It was suggested that I take action and file a complaint against the court.  After a couple of hours of phone calls, I discovered that complaints are NOT filed against the court, they are filed against the judge.  I ended up calling court services, and then the clerk of the superior court and then the Payson and Globe courts and ended up speaking with the office of the District 1 Supervisor.  I can’t believe that there was this much run around just to say, “Hey, I don’t think the courts are treating me justly.”So after all of this communication, I started to feel more and more frustrated about the situation.  When I spoke to someone in Payson and pointed out the clerical error of the date and time for my new trial, they were very short with me.  They didn’t seem to think that a “snow day” was a just cause to have my case dismissed.  So I grabbed the forms from the Commission of Judicial Conduct and filed an official complaint.  I thought it was interesting in the form where it said, “List the names of any attorneys who appeared in the case:” and then is said, “List the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any witnesses who observed the judge’s conduct:”.  I wrote in that there were no witnesses because the judge did not appear.  I also added an amendment to my testimony stating that I wanted to complain against the court and not specifically against Judge Dorothy Little.I sent off my complaint with a copy of my new Motion to Dismiss, my old Motion to Dismiss, and the letter that I received from the court.  I then sent a copy of the new Motion to Dismiss, my old Motion to Dismiss, and the letter to the court, the Star Valley Town Attorney, and the District 1 Supervisor.  So here’s the new Motion.

FACTS

Defendant Spencer Brinkerhoff was summoned and ordered to appear in the Star Valley Magistrate Court on December 30th, 2010 between the 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM on a complaint charge of the offense of: Speed Greater Than Reasonable and Prudent. The Defendant was warned that a failure to appear as directed may result in a default judgment against him, a civil sanction imposed, and resulting in a suspension of his driver’s license. The Defendant appeared at the court house on the assigned date and time, checked in with the court secretary, and waited. The Plaintiff failed to appear in court and was unresponsive to phone contacts. After the Plaintiff failed to appear in court, the Defendant was compelled to issue a Motion to Dismiss (see attached document) on the 10th of January. The court responded with the attached document dated Jan. 14, 2011 stating that the court had received a “…not guilty plea…” from the defendant and set a trial date for “…2-25-11 @ 2-25-11…”.

ARGUMENT

The Plaintiff failed to appear in court on the assigned date and time and failed to present witnesses against the Defendant. If the Defendant was summoned and ordered to appear with a warning of imposed sanctions, then the Plaintiff should be held to the same standards. There was no attempt made to inform the Defendant of any change in the summon to appear.Also, the issued court response to the Motion to Dismiss contained language inconsistent with the Defendant’s motion. Nowhere in the Motion to Dismiss did the Defendant enter a plea of “not guilty”. The Civil Complaint received by the Defendant specifies that the Defendant may make a declaration of “not responsible”. It is the Defendants understanding that the phrase “not guilty” is reserved for use in criminal cases. In addition to this inconsistent language use, the received document included an clerical error concerning the time for the court appearance. Thereby placing a undo burden upon the Defendant to correct the court supervisor’s mistake and creating an lack of confidence in the court.

CONCLUSION

For the Plaintiff’s failure to appear in court against the Defendant, and for the Plaintiff’s failure to acknowledge the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted.

Dated this 25th day of January, 2011

 Now that I’ve sent this off, I’m thinking that I should have mentioned that they entered a plea in my behalf without my consent.  I wonder what the legal terminology for that is?

Um, I thought that I asked to have this case dismissed? The court case tracking system http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx shows that they recieved the letter on January 12th, 2011 as a “Not Guilty/Not Responsible Plea”. While I was disappointed that the case not simply dismissed, I think that it’s important to pick apart the letter that I received in conjunction with the information fro the court case website. Here’s some more information from the message board, “Fighting Photo Radar for Dummies“.

“With a traffic ticket the cause of action is the alleged violation of the relevant ARS title 28 statue. It is important you understand this. On a civil matter, the burden of proof is less that with criminal. On a civil matter, who ever has the preponderance (51%) of the evidence wins. You should also understand the legal language of your case- on a civil traffic citation you are either “responsible” or “not responsible”. Try not to use the terms guilty or not guilty, that is only for criminal matters and the court will correct you if you use those terms.”

So here’s the letter from the Star Valley Magistrate Court dated Jan. 14, 2011.

“The Court has received your not guilty plea and a trial date has been scheduled for you on 2-25-11 @2-25-11 for the violations of 28-701A. 1/2 hour has been set aside for you hearing. Advise the court immediately if you have multiple witnesses or you feel this is not ample time to present your case. Your trial will go forward in your absence should you fail to appear.” The document goes on to talk about the process for continuances and my rights to an attorney as well as my right to attend traffic school. It is then unceremoniously signed by court supervisor Tina.

I submitted a motion to dismiss the case. There was nothing about the plea of Not Guilty that they referred to. But wait, my CIVIL traffic court hearing date has been set, not a CRIMINAL hearing. The wording doesn’t seem to jive. So here’s another bit from the “Fighting Photo Radar for Dummies“.

“You need to start thinking about your citation as a civil matter. Lose the idea that you have done something wrong, or that the police are involved. To most law abiding people this is a hard thing to do.
Let me give you an example: Your next door neighbor files a small claims suite against you alleging your motorcycle makes too much noise and is disturbing his peace. He wants you to pay $180 to him. Would you just go write him a check? More than likely you would be outraged and you would certainly go to court over it.
So why then would you allow the state to just send you a letter telling you to send them $180? I will tell you why; most people think of it as a police matter (very scary) and have no idea of how civil traffic citations work in Arizona.
So- if you think that you were driving in an unsafe manner and need to pay $180 or spend four hours in traffic school and pay higher insurance rates; then read no further. However, if you are ready to stand up and fight the revenue machine known as photo radar this information will be helpful.”

So now I need to study a bit more about ARS title 28-701A and prepare myself to present 51% of the evidence. With all this being about a photo of me driving my car, I REALLY wish that I would have taken a picture of me sitting and waiting for them to show up in court!

So here I was, waiting to here back from the “no-show” court about the snow day that I braved in vain. I was talking to a friend of mine that said, “You shouldn’t wait for them to do something. While you can’t beat the King in the King’s Court, you may have grounds for dismissal based on their failure to produce any witnesses against you. But don’t wait around, put it in writing, make a paper trail, and do it before they contact you.” While this went against my feelings to avoid making contact with the court and hoping that I would slip through the cracks, I figured that I was already in the system and something should be done. I found a couple of legal looking documents online, and wrote up the following letter. I sent it to them on Jan. 10th, 2011. I thought that I summed things up pretty good.

Star Valley Magistrate Court
Court Number:0447
714 S. Beeline Hwy, #103
Payson, AZ 85541-9943

State of AZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Brinkerhoff Spencer,
Defendant
Case No.: ********************

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

FACTS

Defendant Spencer Brinkerhoff was summoned and ordered to appear in the Star Valley Magistrate Court on December 30th, 2010 between the 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM on a complaint charge of the offense of: Speed Greater Than Reasonable and Prudent. The defendant was warned that a failure to appear as directed may result in a default judgment against him, a civil sanction imposed, and resulting in a suspension of his driver’s license. The Defendant appeared at the court house on the assigned date and time, checked in with the court secretary and waited to see the judge, but no one showed up. Court house employees provided the Defendant with two separate phone numbers to make attempts to reach the Star Valley Magistrate Court. The first number (480.474.5267) was not in service and a message was left on the second number (480.474.7172).

ARGUMENT

The Plaintiff failed to appear in court on the assigned date and time and failed to present witnesses against the defendant.

CONCLUSION

For the reason stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted.

Dated this 10th day of January, 2011


Spencer Brinkerhoff

“You are hereby summoned and ordered to appear at the Star Valley Magistrate Court - 714 S. Beeline Hwy. #103 Payson, Arizona at the date and times indicated: 12/30/2010 between 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM on a complaint charging you with the offense of: SPEED GREATER THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT on 10/14/2010. (signed (or better yet, rubber stamped) by Dorothy A. Little, Justice of the Peace).”

“WARNING TO DEFENDANT
If you waive service or you are served with the Summons and Complaint and you fail to appear as directed, a default judgment may be entered against you, a civil sanction imposed, and your driver’s license suspended. Your driver’s license or non-resident privileges may remain suspended until the sanction is paid in full and you satisfy Motor Vehicle Division requirements.”

Payson is about an hour and a half from Mesa. I woke up early, dressed nice, prepared my notes, grabbed my jacket and headed north. It was pretty cold on December 30th. As I got closer to Payson (*note* Star Valley has a population of about 1000 people and sends it’s court work to Payson), I started to see the clouds hanging in the mountains. Then it got colder, and darker and then…. snow. The roads were not yet plowed, a winter storm was in full effect as I cautiously made the trek for my required court date. They were threatening me with a default judgement and a suspended license if I didn’t show up! I got to the court house right before 9:00 AM, walked in the front door and made my way to the receptionist. I informed her that I was here for the Star Valley Magistrate Court. She took down my name then pointed me towards suite 103 and said, “Nobody’s there. I think that they’re closed.”

