Mike
Site Co-Founder
Most people should know this already, but just in case, the rule is this: unless you are served personally (i.e., deputy hands you the summons), there is no penalty for ignoring red light camera tickets mailed to you or tacked to your door.
See blogs at http://blog.motorists.org/toss-your-virginia-red-light-camera-ticket & http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/08/23/chesapeakes-new-red-light-camera/comment-page-1/#comment-3026
Let's get the word out - if localities know they will not make money on ticket scammeras, they will not enage in these accident producing schemes.
See 2005 VDOT red light camera report at http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf:
As the 2005 RLC VDOT report states in Appendix H: Virginia’s red light camera law “ultimately requires a personal notification, which may prove prohibitively expensive for some jurisdictions.”
In more detail, the 2005 RLC VDOT report on page 110 explains this as follows:
“The new statute referenced in section A., § 8.01-296, is the provision for service of
process in civil actions, which has been borrowed by the Virginia General Assembly for the
present purpose. It outlines several options for achieving satisfactory service, beginning with an
attempt at personal in-hand service, and moving on to a series of de-escalating forms of
substituted service: delivering to an adult at the defendant’s usual place of abode; posting on the
front door of such abode in conjunction with mailing; and finally, by order of publication in
appropriate cases under the provisions of the applicable code sections. It is the second of these
that gives Virginia its nickname as a “nail and mail” state, meaning that for most civil actions,
posting notice on the defendant’s front door in conjunction with mailing will constitute sufficient
notice. However, this is not so for red light camera citations under the code, for the second
statute referenced above is § 19.2-76 which, as we have already seen, requires personal in-hand
service if the “nail and mail” approach does not succeed in bringing the defendant into court.
Thus, under Virginia’s red light camera statute as it is now worded, the mere mailing of a
citation without personal service by a law enforcement officer does not constitute sufficient
notice under the statute’s own terms. While the statute permits the jurisdiction to make the
initial attempt to summon the accused to court via mail, if that person fails to respond, he or she
is not considered to have been satisfactorily served with notice. Default judgments entered under
such circumstances (when the defendant fails to appear in court on the appointed return date)
would thus not be binding, and the defendant could not be charged with contempt for failing to
comply with such a judgment. Hence, despite its ostensive distancing from the requirements of
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-76, Virginia’s red light camera statute comes full circle and, in the end,
requires personal service before a default judgment may be entered against no-shows.”
See blogs at http://blog.motorists.org/toss-your-virginia-red-light-camera-ticket & http://757hamptonroads.com/2010/08/23/chesapeakes-new-red-light-camera/comment-page-1/#comment-3026
Let's get the word out - if localities know they will not make money on ticket scammeras, they will not enage in these accident producing schemes.
See 2005 VDOT red light camera report at http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf:
As the 2005 RLC VDOT report states in Appendix H: Virginia’s red light camera law “ultimately requires a personal notification, which may prove prohibitively expensive for some jurisdictions.”
In more detail, the 2005 RLC VDOT report on page 110 explains this as follows:
“The new statute referenced in section A., § 8.01-296, is the provision for service of
process in civil actions, which has been borrowed by the Virginia General Assembly for the
present purpose. It outlines several options for achieving satisfactory service, beginning with an
attempt at personal in-hand service, and moving on to a series of de-escalating forms of
substituted service: delivering to an adult at the defendant’s usual place of abode; posting on the
front door of such abode in conjunction with mailing; and finally, by order of publication in
appropriate cases under the provisions of the applicable code sections. It is the second of these
that gives Virginia its nickname as a “nail and mail” state, meaning that for most civil actions,
posting notice on the defendant’s front door in conjunction with mailing will constitute sufficient
notice. However, this is not so for red light camera citations under the code, for the second
statute referenced above is § 19.2-76 which, as we have already seen, requires personal in-hand
service if the “nail and mail” approach does not succeed in bringing the defendant into court.
Thus, under Virginia’s red light camera statute as it is now worded, the mere mailing of a
citation without personal service by a law enforcement officer does not constitute sufficient
notice under the statute’s own terms. While the statute permits the jurisdiction to make the
initial attempt to summon the accused to court via mail, if that person fails to respond, he or she
is not considered to have been satisfactorily served with notice. Default judgments entered under
such circumstances (when the defendant fails to appear in court on the appointed return date)
would thus not be binding, and the defendant could not be charged with contempt for failing to
comply with such a judgment. Hence, despite its ostensive distancing from the requirements of
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-76, Virginia’s red light camera statute comes full circle and, in the end,
requires personal service before a default judgment may be entered against no-shows.”
Last edited: