply compares the drivers license (which, in this case, he has the legal right to see) with the person's actual face to verify identity.
  4. However, if the owner states that he was not the driver, he will be under no obligation to (although he may elect to) rat out who was really driving at that time. After three to ten days, he may not remember. Or it may have been a spouse, and you are not required to testify against your spouse (see U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence). Businesses would not be required to reveal who was driving a company or rental vehicle (this is actually already the case in Arizona, it being illegal to write a traffic violation against a business).
  5. All photo-radar pictures that don't have a clear picture of the driver's face will be summarily dismissed. That is truly the only real evidence of who committed a violation.
  6. All photo-radar and photo-enforced red-light violations will carry the same fine as their non-photo-enforced counterparts. However, points will not be issued. This will make it more fair to those who simply pay the fine without knowing their rights... (alright, this is stretch).

No comments: