Red Light Camera Ticket

www.kisslinglaw.com


In most cases it is difficult to fight a red light camera ticket.  Here is a great article on the issue here in Raleigh.

If you received the citation from Raleigh and you are the owner of the vehicle but not the driver, you have a State-sanctioned way out of paying and not disclosing the name of the driver.

If you received the citation from Wilmington, there is no fast way out of paying a ticket. See "Ignoring Your Citation".

If you received the citation from Knightdale, then it must be for a violation prior to October 2013. At that time Knightdale let its contract with Redflex expire. Knightdale turned off the cameras and the cameras have been off ever since.

The conditions which make red light cameras blossom like weeds come from the practices of NCDOT traffic engineers, not from driving behavior as most assume. Raleigh and Wilmington simply exploit the conditions for profit. Fighting the problem on a front other than engineering/physics is really vanity. You may use the easy-way out as described below for your own personal ticket, but your problem won't go away. You will most likely get another red light camera ticket. The NCDOT has stacked the deck, the City deals the cards, and the house always wins. For a permanent solution, see "Fighting the Engineers" below.

Know that the lion's share of your money is not going to education but to the red light camera company. Raleigh pays a fixed cost per camera per month ($2250/mo) + other fees resulting in about 65% going to ACS. Knightdale gave $45 out of every $50 fine Redflex. Cary gave 90% to Redflex. Wilmington is far worse. In order to keep its red light cameras, Wilmington runs about a million dollar deficit each year. Under a different State law, Wilmington must pay the school district 90% of gross penal fines. In order to do that and still pay American Traffic Solutions (ATS), Wilmington has to money launder. Without operating the cameras, Wilmington could give the school district the same amount of money.

Owner But Not Driver

This option works in Raleigh.

If you are the owner of the vehicle but were not driving at the time and location on the ticket, do not pay. Do not divulge the driver's name either. You have another choice which the citation does not mention. You can say, "I was not driving at the time and location on the citation." Sign the appropriate affidavit below and mail it first-class to the mayor. It is legal to do this and the city must accept it. The instructions are in the download.

If you are angry enough and you want to take action beyond just mailing in the affidavit, then you can do something fruitful. Sign up for an Administrative Hearing. See below.

Raleigh	Affidavit
Wilmington	Sorry. Wilmington operates under a different statute.

Red light camera citations from Raleigh have been fraudulent since the beginning of its red light camera program. Every citation is intentionally worded to omit your legal rights.

With willful intent and prior knowledge, John Sandor of Raleigh commits felony fraud by omitting the accused' legal rights on the Raleigh citations to secure payment. The Cary News published Sandor's confession on August 22, 2012. In his statement, Sandor lies to vehicle owners to prevent vehicle owners from possibly lying. At this time there are some 160,000 counts of fraud against Sandor. The mayor of Raleigh, Nancy McFarlane, also confesses in this ABC TV news report.

If you choose to settle the owner-not-driver issue personally with Safelight Raleigh, then you can walk into the Safelight Raleigh office and ask for the owner-not-driver affidavit. Safelight has prepared an affidavit for this purpose. The problem of course remains. With just a citation in hand, no one knows the possibility exists.

Finally your obedience to Raleigh's city ordinances while the government of Raleigh willfully disobeys the ordinances is your decision. Past and current acts of making statements omitting an owner's legal rights in order to secure payment have always been felonies. If Raleigh was a person, Raleigh would have been ordered to make 8 million dollars in restitution and would have been thrown in jail for 20 years. The wording of the law has been clear since 2001, yet Raleigh chose and still chooses to disobey the law in order to secure money. The combined cities of Raleigh, Knightdale and Cary have illegally collected over 17 million dollars.

Ignoring Your Citation

In all of North Carolina you are not responsible for paying a red light camera citation if you do not receive the citation within 90 days of the violation.

Raleigh and Knightdale: Session Law 2003-380 Section 3(2)

Wilmington: NCGS 160A-300.1(c)(1a)

Because Safelight does not hand-deliver the citation but rather sends the citation by mail, Safelight really does not know whether you received the citation. State law hinges on you receiving notification, not on Safelight's word that it mailed you notification. If you are going to ignore your citation, you must truly ignore it. Do not respond to the original citation. Do not respond to the penalty notice. Wait until the Safelight makes the next move (see below for what that is) and make sure that when you respond, you respond 90 days after the alleged violation.

Know that many people never receive their citations. Know that you do not have to give an excuse to Raleigh or Wilmington for why you did not receive notification. In civil cases, it is the plaintiff's responsibility (Raleigh or Wilmington) to produce a preponderance of evidence that you received notification. It is not your responsibility to prove that you did not receive notification.

Here are common reasons why one never receives notification:

1. Many people are on vacation and never receive the mail until it is too late.

2. Many people are in the process of moving, and the mail does not get forwarded to them.

3. Spouses separate for an impending divorce. The spouse remaining in the house does not forward the mail to the spouse who fled.

3. Many people find that these citations look like junk mail or a scam letters and throw them out.

4. Many people have family members opening the mail. Your spouse may have simply thrown away the citation. It happens.

If Safelight real wants its money legitimately, Safelight can serve you civil notice the old fashioned way--by dispatching a person who hands you the citation. That option is explicitly written into the North Carolina red light camera laws. Safelight opts not to use this method because it costs too much. Instead Safelight relies on the US mail and intimidation tactics, the latter in order to get you to turn yourself in.

The following is what to expect when you ignore the citation. Different cities do different things:

Raleigh

As of July 2013 we know that "ACS Raleigh" will hit your credit score if you ignore your citation. A credit report from TransUnion (a credit reporting agency) will reveal a line saying, "ACS Raleigh" at "212 Wolfe Street Raleigh, NC 27601." ACS is the private company who owns Raleigh's red light cameras.

You can call TransUnion and dispute the item.

The nature of the dispute is that the civil fine which ACS wants to collect is by federal definition not a debt. Because it is not a debt, it is not subject to collection. TransUnion is violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by taking ACS's word for it that the ACS reported a valid debt. TransUnion's legal obligation is to ignore ACS-Raleigh, and could even file criminal charges of fraud against ACS Raleigh.

