How to
Beat An Automated Speed Camera Ticket In Virginia: A Guide to Exploiting the
Summons Defect
Disclaimer
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The
information here is based on how I argued my own ticket. Always research your
situation and consult an attorney if you need legal assistance.
1. Understand the Issue
Automated speed camera tickets often rely on a process that
includes mailing you a summons. However, in some cases, the instructions on
these summonses violate Virginia law by directing you to send affidavits
rebutting the ticket to a third-party vendor instead of the Clerk of the
General District Court. This defect is significant because Virginia Code §
46.2-882.1 mandates that affidavits must be filed directly with the Clerk.
This misstep is not a minor error—it’s a fatal flaw that can
make the summons legally invalid from the moment it’s issued. If the summons is
defective, the court cannot hear the case, and you can request dismissal.
2. Check Your Summons for Errors
- Carefully
examine the summons you received. Pay special attention to the back or the
instructions section.
- Look
for any language that tells you to send your affidavit to a third-party
vendor (such as Conduet or Altumint) rather than directly to the Clerk of
the General District Court. Sometimes the summons will actually say the
name of the City you are in and use the physical address of the
third-party vendor. Either way is incorrect.
- Highlight
or make a note of the problematic language, as this will form the
foundation of your argument. (E.g. Falls Church, VA at the time of this
writing instruct its citizens to mail the affidavit to Violation
Processing Center in Tempe, AZ – which is obviously not the Clerk of the
General District Court.)
3. Prepare for Your Court Hearing
- Bring
Evidence: Bring a copy of your summons to court, clearly marking the
section where it misdirects affidavits to a vendor. This will serve as
your primary piece of evidence.
- Know
the Law: Familiarize yourself with the relevant parts of Virginia Code
§ 46.2-882.1:
- Part
E: Requires affidavits to be filed with the Clerk.
- Part
G: Specifies that summons instructions must comply with Part E.
- Practice
Your Argument: Be prepared to explain why the error in the summons
invalidates it and deprives the court of jurisdiction.
4. Bring Up the Summons Defect in Court
Your defense relies on demonstrating that the summons
package is defective because it violates Virginia law. Specifically, the
summons misdirects affidavits to a third-party vendor instead of the Clerk of
the General District Court, as required by Part E of the statute. This
is not just a minor issue—it is a fundamental flaw that invalidates the summons
and deprives the court of authority to proceed. Here’s how to present your
case:
A. Show the Defect in the Summons
- Identify
the Error:
- Look
at the summons mailing, particularly the instructions (usually on the
back or in accompanying materials).
- Point
out that the summons directs affidavits to a third-party vendor, such as
Altumint or a Violation Processing Center, instead of to the Clerk of the
General District Court.
- Explain
Why This is a Problem:
- Virginia
law (Part E) requires affidavits to be filed directly with the Clerk of
the General District Court. By misdirecting affidavits, the summons
violates this statutory requirement and fundamentally misinforms
defendants of their legal obligations.
B. Cite the Law
- Virginia
Code § 46.2-882.1(E):
- Quote
the section requiring affidavits to be filed with the Clerk:
“Such presumption shall be rebutted if
the owner… files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general
district court…”
- Emphasize
that the summons violates this mandate by instructing defendants to file
affidavits elsewhere.
- Virginia
Code § 46.2-882.1(G):
- Reference
the additional requirement that summons instructions comply with Part
E:
“Every such mailing shall include…
instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the
affidavit is to be sent.”
- Argue
that the summons package fails to meet this requirement because the
instructions do not align with Part E.
C. Argue Why the Defect is Fatal
- The
Summons Violates Statutory Mandates:
- The
defect arises from the summons itself, which directly violates Part E
by misdirecting affidavits.
- This
failure renders the summons invalid and prevents the court from obtaining
jurisdiction.
- Part
G Amplifies the Failure:
- Part
G strengthens your argument because it explicitly ties the summons’
instructions to Part E. The instructions’ failure to comply with Part
E highlights a deeper, systemic issue.
- Impact
on Defendants’ Rights:
- Denial
of Proper Affidavit Filing: The summons misleads defendants into
sending affidavits to the wrong entity, depriving them of their statutory
right to rebut the presumption.
- Loss
of Judicial Oversight: Misdirected affidavits bypass judicial review,
undermining the fairness of the process.
- Confusion
and Barriers: Many defendants may not realize the error, leaving them
unable to properly contest the ticket.
5. Be Clear and Confident
- Stay
on Point: Focus on the defective summons. You do not need to argue
about whether you were speeding or whether you can rebut the presumption
of guilt. The defective summons is enough to request dismissal.
- Use
Simple Language: Avoid overcomplicating your argument. Explain the
issue clearly and rely on the plain language of the statute to support
your position.
6. Request Dismissal
- At the
end of your argument, formally ask the court to dismiss the ticket due to
the defective summons. State that because the summons fails to meet
statutory requirements, it is void from the outset and cannot be enforced.
Final Thoughts
Challenging an automated speed camera ticket can feel
daunting, but understanding your rights and identifying errors in the process
can give you a strong defense. The law is on your side when procedural rules
are not followed, but it’s important to act decisively and prepare effectively.
That said, this argument is only valid until the language
on the summons is corrected. If the issuing authority updates their summons
to comply with the statutory requirements, this specific defense may no longer
apply. Therefore, if you’re pursuing this argument, it’s critical to check your
summons carefully to ensure the defect still exists.
Additionally, be cautious of prosecuting attorneys who might
incorrectly cite Part H of Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1. Part H permits
the outsourcing of administrative functions by "law enforcement", such as the installation and
operation of speed cameras or the handling of fines. However, affidavit
review and processing are judicial functions under Part E of the statute.
These responsibilities must remain under the oversight of the Clerk of the
General District Court, as mandated by law. Law enforcement is not part of the judicial branch of government; they are part of the Executive branch of government. The statutes permissions for outsourcing administrative function only allows executive branch delegations. Be ready to highlight this
distinction if the prosecution raises Part H as a defense for their summons
process. If needed, cite Article I, Section 5 of the Virginia Constitution. This is the provision that mandates separation of powers (it means one branch of government cannot take the power or authority of another branch of government without express authorization by statute).
By staying informed and vigilant, you can ensure that your
rights are respected and that any procedural defects are properly addressed in
court.
DO NOT GO BELOW THIS TEXT UNLESS YOU HAVE A STRONG STOMACH FOR LEGALESE
MEMORANDUM
RE: Statutory and Constitutional Defects in Virginia Speed Camera Summonses
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum analyzes fundamental statutory and constitutional defects in speed camera summonses issued pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1. Specifically, summonses that misdirect affidavit filing by either naming private vendors directly or naming municipalities while providing vendor processing addresses (rather than directing filing to the clerk of court) violate explicit statutory requirements and constitutional principles of separation of powers. For example, some localities direct affidavits to private vendors explicitly, while others (like Harrisonburg) name the City but provide Altumint's Pennsylvania processing center address - both approaches violate statutory requirements for court clerk filing. These violations render such summonses void ab initio and may subject municipalities to disgorgement of improperly collected fines.
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statutory Requirements
Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1 establishes specific procedural requirements for speed camera enforcement:
- Section (E) explicitly requires that rebuttal affidavits be "filed by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court."
- Section (G) mandates that summonses include "instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent."
- Section (H) permits law enforcement agencies to delegate certain administrative functions to private vendors but does not authorize delegation of judicial functions.
B. Constitutional Principles
- Article I, Section 5 of the Virginia Constitution establishes separation of powers between branches of government and prohibits one branch from exercising powers properly belonging to another.
- The Dillon Rule limits municipal authority to powers explicitly granted by the General Assembly or necessarily implied therefrom. Winchester v. Redmond, 93 Va. 711 (1896).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Statutory Violations
- Direct Violation of § 46.2-882.1(E)
- Summonses directing affidavit filing to private vendors directly contravene the statutory requirement for filing "with the clerk of the general district court."
- For example, the City of Harrisonburg's summonses direct affidavits to be sent to Altumint's processing center in Pennsylvania rather than the Harrisonburg-Rockingham General District Court clerk.
