TOWN OF PARADISE
VALLEY.....
IS IT ABOVE THE LAW??
The Town of Paradise Valley continues to have
un-manned photo radar units parked on streets to trap motorist. Information I
have received from an inside source also told me that their units isn't taking
still photos, but is streaming LIVE VIDEOS. There are several violations of
your rights with this method of catching you doing whatever..
·
According to the Constitution you have the right to confront your
accuser.
·
How you confront an un-manned vehicle is not possible
·
An Officer looks at the video and affixes their signature to the ticket
·
A ticket must be served in person..not thru the mail
·
Recently a process attempted to serve a notice by throwing it at the
accused, the Town of Paradise Valley deemed it a valid serve.
·
28-701.02. Excessive speeds; classification
·
A. A person shall
not:
·
1. Exceed
thirty-five miles per hour approaching a school crossing.
·
2. Exceed the
posted speed limit in a business or residential district by more than twenty
miles per hour, or if no speed limit is posted, exceed forty-five miles per
hour.
·
3. Exceed
eighty-five miles per hour in other locations.
·
B. A person who
violates subsection A of this section is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
·
C. A person
charged with a violation of this section may not be issued a civil complaint
for a violation of section 28-701 if the civil complaint alleges a violation
arising out of the same circumstances.
· http://pu
http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=28
The Town of Paradise valley in spitting in
face of state lawmakers according to repeal of use of photo radar..
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 28, chapter 3, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 28-711, to read:
START_STATUTE28-711. Photo enforcement system; prohibited use
On a state highway in this state, this state or a local authority shall not use a photo enforcement system to identify violators of this article.END_STATUTE
Sec. 2. Section 28-1593, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
START_STATUTE28-1593. Service of uniform traffic complaint
A. A traffic complaint may be served by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure. At the discretion of the issuing authority, a complaint for a violation issued after an investigation in conjunction with a traffic accident may be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested and delivered to addressee only, to the address provided by the person charged with the violation. Service of the complaint is complete on filing the receipt in the court having jurisdiction of the violation.
B. The original complaint shall be filed in a court having jurisdiction of the violation within ten court days of the time the complaint was issued. A peace officer, or duly authorized agent or someone paid to act on behalf of a traffic enforcement agency, may issue the traffic complaint.
C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a civil traffic violation issued pursuant to section 41‑1722 may be issued pursuant to a notice of violation before a citation is filed in court.
D. If a person fails to respond to the notice of violation or contests responsibility, a uniform traffic complaint citation shall be served and filed as otherwise provided in this section.
E. The supreme court shall establish rules governing the issuance, service and processing of the notice of violation, including rules allowing a person to admit responsibility before a citation is filed in court. END_STATUTE
Sec. 3. Repeal
Section 41-1722, Arizona Revised Statutes, is repealed.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2106p.htm (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2106p.htm)
Section 1. Title 28, chapter 3, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 28-711, to read:
START_STATUTE28-711. Photo enforcement system; prohibited use
On a state highway in this state, this state or a local authority shall not use a photo enforcement system to identify violators of this article.END_STATUTE
Sec. 2. Section 28-1593, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
START_STATUTE28-1593. Service of uniform traffic complaint
A. A traffic complaint may be served by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure. At the discretion of the issuing authority, a complaint for a violation issued after an investigation in conjunction with a traffic accident may be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested and delivered to addressee only, to the address provided by the person charged with the violation. Service of the complaint is complete on filing the receipt in the court having jurisdiction of the violation.
B. The original complaint shall be filed in a court having jurisdiction of the violation within ten court days of the time the complaint was issued. A peace officer, or duly authorized agent or someone paid to act on behalf of a traffic enforcement agency, may issue the traffic complaint.
C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a civil traffic violation issued pursuant to section 41‑1722 may be issued pursuant to a notice of violation before a citation is filed in court.
D. If a person fails to respond to the notice of violation or contests responsibility, a uniform traffic complaint citation shall be served and filed as otherwise provided in this section.
E. The supreme court shall establish rules governing the issuance, service and processing of the notice of violation, including rules allowing a person to admit responsibility before a citation is filed in court. END_STATUTE
Sec. 3. Repeal
Section 41-1722, Arizona Revised Statutes, is repealed.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2106p.htm (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2106p.htm)
AF Arizona
Photo-Enforcement Notices Must Now State the Truth: Motorists Have No Duty to
Respond or Identify Driver
By Ray SternTue., Jul. 19 2011 at 5:12 PM
Starting tomorrow,
photo-enforcement-violation notices must finally state the truth about what's
going on -- namely, that you don't need to respond or identify the driver in
the picture.
Cities and, for a while, the state of Arizona, have for years employed something of a ruse to help get speeders and red-light runners caught by the machines to pay up. They sent an initial notice of violation that has no legal teeth, yet contained a passive threat that blowing off the notice might not be in the motorists' best interest.
A few years ago, we caught the city of Scottsdale lying blatantly in its notices, which it falsely called a "summons." The notice stated that those who didn't respond would be subject to fines, fees and driver's license suspension.
An Arizona Department of Public Safety notice of violation that we published two years ago shows the more-typical trick. Appearing below DPS insignia, the notice states simply that the motorist should fill out the form and sent it back by the "respond-by date." While the DPS freeway cameras were online, (that program ended last summer), thousands of people likely responded like sheep to those notices -- even though they didn't have to.
Cities and, for a while, the state of Arizona, have for years employed something of a ruse to help get speeders and red-light runners caught by the machines to pay up. They sent an initial notice of violation that has no legal teeth, yet contained a passive threat that blowing off the notice might not be in the motorists' best interest.
A few years ago, we caught the city of Scottsdale lying blatantly in its notices, which it falsely called a "summons." The notice stated that those who didn't respond would be subject to fines, fees and driver's license suspension.
An Arizona Department of Public Safety notice of violation that we published two years ago shows the more-typical trick. Appearing below DPS insignia, the notice states simply that the motorist should fill out the form and sent it back by the "respond-by date." While the DPS freeway cameras were online, (that program ended last summer), thousands of people likely responded like sheep to those notices -- even though they didn't have to.
As numerous articles in New Times and elsewhere have pointed
out, ignoring those notices only meant the possibility of a ticket being served
at the offender's home by a process server. True, having a server come out
meant an additional $25 added to the fine. But if the server never comes, or
the motorist doesn't appear to be home when the server comes -- always a
distinct possibility -- then the photo enforcement ticket becomes invalid.
Now, thanks to a bill that Governor Jan Brewer signed, notices of violation must confess that:
Now, thanks to a bill that Governor Jan Brewer signed, notices of violation must confess that:
a) the notice is not a court issued document;
b) the recipient is under no obligation to
identify the person or respond to the notice; and
c) failure to respond to the notice may result in
official service that may result in an additionally levied fee.
Scottsdale and possibly
other cities sometimes use a trick called "alternative service" to nab people they
believe are dodging the process services. In that case, court motions are made
by the prosecutor to have a ticket taped to the front door of a residence. The
city reportedly has used alternative service frequently in the past, but
it's probably still worth waiting it out.
Whether the ticket was personally served or was
served through a valid "alternative service" motion, the motorist
must then treat the citation as if it was issued by a cop in a traffic stop.The new law also mandates that $13 of every ticket goes to the "GITEM" task force, which has a mission of "strict enforcement" of immigration and gang laws.
For those who oppose such "strict enforcement" of immigration laws, this could be yet another reason to ignore a photo enforcement notice. http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/07/arizona_photo_enforcement_noti.php