The legal definition of debt is:

15 U.S. Code Section 1692A. Black's Law Dictionary goes into more detail.

While the North Carolina State Session Law 2001-286 allows ACS to regard the fine as a debt, the US Code does not. The wording in the NC State Law contradicts the higher law. (Red light camera companies routinely introduce these change-of-definition deceptions.) A red light camera fine is not "an obligation to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." The fine is not a judgment: No court or other tribunal has resolved a controversy and determined the rights and obligations of the parties.

There also remains the matter that you were never served a notice. ACS mailing you a fine without requiring your own signature to indicate you received the notice, then assuming that you have received the notice, violates civil procedure and section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States. The NC Session Law requires that you receive notification before the fine becomes legal and ACS does not provide the instrument by which it can verify your notification.

In the end there are no grounds for ACS to collect. As it has been reported to us, a call to TransUnion and filling out their on-line dispute form will remove the blemish from your record. Here is a letter you can attach to the dispute form. One person had the issue resolved within minutes. Another person called John Sandor, the director of the Safelight Raleigh, and Sandor called TransUnion and had the blemish removed.

Legally TransUnion has 30 days to respond.

If Safelight Raleigh tries to get you to pay the citation by revising the due date on your citation, that is illegal. Safelight Raleigh has overstepped in the enabling statute. If you receive the citation 90 days after the violation, by enabling statute Session Law 2003-380, the citation is void. Period.

Wilmington

If you ignore a Wilmington citation, we know that the City of Wilmington will eventually try to garnish your North Carolina State Tax Refund $100.00; that is, if you have a refund coming. The City of Wilmington uses a little known law to do this: NCGS 105-A. To prevent the City of Wilmington from collecting either do what's in the following paragraph, or do your personal accounting in such a way that you do not get a State Tax Refund.

Wilmington invented a number of contingencies in order to collect from people who claimed never to have received the citation. For example Wilmington has an prepared affidavit saying you were on an extended vacation and did not receive the citation in time. If you sign the affidavit, Wilmington cancels the penalties and resets the clock and makes you pay the original $50. These contingencies are illegal. Wilmington is overstepping North Carolina's enabling statute. Statute Session Law 2003-380 calls a violation not received after 90 days void. The law stops there. The law does not authorize any contingency procedure. Do not sign such an affidavit. If Wilmington insists that you pay, you might have to call the police and have the police force the City of Wilmington to honor the law. (Such a thing happened in a parallel circumstance in the Town of Cary.)

Knightdale, Cary

As of July 2013 we know that Knightdale's and Cary's Redflex citations will not hit your credit record. Absolutely nothing happens in the end if you do not pay a Redflex ticket. In October 2013, Knightdale shut down its red light camera program. Cary shut down its program in August 2012.

Who is your Advocate?

The media is your best advocate. These cases of fraud are clear-cut and of public interest. The media generally does not hesitate to expose the fraud.

It is possible to go to the police but there is no long term success in this. The police may take your one isolated citation and force its City's Safelight program to cancel it, but the City will continue defrauding the public. The City will continue to screw everyone else without blinking an eye. For example even after two legal confrontations with Cary over the owner-not-driver issue, Cary choose continue to defraud the public for two additional years. It was only after a Wake County Superior Court judge chastised Cary in court when Cary changed its mind. After hearing Cary's outcome, the Town of Knightdale decided to comply with this law too. Cary and Knightdale both have shutdown their programs.

The NC State of Bureau of Investigation is not your advocate. The Attorney General is not your advocate. They do not get involved in local police matters. The SBI's suggestion is to contact the media.

Fighting the Engineer

The real fight is here. The NCDOT traffic engineer is the problem. The best thing you can do is file a complaint with the North Carolina Board of Engineers (NCBELS) against the traffic engineer who signed and sealed the traffic signal plan for your intersection. Ask the City Clerk for the "current traffic signal plan" for your intersection. The name of the engineer is on the plan. The complaint form requires a witness. We will sign as a witness.

North Carolina laws for legal red light camera operation require the yellow light durations to be in full compliance with the MUTCD and that the traffic engineer must conform to NCGS 89C.

The yellow light durations do not comply with the MUTCD and the engineer does not comply with NCGS 89C.

MUTCD

Violation 1: Steady Yellow Duration Shorter Than Traffic Signal Plan

All yellow light durations in North Carolina fail the MUTCD. MUTCD Sec. 4D.26-01 requires yellow change interval to be a steady yellow light. "Steady" is the key word. The law requires the steady yellow change interval to be at least as long as that written on the signal plan. But NC traffic engineers never account for bulb illumination time. The signal plan may say 4.5 seconds, but the steady part of that yellow time is about 4.3 seconds. North Carolina traffic engineers always short the yellow light by about 0.2 seconds. That mere 0.2 second accounts for about 30% of the red light camera revenue. This video illustrates the problem.

Violation 2: Yellow Not Same Duration Following Protected and Permissive Greens

North Carolina traffic engineers fail the MUTCD when setting the duration of left-turn yellow arrows on those left turn approaches which have both a protected and a permissive green phase. When traveling down a left turn lane, sometimes you get a green arrow. That green arrow is called a protected green: you have the right-of-way. Other times you get either a solid green ball or a flashing yellow arrow. The solid green ball or the flashing yellow is called a permissive green. You can go if you can but you do not have the right-of-way. The NCDOT traffic engineers fail the MUTCD for left turn approaches that have both a protected and permissive phase. The yellow following these phases must be the same duration (MUTCD 4D.17-07, 4D.26-09, 4D.04-3B, 1A.13-258). They do not. NCDOT typically sets the yellow duration after a protected green to 3.0 seconds and the one after the permissive green to 3.8 seconds (35 mph road) or 4.5 seconds (45 mph road). The yellows durations differ during the light cycle for the same yellow light--a direct violation of a MUTCD standard.

Violations of a MUTCD standard are winnable in court. We did not file complaints on these MUTCD violations in Court because we did not know about them at the time of the trial. For our trial, we complained about violations of NCGS 89C.