- This violation is not a mere technical defect but undermines a core procedural safeguard designed to maintain judicial oversight.
- Non-Compliance with § 46.2-882.1(G)
- Summonses fail to provide legally correct filing instructions as required by statute.
- The erroneous instructions actively misdirect defendants from proper judicial channels.
- The statute's requirement for correct filing instructions is mandatory, not directory.
- Misapplication of § 46.2-882.1(H)
- Section (H) specifically permits "law enforcement" - an executive branch function - to delegate certain administrative tasks to private vendors.
- Law enforcement agencies, as part of the executive branch, cannot delegate judicial branch functions.
- The clerk of court's affidavit processing duties are judicial branch functions that fall outside the scope of Section (H)'s delegation authority.
- Affidavit processing involves judicial determinations such as:
- Assessing sufficiency of affidavits
- Maintaining official court records
- Preserving chain of custody for evidence
- Ensuring proper service and filing
B. Constitutional Violations
- Separation of Powers
- Delegation of judicial functions to private vendors violates Article I, Section 5 of the Virginia Constitution.
- The executive branch (municipalities and law enforcement) cannot assume or delegate judicial branch responsibilities.
- Current practices improperly merge executive and judicial functions by allowing executive branch entities to process court filings.
- No statutory provision explicitly authorizes this transfer of judicial power to the executive branch or private vendors.
- Dillon Rule Violation
- No statutory provision authorizes municipalities to redirect court filings to private vendors.
- Such delegation exceeds municipal authority under the Dillon Rule.
- The General Assembly's silence on delegation of judicial functions cannot be interpreted as implicit authorization - indeed, under the Dillon Rule, silence must be interpreted as a prohibition.
- This is particularly true where, as here, the proposed municipal authority would cross constitutional separation of powers boundaries.
- Section H's explicit grant of authority to "law enforcement" to delegate administrative functions reinforces that no such authority exists for judicial functions - expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
- Municipality contracts with private vendors cannot create authority not granted by statute, especially authority that would violate constitutional separation of powers.
C. Legal Consequences
- Void Ab Initio
- Summonses containing incorrect filing instructions are void from inception, not merely voidable.
- As held in Board of Supervisors v. Conn, 206 Va. 822, 826 (1966), actions exceeding statutory authority are void ab initio.
- Each summons directing affidavits to private vendors is independently void.
- No subsequent action can cure this fundamental defect.
- Jurisdictional Impact
- Void summonses fail to establish court jurisdiction.
- Cases proceeding on defective summonses must be dismissed.
- Courts cannot acquire jurisdiction through defective process.
- Jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time.
- Potential Remedy: Disgorgement
- Fines collected through void summonses were obtained without legal authority.
- Municipalities may be required to disgorge improperly collected funds.
- The void ab initio doctrine suggests all actions taken under defective summonses are nullities.
- Class action relief may be appropriate for systemic violations.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Immediate Actions
- Challenge jurisdiction in pending cases based on void summonses
- Seek dismissal of cases initiated through defective process
- Preserve records of improper collections for potential disgorgement
- Document all instances of misdirected affidavits
- Systemic Reforms Required
- Municipalities must revise summonses to direct affidavit filing to court clerks
- Private vendor contracts require modification to respect separation of powers
- Clear procedures needed for proper handling of judicial functions
- Training required for proper implementation
- Long-term Considerations
- Legislative clarification may be needed
- Municipal procedures require comprehensive review
- Interagency coordination protocols should be established
- Constitutional compliance mechanisms must be implemented
V. SUPPORTING AUTHORITY
- Statutory Authority
- Va. Code § 46.2-882.1
- Va. Const. Art. I, § 5
- Case Law
- Board of Supervisors v. Conn, 206 Va. 822 (1966)
- Winchester v. Redmond, 93 Va. 711 (1896)
- Commonwealth v. County Board of Arlington County, 217 Va. 558 (1977)
- Constitutional Principles
- Separation of Powers
- Dillon Rule
- Municipal Authority Limitations
This analysis reveals fundamental defects in current speed camera enforcement practices that render summonses void ab initio and require systemic reforms to achieve statutory compliance while respecting constitutional separation of powers.
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.png)