How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask traffic77777 Your Own Question

traffic77777
traffic77777, Attorney
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 339
Experience:  Attorney
66086886
Type Your Traffic Law Question Here...
traffic77777 is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

el mirage , az speeding photo

Resolved Question:

do photo enforcement speeding tickets get reported to insurance companies and if I haven't been served other than by mail is it prudent to ignore the tickets from el mirage? I am a 65 yr old senior cirizen and was traveling to my doctors office both days to participate in a new drug study
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Traffic Law
Expert:  traffic77777 replied 2 years ago.
Let me help you. please wait while I type the answer
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
what info do you need
Expert:  traffic77777 replied 2 years ago.
I have all the info I need to get started. If, after receiving my response, you have more questions, I'll let you know what else I need from you.
Expert:  traffic77777 replied 2 years ago.
Yes, insurance company will find out if you are convicted because of the photo enforcement because the conviction will go on your driving record.


However, in order to convict you, the court must have personal jurisdiction. "Until service is complete, no personal jurisdiction is obtained, and any judgment entered is void." Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App. 1984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App. 1980). In order to complete service, you have to be served personally, not by mail. Specific rules of court (the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure [Ariz.R.Civ.P.], which apply to civil traffic cases) reflect this requirement: Rule 4.1(d), Ariz.R.Civ.P. requires personal service upon an individual.


Rule 12(b)(5), Ariz.R.Civ.P., allows for a dismissal of the complaint when service of process is not complete, and without jurisdiction, dismissal is really the only proper cure.

Rule 12(b)(2), Ariz.R.Civ.P., sets forth that lack of personal jurisdiction is a separate basis upon which the matter must be dismissed. Moreover, lack of jurisdiction renders any judgment entered legally void, and the court, when apprised of the lack of personal jurisdiction, should immediately terminate the proceedings and prohibit the prosecution from continuing without personal jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, I do not recommend simply ignoring the ticket. I have had clients who ignored the mailed ticket and got convicted anyway, after which it becomes more difficult to set that judgment aside. What's worse, there is a risk a court may enter a new failure to appear charge which will eventually result in a license suspension until the fine is paid.

So, a better course of action would be to go to the hearing and the first thing you say to the judge should be, "I move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service." The cite the statutes I've give you, if necessary. The judge should then dismiss your case.
traffic77777, Attorney
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 339
Experience: Attorney
traffic77777 and 9 other Traffic Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
what if the judge says the city will do the personal jurisdiction?
Expert:  traffic77777 replied 2 years ago.
The city can't "do" personal jurisdiction. Only the court can assert personal jurisdiction. It basically means the court has to determine whether it has the power to hear the case. In order to have the power to hear the case, all requisite legal steps, including proper service, must have been satisfied. In 1992, the Arizona State Appeals Court specifically ruled that mailing of speed camera tickets to motorists violated the law and "personal service", that is, hand delivery, is required. 171 Ariz. 449.


Court of Appeals of Arizona,
Division 1, Department C.
Jeffrey J. TONNER, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
PARADISE VALLEY MAGISTRATE'S COURT and Hon. Lester Penterman, a magistrate thereof, Town of Paradise Valley, a municipal corporation, and the State of Arizona, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 1 CA–CV 90–429.
May 12, 1992.

The Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court ordered civil sanction against motorist on civil traffic complaint, and motorist filed special action to vacate. The Superior Court, Maricopa County, Cause No. CV 90–11067, Elizabeth Stover, J., vacated order, and town appealed. The Court of Appeals, Susan R. Bolton, Superior Court Judge, held that order of civil sanction against motorist was void for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

Order of civil sanction against motorist was void for lack of personal jurisdiction, where motorist failed to execute acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint served by first-class mail. 16 A.R.S. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 4.1(c), (c)(1, 2).

**449 *450 Brown & Bain, P.A. by Joseph W. Mott and Bennett XXXXX XXXXX and Horne, Kaplan & Bistrow by Fredric D. Bellamy, Phoenix, for plaintiff-appellee.

Charles G. Ollinger, Paradise Valley, for defendant-appellant Town of Paradise Valley.

Peter C. Gulatto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for defendant-appellant State of Ariz.

OPINION
BOLTON, Judge.FN1
FN1. Note: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, was authorized to participate in the disposition of this matter by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.
Defendants-appellants appeal from a superior court judgment vacating an order of civil sanction entered by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court on a civil traffic complaint issued to plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey Tonner. Appellee filed a special action in superior court to vacate the order of civil sanction, arguing that the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court lacked personal jurisdiction when it entered a default judgment against him. The superior court judge found that service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 4(e)(7)) was not completed prior to entry of judgment and that the judgment entered was void.

On February 11, 1990, the photo radar device operated by the Town of Paradise Valley detected a vehicle registered to General Motors Acceptance Corporation (“GMAC”) traveling at an alleged speed of fifty-six miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. A summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were mailed to GMAC alleging a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (“A.R.S.”) § 28–701 (1989), driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent. GMAC forwarded the summons and complaint to appellee and his wife, the lessees of the vehicle. GMAC also sent the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court a copy of its transmittal letter to appellee. The summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were reissued, naming Tonner as defendant and the vehicle's driver at the time of the alleged violation of section 28–701.

On March 7, 1990, a copy of the summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint were sent by first-class mail to appellee with a return, postage-paid envelope. The summons directed appellee to appear on March 22, 1990, in the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court. Appellee never signed and returned the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint nor did he appear on March 22, 1990. On that date, based on appellee's failure to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted, and an order of civil sanction was entered against him. The Town of Paradise Valley argues on appeal that use of first-class mail for delivery of a summons and complaint is sufficient for service and to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil traffic matters. We disagree.

[1] [2] The requirements for service under Rule 4.1(c) are clear. A summons and complaint may be served by first-class mail along with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint and a postage-paid return envelope,**450 *451 but service is not complete until the acknowledgment of receipt is executed. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(1), (2). If the acknowledgment of receipt is not executed, service is not complete under this method even if there is evidence that the summons and complaint were received. See Worrell v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841–42 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3191, 105 L.Ed.2d 699 (1989). Until service is complete, no personal jurisdiction is obtained, and any judgment entered is void. Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App.1984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980).

[3] Appellant argues that requiring execution of the acknowledgment of receipt creates a conflict with A.R.S. § 28–1076 (1989) because that statute requires the civil traffic complaint to state a time and place for appearance before the magistrate, and if the person summoned fails to appear, the allegations of the complaint will be deemed admitted, a judgment in favor of the State will be entered, and a civil sanction will be imposed. We find no conflict between Rule 4.1(c)(2) and A.R.S. § 28–1076. Section 28–1076(D) provides that a “person served with a civil traffic complaint” must appear at the time directed or “the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted and the court shall enter judgment for this state.” (Emphasis added.) To serve a civil traffic complaint, the State must comply with A.R.S. § 28–1073 (1989), which requires service “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.” A.R.S. § 28–1073(A).

Appellant attempted service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) by complying with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(1). Without a defendant's voluntary compliance with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(2), service is not complete, and no personal jurisdiction over a defendant is achieved. In that event, a plaintiff may attempt service by any other method authorized by Rule 4.1 with the costs of service shifted to the defendant who failed to execute and return the acknowledgment of receipt. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Nothing in section 28–1073(A) eliminates or modifies any steps required to complete service. Section 28–1076(A)'s requirement that the summons state a time and place for appearance and section 1076(D)'s provision that failure to appear shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint, requiring the court to enter judgment for the State and impose a civil sanction are not inconsistent with the rules for service by mail or the rules for service by any other means authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant's recourse when a defendant fails to execute the acknowledgement of receipt is to continue the hearing and serve the complaint by some other authorized method. See Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Until the magistrate's court obtains personal jurisdiction, it has no power to enter an order of civil sanction against a defendant. See Endischee, 141 Ariz. at 79, 685 P.2d at 144; Kadota, 125 Ariz. at 134, 608 P.2d at 71.

[4] We agree with the superior court judge that the order of civil sanction entered against appellee by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the superior court.

CONTRERAS, P.J., and McGREGOR, J., concur.


Ariz.App. Div. 1,1992.
Tonner v. Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court
171 Ariz. 449, 831 P.2d 448


traffic77777, Attorney
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 339
Experience: Attorney
traffic77777 and 9 other Traffic Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
Thank you so much for the valuable information
Expert:  traffic77777 replied 2 years ago.
You are very welcome. When is the hearing?

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
< Last | Next >
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Ely

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    314
    Private practice
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RA/ratioscripta/2012-6-13_2955_foto3.64x64.jpg Ely's Avatar

    Ely

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    314
    Private practice
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/dkaplun/2009-05-17_173121_headshot_1_2.jpg Dimitry K., Esq.'s Avatar

    Dimitry K., Esq.

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    304
    Run my own practice.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/marshadjd/2009-6-1_194320_marshajd.jpg Marsha411JD's Avatar

    Marsha411JD

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    251
    Licensed Attorney with 27 yrs. exp. with Traffic Law issues
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/LawTalk/2012-6-6_17379_LawTalk.64x64.JPG LawTalk's Avatar

    LawTalk

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    188
    I have more than 25 years experience in the practice of law, including representation of clients in Traffic Court.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/MU/multistatelaw/2011-11-27_173951_Tinaglamourshotworkglow102011.64x64.jpg Tina's Avatar

    Tina

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    181
    JD, 16 year experience including traffic law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BrianTMayer/2010-01-06_200119_BM.jpg Brandon M.'s Avatar

    Brandon M.

    Counselor at Law

    Satisfied Customers:

    157
    Licensed Attorney
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/lawpro/2012-6-25_171315_PT206740s.64x64.jpg Law Pro's Avatar

    Law Pro

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    155
    20 years practicing traffic law.