NCGS 89C

Every US State and Canadian Province has a clause like "the engineer must know the special knowledge of the physical sciences to do his engineering work." It is the engineers' failure to understand physics which is the root of the red light camera problem--which explains why the entire red light camera sector exists. We explain this problem in the papers on the home page of this web site. A good summary of the problem is in the Oct/Nov 2013 issue of Traffic Technology International.

Though it should be just a matter of fixing a physics mistake, traffic engineers will not even take the time to check their own assumptions and therefore never get to the point where they see their mistake, let alone correct it. When confronted with the mistake, they are instantly dismissive. "We are correct because we have been doing it this way for 50 years." Yet at the same time neither a single traffic engineer knows the math and physics behind their formula nor could name Newton's Laws of Motion. Their depositions testify to these facts.

We took the physics issues to court. The NCDOT basically plugs in the wrong numbers into the wrong formula. Unfortunately we found out the hard way that Wake County Superior Court is not the venue to discuss physics. It is too much to ask a non-scientific though-well-meaning judge to understand physics when the opposition is doing every thing it can to strike the laws of physics. We found that a simple truth gets overshadowed with poker-playing over culpability issues. In the end the judge was too uncomfortable to decide a matter of physics with such far-reaching consequences. He instead used the Town of Cary's culpability argument. That combined with a disparate local ordinance, the judge essentially trumped the laws of physics. So to this day, the problem remains unsolved. The NCDOT continues to harm people and continues to enable cities to capitalize on engineering malpractice.

To make it easier for a judge to come to the right decision, but moreover to solve the engineering problem, we are going to submit one complaint against each traffic engineer to the Board of Engineering. These complaints are not law suits submitted to the Court. These complaints are physics, math, engineering and ethics violations submitted to the North Carolina Board of Engineers. Under NCGS 89C, it is the Board's mandate to discipline engineers over these violations.

NCBELS is the government's empowered final authority on issues of NCGS 89C. Our hope is that NCBELS understands physics. If NCBELS rules that the traffic engineers do not comply with NCGS 89C, then all the red light camera operations in the State become illegal. North Carolina's red light camera law hinges on compliance with NCGS 89C. With such a ruling, we can go back to Court. The heat is now off a Wake County Superior Court judge. The judge can blame NCBELS for his far-reaching decision.

Sign up for an Administrative Hearing

It is possible to fight City Hall?

If you are the owner of the car but were not driving at the time and location of the citation, yes. You can fight City Hall and win. This is how you do it: Without claiming in any fashion that you were the driver of the car, sign up for a hearing. When you go to the hearing, say that you are the owner of the car but were not driving at the time and location on the citation. Do not say anything more than that. Let your lips be sealed. If the Hearing Panel convicts you, then pay the $50 fine and you are now in the legal position to bring a class action lawsuit against the City. Call us. With your involvement we can sue Raleigh or Knightdale for millions of dollars. This "owner not driver" issue can be won. The State statutes and city ordinances are very clear what Raleigh and Knightdale are supposed to do.

If you claim that "I just could not stop or the yellow did not last long enough", or "it was raining" then you are taking the punishment for physics errors made by the NCDOT when it sets yellow light durations. But this claim will get you nowhere. In the case of Ceccarelli vs Town of Cary, Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway used a local ordinance to trump the laws of physics, making it irrelevant whether the NCDOT practiced engineering correctly.

If you pay $50 without appealing your citation, you are guilty in the eyes of the law. You have confessed. You forfeit all legal rights. You can neither appeal your case in Superior Court nor be a representative in a class action.

Raleigh Intersection Problems

There are many engineering problems at all intersections with red light cameras. That is why the red light cameras are there--to exploit the engineering problems. Raleigh has made many mistakes setting yellow light times at all intersections. There exists problems common to every intersection. There exists problems specific to an intersection. We have analyzed only three intersections so far in Raleigh: Here are their specific engineering failures which Raleigh financially exploits at your expense:

	Capital Blvd. (NB) at New Hope Church Rd.
	New Hope Church Rd. (EB) at Brentwood
	Peace St. (EB) at West

We know that NCDOT engineers never measure approach speeds as required by their own spec. Engineers are supposed to set yellow light durations according to the speed of 85th percentile of freely-flowing car speeds, not the posted speed limit. We have not seen a single traffic signal plan where the NCDOT does this. We have measured approach speeds and they have always been greater than the posted speed limit.

We know that for some intersections ACS posts yellow times shorter than that of the signal. On Peace at West street, ACS says the time is 3.79 seconds. The signal plan says the time must be 3.8 seconds. This shortfall violates SL2004-141, and the operation of the red light camera is illegal.

We also know that at some intersections, Raleigh's ACS red light camera software prints false yellow times. The printed times are significantly longer than the signal gives, giving the impression that Raleigh gives you more time than they really do. For instance at Dawson @ Morgan, the printed yellow time is 4.1 seconds but the actual yellow time is 3.8 seconds. 0.3 seconds is the difference between 50 tickets per month and 150 tickets per month.

Safety

Raleigh advocates death for its motorists. On Raleigh's web site, there is a section called "Red Light Cameras is Other Cities." Raleigh uses the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) to justify its red light camera program. But IIHS studied Raleigh specifically and reported (p. 14) that the presence of red light cameras increased fatalities in Raleigh by 180%.

Wilmington has the same problems as Raleigh.

For a hearing, call:

Raleigh Safelight (owned by Xerox)	919-833-2549
Wilmington Safelight (owned by ATS)	910-343-4762

What is Your Defense?

If you sign up for a hearing in Raleigh you have to write down the reason why you feel you are innocent. Either say, "I am not the driver at the time and location on the citation" or write the following. It is true.

"[City] has created a dilemma zone at this intersection. I was in it when the light turned yellow. [City] forced me to run a red light."

When you go to the hearing, face the hearing panel and defend yourself with:

"All intersections have a dilemma zone because the NCDOT formula for yellow light durations sets yellow light durations which oppose the laws of physics. In order for me to obey the law, I have to break laws, unbreakable laws--the laws of physics. I cannot do that. Adjust your yellow light durations so that they are consistent with the physical laws of motions. Then judge me."

