Beat An Automated Speed Camera Ticket In Virginia

 

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

1. 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.
2. 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

1. 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.
1. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. Section (E) explicitly requires that rebuttal affidavits be "filed by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court."
2. Section (G) mandates that summonses include "instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent."
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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

1. Statutory Authority
   • Va. Code § 46.2-882.1
   • Va. Const. Art. I, § 5
2. 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)
3. 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.