Additionally if you are a commercial truck driver, say "I need 2.5 second perception/reaction time for my rig and 0.5 seconds air-brake lag time. That is what the NCDOT CDL Manual requires for truck drivers. Your 3 second left turn yellow leaves me absolutely no time to brake." If you did not turn left, say, "You shorted me 1.5 seconds on the yellow. I am innocent. And you better increase your yellow light duration else I am going to kill someone and charge the City with wrongful death."

North Carolina Traffic Tickets

www.kisslinglaw.com

This is the beginning of my second year blogging about North Carolina Traffic Tickets.  I want to thank the almost 3,000 people who have viewed this blog over the past year.  When I started it, I was just trying to keep people more informed about issues involving traffic tickets.  I hope it has helped.

As you are aware, there have been several political races for District Attorney in several judicial districts.We can expect a lot of change in several counties as sitting district attorneys have either left or have been voted out in the primary elections.  I believe voters are looking for a change from the hard nosed positions some district attorneys have been taking on simple traffic violations. In addition to Wake County, I believe that there are three. (1) Ron Moore, the long-time district attorney in Buncombe County, was defeated in the Democratic primary by defense attorney Todd Williams. No Republican is running so Williams will be the next district attorney in Asheville. (2) Melissa Pelfrey, the district attorney in district 6A, lost to Valerie Asbell, the district attorney in district 6B, in the Democratic primary for district attorney in the new consolidated district 6.  This district now covers Halifax and North Hampton Counties (3) In district 25 – Caldwell, Burke, and Catawba Counties – sitting district attorney Jay Gaither trailed David Learner in the Republican primary, but Learner fell just short of the needed 40% and Gaither has called for a runoff. No Democrat is running in the district so the runoff will decide the position.

In Wake County, Lorrin Freeman won the Democratic primary and there will be a runoff between long-time Assistant District Attorney Jeff Cruden leads John Bryant in the Republican primary for district attorney.

No sitting judges have been voted out yet, but there will be several contested seats in November.  One will be in Wake County where Judge Meyer is being challenged.  Judge Meyer has never run for a seat.  He was appointed to replace Judge Ruth when she left her seat after the issued with back dated judgments.

The State Troopers have been stepping up their efforts toward speeders the last few weeks and it is expected to continue until the end of the month.  We have seen a big increase in the number of tickets written.  In addition, the Click it or Ticket campaign has started again.  Make sure you are wearing your seat belt in the proper manner.  North Carolina Law requires that the seat belt be worn properly.  So make sure you are wearing your shoulder strap the correct way and not under your arm.

Finally, although school is getting out for most traditional calendars at the end of this month or the beginning of next month, there are still a lot of year round schools.  As a results, please make sure you keep an eye out for school buses and school zones.  These tickets are much more difficult to keep off your insurance and in the case of passing a school bus, you cannot get a Prayer for Judgment.

Wake County Speeding Ticket

www.kisslinglaw.com

Tomorrow is the primary for District Attorney in Wake County.  It has been 30 years since we had a new District Attorney in Wake County.  Last week, I sent the following e-mail to all candidates.:

My name is Lawrence Kissling.  I am an attorney in Wake County who represents clients who have received traffic tickets. Over the past 10 years, I have represented approximately 20,000 clients.  I have received request from most of them in the past month seeking my recommendation for the Wake County District Attorney race .  

My typical client’s only interaction with the court system is a traffic ticket.  As a result, they are not overly concerned with issues like violent crimes or new programs for decreasing crime.  What they are mostly concerned with is what will happen if and when they or someone in their family receives a traffic ticket.  Mostly, they want the know if you intend on changing the current policy and offering a reduction to Improper Equipment.  If  so, under what circumstances would you offer such a reduction.

The second question they are asking is about stop sign violations.  Currently, if you race through a stop sign and cause an accident, the District Attorneys Office will dismiss your charges if your insurance company pays the damages incurred by the other vehicle.  However, if you merely fail to come to a complete stop, you receive no reduction at all.  Do you plan on changing this policy or keeping it the same?

Thank you for your kind consideration in these matters.  My clients look forward to your response.

I received responses from three (3) of the candidates.  Here are there responses:

From Jeff Cruden:

I worked as an ADA in the 1st district for the first 3 years out of law school and we did IE's there and I did not notice a lack of security because of it. I see no reason not to offer them here also.

I have often thought about the unfairness of the dismissal in a wreck case upon delivery of an insurance letter but you can't get comparable treatment if your driving is less egregious and you don't cause a crash. I have not thought about that situation in a long time to be honest but when I become DA I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you & other members of the bar to hear your recommendations on how that should be handled. Thanks for your questions.

From Lorrin Freeman:

Mr. Kissling

Thank you for your email and questions.

At this time I have not committed to changing the policy on offering improper equipment pleas in traffic cases.  I do believe however that all tools to dispose of minor traffic offenses need to be considered in shaping policies as we move forward because court time needs to be used in a way to maximize time focused on more serious offenses such as driving while impaired.  I look forward to continuing this dialogue with the Defense Bar and our law enforcement community as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Lorrin Freeman

And from John Bryant:

I do not object to Improper Equipment reductions, but probably not for foolish driving or for multiple violations. 

Stop sign rolls, I’d find a creative way to help those with relatively clean records avoid having to burn the family PJC on rolling a stop sign. 

My goal would be to strengthen the driving habits of the people riding around in the County to help avoid some of the traffic in the Courthouse which is not necessary to accomplish the initial goal in this sentence.

Glad to speak with you about this, if you wish.  


 I did not not hear from any of the other candidates.

So why is this important.  Most of you will never be the victim of a violent crime.  Your only interaction with the court system is going to be with a traffic citation.  Wake County is currently one of the few counties where you cannot receive a reduction to Improper Equipment.  If you listen to those candidates who are currently working in the DA's office, there is a lot of talk about being tough on crime.  I would think that anyone elected with be though on violent crimes.  The question you need to ask yourself is how am I going to be treated when I have a speeding ticket or minor traffic offense.  Am I going to be treated like a criminal?

Failure to Appear/Failure to Comply

www.kisslinglaw.com

There is a direct link between not appearing in court for a traffic violation or not paying your court costs and fines an your privilege to drive a motor vehicle.  The following article is a very good explanation of the connection.  However, it does not state that if you have a failure to appear and your case is dismissed, you not have to pay the $200 FTA fee but you will have to pay the $50 reinstatement fee to the DMV if your license has been suspended.  Please read the following article which comes from the North Carolina School of Government Criminal Law Blog.

The Link Between License Revocations and Failures to Appear

September 19th, 2011

By Shea Denning

In 1985, the General Assembly reclassified certain minor traffic violations as a new type of non-criminal violation, termed an infraction. S.L. 1985-764. Though the legislation provided that infractions were to be processed in much the same manner as misdemeanor criminal charges (they were to be calendared and prosecuted by the district attorney, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and persons found responsible for infractions in district court were afforded the right to a de novo jury trial in superior court), their non-criminal nature distinguished them from criminal offenses in a few critical ways. A law enforcement officer could not arrest a person for an infraction. A court could not issue an order for arrest if a person served with a citation for an infraction failed to appear in court. Infractions were punishable by a fine and costs only; no active or probationary sentence could be imposed.
Because persons charged with infractions could not be arrested, and persons found responsible for infractions could not be placed on probation or ordered to jail, the legislature recognized the need for other measures commensurate with the petty nature of such offenses to ensure that persons charged with infractions appeared in court and that those found responsible complied with court-ordered sanctions.  See Report of the Courts Commission to the North Carolina General Assembly 15, 16 (1985). Appearances for infractions and compliance with court-ordered sanctions were thus tied to a person’s ability to remain licensed to drive. Failure to appear in court or comply with sanctions triggered an administrative license revocation. As the Courts Commission pointed out, the new “revocation procedure basically treats residents the same for in-state violations as they are treated when they are ticketed outside the state.” Id.; see also G.S. 20-4.20(b) (requiring DMV to suspend a person’s North Carolina driver’s license when the licensing authority of a reciprocating state reports that the person has failed to comply with a citation issued in that state). Today, the administrative license revocation provisions enacted in 1985 are codified, as amended, at G.S. 20-24.1 and G.S. 20-24.2. Here is what they currently provide:
If a person charged with a motor vehicle offense (be it a felony, misdemeanor or infraction) fails to appear on his or her court date and does not appear or “pay off” a citation for a waivable offense within 20 days thereafter, the clerk of court must report this failure to appear to DMV. G.S. 20-24.2. (The failure to appear also triggers imposition of a $200 court cost pursuant to G.S. 7A-304(a)(6).) The clerk must likewise report the failure of a person “charged with a motor vehicle offense” to pay a fine, penalty or costs within 20 days of the date specified in the court’s judgment. G.S. 20-24.2. Though this provision does not so specify, presumably it applies only when the conviction or adjudication of responsibility—in addition to the charge—is for a Chapter 20 motor vehicle offense. (A related provision of G.S. 7A-304(a)(6)—not limited to motor vehicle offenses—imposes court costs of $50 upon a defendant who fails to pay a fine, penalty, or costs within 20 days of the date specified in the court’s judgment.)
When it receives notice from the clerk pursuant to G.S. 20-24.2, DMV must mail or personally deliver to the person an order revoking his or her driver’s license, effective on the sixtieth day after the order is mailed or delivered. G.S. 20-24.1(b). If the person resolves the matter before the effective date of the revocation, the revocation never becomes effective and any entries on the person’s driving record related to the revocation are deleted. To resolve the matter, the person must do one of four things, depending upon the circumstances giving rise to the court’s report to DMV: (1) dispose of the charge in the trial division in which he or she failed to appear when the case was last called for trial or hearing; (2) demonstrate to the court that he or she is not the person charged with the offense; (3) pay the penalty, fine, or costs ordered by the court; or (4) demonstrate that his or her failure to pay the penalty, fine, or costs was not willful and that he or she is making a good faith effort to pay or that the penalty, fine or costs should be remitted.
Once the person has resolved the matter in court, the court so notifies DMV. G.S. 20-24.2. The clerk must provide the person upon request with a copy of the notice sent to DMV.  If the person resolves the matter before the effective date of the revocation, the notice must indicate that the person is eligible to drive if he or she is otherwise validly licensed. If the revocation order becomes effective before the charge is resolved, the person’s license remains revoked until he or she resolves the matter by completing the necessary act of the four listed above and pays a $50 license restoration fee. G.S. 20-24.2.
If a clerk sends an order to DMV “through clerical mistake or other inadvertence,” the clerk’s office that sent the report of noncompliance must withdraw the report and send notice to DMV, which corrects its records. G.S. 20-24.2(b). When this occurs, the person is able to have his or her driver’s license reinstated without paying the restoration fee. In contrast, if the failure to appear is stricken but no notice is sent to DMV withdrawing the G.S. 20-24.2 report, the person must pay the $50 restoration fee to regain his or her driver’s license. A related provision in G.S. 7A-304(a)(6) requires the court to waive the $200 fee for failing to appear if the person demonstrates that he or she failed to appear because of an error or omission of a judicial official, a prosecutor or a law enforcement officer. (Courts also have discretionary authority to waive such costs upon upon a written finding of just cause. See G.S. 7A-304(a).)
I’d be curious to hear from readers who litigate motor vehicle charges as to whether both types of relief (withdrawal of the report and waiver of the $200 fee) typically are granted simultaneously or whether courts frequently determine that relief under one provision, but not the other, is warranted.

Prayer for Judgment Continued

www.kisslinglaw.com

Every day, whether in court or in the office on the phone, I hear a very wrong explanation of what a Prayer for Judgment is, how it affect your driving and insurance records and what happens if you receive another ticket in the next 3 years.  I have decided it is time to write a lengthy blog entry to explain the law and how it works.

A prayer for judgment (PJC) is not a judgment.  Pursuant to NCCS 15A01-1(4a), Prayer for Judgment Continued upon payment of cost, without more, does not constitute the entry of Judgment. 

Here is what I hear:

"If you get another ticket within 3 years of receiving a Prayer for Judgment, the old ticket will reappear on your record."  This is not accurate.  The second ticket within a 3 year period will not automatically cause the old ticket to appear on your record absent a judge setting that requirement on your first ticket and the District Attorney filing a motion to have the original judgment reinstated.

"Just get a Prayer for Judgment.  Then the ticket will not go on your record and you will not have to pay anything."  First, there are limitations on the number of Prayer for Judgment's available to a person.  For insurance purposes, each policy gets one Prayer for Judgment every three (3) years.  This includes everyone on the policy.  However, for driving record purposes, each person gets two (2) Pray for Judment's every five (5) years.  While using the second Prayer for Judgment will result in taking the insurance points from both tickets, it could save you from losing your license.  In addition, even with a Prayer for Judgment, you are still required to pay the court costs.


Also, there are several charges that cannot be disposed of with a Prayer for Judgment.  One for example is Passing a Stopped School Bus.  NCGS 20-217(e) states:  Except as provided in subsection (g) of this section, any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and shall pay a minimum fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00). A person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall not receive a prayer for judgment continued under any circumstances.

These are just a few misconceptions about a Prayer for Judgment.  As a result, you should always consult an attorney before requesting one from the court. Keep in mind that even a lot of attorneys do not understand this correctly.  I just read a blog by an attorney who was just wrong about how a prayer for Judgment works.  As I looked at his web site more, I discovered that he mostly practices "beer law".  I will admit I do not know what beer law is, but I do know that it is not traffic law.  I would advise anyone to limit who they take their advise from on traffic tickets to someone who spends most of his time dealing with traffic tickets, not someone who does a few tickets on the side because they can not get the major portion of their practice to be profitable.

Traffic Control Device Violation

www.kisslinglaw.com

In North Carolina, it is an infraction punishable by court costs and a fine for going through private property to avoid a traffic control devise.  This offense carries two, (2) driving points and one (1) insurance point  In counties such as Wake County, the district attorney will not dismiss the charge or reduce it to a non moving violation.  As a result, you must use a Prayer for Judgment to avoid the the insurance point.  If you do not have a Prayer for Judgment available to you, someone else on your policy has used one in the past 3 years, you will end up with an insurance increase.

While a lot of people think this offense applies only in gas stations, it applies to all private property.

The question now is if it apples to public property.  Under the statute, you may not even go through public property, such as a park, to avoid a traffic control devise.  See the statute below for more.

§ 20-158.  Vehicle control signs and signals.

(a)        The Department of Transportation, with reference to State highways, and local authorities, with reference to highways under their jurisdiction, are hereby authorized to control vehicles:

(1)        At intersections, by erecting or installing stop signs requiring vehicles to come to a complete stop at the entrance to that portion of the intersection designated as the main traveled or through highway. Stop signs may also be erected at three or more entrances to an intersection.

(2)        At appropriate places other than intersections, by erecting or installing stop signs requiring vehicles to come to a complete stop.

(3)        At intersections and other appropriate places, by erecting or installing steady-beam traffic signals and other traffic control devices, signs, or signals. All steady-beam traffic signals emitting alternate red and green lights shall be arranged so that the red light in vertical-arranged signal faces shall appear above, and in horizontal-arranged signal faces shall appear to the left of all yellow and green lights.

(4)        At intersections and other appropriate places, by erecting or installing flashing red or yellow lights.

(b)        Control of Vehicles at Intersections. -

(1)        When a stop sign has been erected or installed at an intersection, it shall be unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to fail to stop in obedience thereto and yield the right-of-way to vehicles operating on the designated main-traveled or through highway. When stop signs have been erected at three or more entrances to an intersection, the driver, after stopping in obedience thereto, may proceed with caution.

(2)       a.         When a traffic signal is emitting a steady red circular light controlling traffic approaching an intersection, an approaching vehicle facing the red light shall come to a stop and shall not enter the intersection. After coming to a complete stop and unless prohibited by an appropriate sign, that approaching vehicle may make a right turn.

b.         Any vehicle that turns right under this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to:

1.         Other traffic and pedestrians using the intersection; and

2.         Pedestrians who are moving towards the intersection, who are in reasonably close proximity to the intersection, and who are preparing to cross in front of the traffic that is required to stop at the red light.

c.         Failure to yield to a pedestrian under this subdivision shall be an infraction, and the court may assess a penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00).

d.         The Department of Transportation shall collect data regarding the number of individuals who are found responsible for violations of sub-subdivision b. of this subdivision and the number of pedestrians who are involved in accidents at intersections because of a driver's failure to yield the right-of-way while turning right at a red light. The data shall include information regarding the number of disabled pedestrians, including individuals with visual or mobility-related disabilities, who are involved in right turn on red accidents. The Department shall report the data annually to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee beginning January 1, 2006.

(2a)      When a traffic signal is emitting a steady yellow circular light on a traffic signal controlling traffic approaching an intersection or a steady yellow arrow light on a traffic signal controlling traffic turning at an intersection, vehicles facing the yellow light are warned that the related green light is being terminated or a red light will be immediately forthcoming. When the traffic signal is emitting a steady green light, vehicles may proceed with due care through the intersection subject to the rights of pedestrians and other vehicles as may otherwise be provided by law.

(3)        When a flashing red light has been erected or installed at an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the red light shall stop and yield the right-of-way to vehicles in or approaching the intersection. The right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable to making a stop at a stop sign.

(4)        When a flashing yellow light has been erected or installed at an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the yellow flashing light may proceed through the intersection with caution, yielding the right-of-way to vehicles in or approaching the intersection.

(5)        When a stop sign, traffic signal, flashing light, or other traffic-control device authorized by subsection (a) of this section requires a vehicle to stop at an intersection, the driver shall stop (i) at an appropriately marked stop line, or if none, (ii) before entering a marked crosswalk, or if none, (iii) before entering the intersection at the point nearest the intersecting street where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting street.

(6)        When a traffic signal is not illuminated due to a power outage or other malfunction, vehicles shall approach the intersection and proceed through the intersection as though such intersection is controlled by a stop sign on all approaches to the intersection. This subdivision shall not apply if the movement of traffic at the intersection is being directed by a law enforcement officer, another authorized person, or another type of traffic control device.

(c)        Control of Vehicles at Places other than Intersections. -

(1)        When a stop sign has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, it shall be unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to fail to stop in obedience thereto and yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other vehicles.

(2)        When a traffic signal has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, and is emitting a steady red light, vehicles facing the red light shall come to a complete stop. When the traffic signal is emitting a steady yellow light, vehicles facing the light shall be warned that a red light will be immediately forthcoming and that vehicles may not proceed through such a red light. When the traffic signal is emitting a steady green light, vehicles may proceed subject to the rights of pedestrians and other vehicles as may otherwise be provided by law.

(3)        When a flashing red light has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the light shall stop and yield the right-of-way to pedestrians or other vehicles.

(4)        When a flashing yellow light has been erected or installed at a place other than an intersection, approaching vehicles facing the light may proceed with caution, yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians and other vehicles.

(5)        When a traffic signal, stop sign, or other traffic control device authorized by subsection (a) requires a vehicle to stop at a place other than an intersection, the driver shall stop at an appropriately marked stop line, or if none, before entering a marked crosswalk, or if none, before proceeding past the traffic control device.

(d)       No failure to stop as required by the provisions of this section shall be considered negligence or contributory negligence per se in any action at law for injury to person or property, but the facts relating to such failure to stop may be considered with the other facts in the case in determining whether a party was guilty of negligence or contributory negligence.

(e)        Defense. - It shall be a defense to a violation of sub-subdivision (b)(2)a. of this section if the operator of a motorcycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d., shows all of the following:

(1)        The operator brought the motorcycle to a complete stop at the intersection or stop bar where a steady red light was being emitted in the direction of the operator.

(2)        The intersection is controlled by a vehicle actuated traffic signal using an inductive loop to activate the traffic signal.

(3)        No other vehicle that was entitled to have the right-of-way under applicable law was sitting at, traveling through, or approaching the intersection.

(4)        No pedestrians were attempting to cross at or near the intersection.

(5)        The motorcycle operator who received the citation waited a minimum of three minutes at the intersection or stop bar where the steady red light was being emitted in the direction of the operator before entering the intersection. (1937, c. 407, s. 120; 1941, c. 83; 1949, c. 583, s. 2; 1955, c. 384, s. 1; c. 913, s. 7; 1957, c. 65, s. 11; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c. 1191; c. 1330, s. 22; 1975, c. 1; 1977, c. 464, s. 34; 1979, c. 298, s. 1; 1989, c. 285; 2004-141, ss. 1, 2; 2004-172, s. 2; 2006-264, s. 6; 2007-260, s. 1; 2007-360, ss. 2, 3.)

Civil Revocation for younger drivers

www.kisslinglaw.com

Drivers under 18 and with limited drivers licenses can now have their licenses suspended for being charged with certain offenses even if they are ultimately found not guilty or the charges are dropped.  This is similar to a 30 day civil revocation for an impaired driving charge. This only happens with the most serious offenses and only when drivers are young and have limited driving privileges due to their age or lack of experience.  Below is more on the law .
By Shea Denning

Want to frighten your 16 or 17-year-old this Halloween?  Tell her that if she is charged with speeding more than 15 mph over the speed limit, she’ll be arrested and she’ll lose her license.  It may sound scary, but, after January 1, 2012, it is true.  I’ve written before about the new civil license revocation for provisional licensees.  Since the effective date for new G.S. 20-13.3 recently was amended and folks have raised numerous questions about the new law, I thought I’d follow up with a post addressing how and when the new civil license revocation applies.
If you have questions that aren’t addressed here, ask away. Many thanks to Matt Osborne, Associate Legal Counsel for the Administrative Office of the Courts, who prepared the list of covered offenses and whose insights as to other aspects of the law informed this post.
Which drivers may be subjected to the new civil license revocation?
Drivers who are 16 or 17 years old who have a limited learner’s permit or a provisional license issued by NC DMV pursuant to G.S. 20-11. These drivers are defined as “provisional licensee[s].” G.S. 20-13.3(a)(4).
Persons who are 15 years old who have a limited learner’s permit issued by NC DMV also are considered provisional licensees. Such persons are not, however, subject to civil license revocation under G.S. 20-13.3 because, pursuant to the Juvenile Code, Chapter 7B of the North Carolina General Statutes, persons under 16 may not be arrested.  Furthermore, there is no initial appearance for a juvenile alleged to be delinquent.
Which offenses trigger this license revocation?
The revocation is triggered by commission of a criminal moving violation, defined as a violation of Part 9 or 10 of Article 3 of Chapter 20 that is punishable as a misdemeanor or felony offense. G.S. 20-13.3(a)(2). Offenses listed in G.S. 20-16(c) for which no points are assessed are not included.  Equipment violations codified in Part 9 of Article 3 of Chapter 20 likewise are not included.
The following offenses are criminal moving violations:

• G.S. 20-137.4: Operating a school bus while using a mobile phone
• G.S. 20-137.4A: Operating a school bus while using a mobile phone to text or access electronic email
• G.S. 20-138.1:  Driving while impaired
• G.S. 20-138.2:  Driving while impaired in a commercial vehicle
• G.S. 20-138.2A: Operating a commercial vehicle after consuming
• G.S. 20-138.2B: Operating a school bus, school activity bus, or child care vehicle after consuming alcohol
• G.S. 20-138.3:  Operating a motor vehicle by person less than 21 after consuming alcohol or drugs
• G.S. 20-138.5:  Habitual impaired driving
• G.S. 20-138.7(a):  Operating a motor vehicle while there is an open container of alcohol in the passenger area and while the driver is consuming or has consumed alcohol
• G.S. 20-140:  Reckless driving
• G.S. 20-141(j1):  Speeding more than 15 mph over limit or more than 80 mph
• G.S. 20-141(j3):  Speeding in a commercial motor vehicle carrying a load that is subject to the permitting requirements of G.S. 20-119 and (i) driving 15 mph or more over the posted speed, or (ii) driving 15 mph or more over the permit speed
• G.S. 20-141.3:  Operating a motor vehicle willfully in a prearranged speed competition, or operating a motor vehicle willfully in speed competition, or allowing one’s vehicle to be operated in a prearranged speed competition, or wagering on a prearranged speed competition
• G.S. 20-141.4:  Felony death by vehicle, misdemeanor death by vehicle, felony serious injury by vehicle, aggravated felony serious injury by vehicle, aggravated felony death by vehicle, repeat felony death by vehicle
• G.S. 20-141.5:  Speeding to elude arrest
• G.S. 20-141.6: Aggressive driving
• G.S. 20-149(b): Improper operation by an overtaken driver causing a collision resulting in serious bodily injury, bodily injury, or property damage
• G.S. 20-157(a), (h), (i):  Failing to move over for law enforcement or emergency vehicle giving warning signal, or violating G.S. 20-157 and causing damage to property or injury, or violating G.S. 20-157 and causing serious injury or death
• G.S. 20-166(a), (a1), (b), (c), (c1): Failing to stop and remain after a crash resulting in serious bodily injury or death, or failing to stop and remain after a crash resulting in injury, or failing to provide information or render assistance following a crash, or failing to stop and remain after a crash resulting in damage to property or non-apparent injury
• G.S. 20-166.1:  Failing to notify law enforcement or other owner following crash, or failing to provide proof of insurance to DMV upon request
• G.S. 20-166.2: Failing, when a passenger in a vehicle involved in a crash, to remain at the scene, or provide information, or render assistance
• G.S. 20-167.1:  Transporting spent nuclear fuel without notifying NCSHP in advance

(Note:  The offenses in bold type are implied consent offenses that trigger a separate civil license revocation pursuant to G.S. 20-16.5. A judicial official may not enter a G.S. 20-13.3 revocation if the provisional licensee is subject to a G.S. 20-16.5 civil revocation for the same underlying conduct. The offense of misdemeanor death by vehicle is classified as an implied consent offense for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011. See S.L. 2011-119.)
When is a provisional licensee’s license subject to civil revocation?
A provisional licensee’s permit or license is subject to revocation under G.S. 13-3 if: (1) a law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the provisional licensee has committed a criminal moving violation, (2) the provisional licensee is charged with that offense, and (3) the provisional licensee is not subject to a civil revocation pursuant to G.S. 20-16.5 for the same underlying conduct.
What is the procedure for ordering the civil revocation of a provisional licensee’s license?
If a provisional licensee’s permit or license is subject to revocation under G.S. 20-13.3, the law enforcement officer must execute a revocation report (new AOC-CVR-12) and take the provisional licensee before a judicial official for an initial appearance. The law enforcement officer must expeditiously file the revocation report with the judicial official conducting the initial appearance.
If a properly executed revocation report concerning a provisional licensee is filed before a judicial official when that person is present before that official, the judicial official must, after completing any other proceedings involving the provisional licensee, determine whether there is probable cause to believe the conditions requiring civil license revocation are met. If the judicial official finds probable cause that the conditions in G.S. 20-13.3(b) are met, he or she must enter an order (new AOC-CVR-13) revoking the provisional licensee’s permit or license.
How long does the provisional licensee civil revocation last?
The period of revocation is 30 days. G.S. 20-13.3(d). Since the civil license revocation is a civil action, see G.S. 20-13.3(g), the civil counting rules of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 6(a) apply. Pursuant to Rule 6(a), the revocation ends at 12:01 a.m. on the thirtieth day after the revocation order is entered unless that date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday when the courthouse is closed for transactions, in which case the revocation remains in effect until the next day that the courthouse is open for transactions.

Is a written revocation order required?
Yes. The judicial official must give the provisional licensee a copy of the revocation order (new AOC-CVR-13). G.S. 20-13.3(d). The order must state the date on which the provisional licensee’s permit or license again becomes valid.
Is the provisional licensee required to surrender his or her license or permit?
No. The provisional licensee keeps his or her license or permit. G.S. 20-13.3(d). The provisional licensee is not, however, authorized to drive during the revocation period.
Must the court inform DMV of the revocation?
Yes. The clerk must notify DMV of the issuance of a provisional licensee civil revocation within two business days of the issuance of the revocation order. G.S. 20-13.3(e). The notice must specify the beginning and end date of the revocation period.
May a provisional licensee be awarded a limited driving privilege?

No. G.S. 20-13.3(f) provides that a person whose license is revoked pursuant to G.S. 20-13.3 is not eligible for a limited driving privilege.
Must the licensee pay a fee to end the civil revocation?

No. The person’s permit or license becomes valid by operation of law at the conclusion of the revocation period. Payment of a fee is not required.
Are driver’s license or insurance points assessed for such revocations?
No. G.S. 20-13.3(h) provides that no driver’s license or insurance surcharge may be assessed for a G.S. 20-13.3 revocation.
What is the effective date of G.S. 20-13.3?
S.L. 2011-385 (S 636) enacted new G.S. 20-13.3, effective for offenses committed on or after October 1, 2011. The effective date was amended by H 335, ratified by the General Assembly on September 14, 2011 and presented to the governor on September 15, 2011. The bill, chaptered as S.L. 2011-412, became law without the governor’s signature on October 15, 2011. S.L. 2011-412 made new G.S. 20-13.3 effective January 1, 2012 for offenses committed on or after that date.
To carry out the legislature’s intent as reflected in H 335 and to avoid the confusion that would be caused by implementing the provisional licensee civil revocation as of October 1, 2011 and, shortly thereafter suspending it until January 1, 2012, the Administrative Office of the Courts elected not to implement S.L. 2011-385 on October 1, 2011, instead delaying its implementation until January 1, 2012.