WHAT!?!?! How could this be? It was a pretty tense drive through a snow storm to get here, and I’m on time, and they’re CLOSED?!?! SHEESH! So, I walked over to suite 103, pulled on the handle to ensure it was locked, peered in through the dark window, then I took my seat in the waiting area. If I was required to be in court between 9-11 AM, I was going to wait it out. I double checked the complaint documents for any contact phone number, but I didn’t find anything. I couple of court workers came out to check the waiting room and would ask who I was waiting for. Every time I said, “Star Valley”, they would reply, “oh, um, they’re closed”. So I waited. and waited. Then somebody else came out and gave me a phone number to call to leave a message as further proof that I had showed up. Guess what happened when I called it? “The number you have called in not in service…” Really? Wow. So I got another number and left a message saying that I was here, just like I was supposed to be, and they didn’t show up, so I wanted my case dropped.

Another one of the court workers suggested that I call the Justice Court in Globe and talk to them. I thought it was a ridiculous idea, but after the person I spoke with told me it was out of their jurisdiction, she suggested that I have someone in the office sign something as evidence that I had been there. I thought that was a pretty good idea, but nobody would sign anything for me. In fact, they had finished their workload and decided to call it a snow day and asked me to leave so they could lock up the building. *shakes head* At this point, I figured I had done what I could, and I would simply wait around for the court to contact me again.

So I got my picture taken, I waited to be served in person, and then I had a new court date of Dec. 30, 2010. Sigh… Let’s look into this situation a bit more. Star Valley. Anybody ever heard of Star Valley? I hadn’t heard of them before. The Town of Star Valley was incorporated on SR 260 in 2005, making it one of Arizona’s newest towns. The Town website prominently displays an image of their Photo Enforcement program on their homepage.  I found an article in the Payson Roundup from that stated the cameras became active in January 2008 and are now snapping an estimated 100 photos a day of drivers traveling 11MPH over the speed limit. The article also quoted mayor Bill Rappaport saying that, “…the “revenue-neutral” cameras are used stricly to improve safety, the additional money is “icing on the cake”". The town is budgeted to put $1.3 million into its general funds from the cameras. That’s some pretty nice icing. So, they’re going to be putting in some more cameras.

Mayor Bill Rappaport, that name looks familiar…. I checked my traffic violation and noticed that the complainant on the ticket was signed by Sharon Rappaport. Golly, how common is that name in Star Valley? After a little internet search, I found that Sharon B. Rappaport, age 62, is married to a William S. Rappaport, age 67. I’m getting the impression that the mayor is in bed with the court system. That just doesn’t feel right.

So further investigation of the Town website teaches that the Star Valley photo enforcement system is configured to an accuracy of +/- 1 MPH of the calibrated detection device reading. This calibration was done when the system was brought online on Jan. 31st 2008. The photos are taken at 11 mph or more over the posted speed limit. That mean’s that there is room for error that my photo may have been taken erroneously. The site also states, “Our primary focus is on intentional, aggressive and negligent drivers….We are trying to change the behavior of those persons who are most likely to cause crashes.” THAT’S NOT ME! I am NOT aggressive! (maybe I should lay off the ALL CAPS) I’m NOT negligent, I means C’MON! I was on my way to Boy Scout Leadership Training! At this point I decided to show up in court and plead my case. I don’t want to blindly contribute to the icing on their cake.

So I got a traffic ticket, but I didn’t feel like I really deserved it. I think that’s a natural response. I looked around on the internet to find out what other people had done about their ticket. I found a thread in a message board titled, “Fighting Photo Radar for Dummies“.  The thing is about 10 pages long and was started at the end of July in 2009. The author gave some pretty good insight, so I thought I’d try it out and then share some of the info here.The first thing with Photo Enforcement is that you have 4 options to respond to them with. You can Pay the Fine, Identify the Driver, Request a Trial, or Attend Driving School. I decided to not make contact with the court at all for fear that I may waived my legal service of summons and complaint. If I don’t show up on the appointed day, and I don’t make contact with them, then they have to go out of their way to contact me. This means that the court will have to decide what to do about me.

I found out that the court updates their cases online on Wednesdays. The website is here.  After finding my name in their system, I waited to see if the case came up as Adjudicated or Terminated. That would mean that it’s over. Otherwise, the case is still active and it is likely that they’ll attempt to serve me with a summons and complaint for the case. These photo enforcement systems are snapping a ton of photos. The court has 120 days for the service to occur from the filing of the complaint with the court. This is the part where you go into Hiding. If you can avoid opening the door to strangers for the next 120 days, the case will drop.

This was a MAJOR stress! Every time somebody would knock on the door, I would ask somebody else to check the window or just ignore it. I really hated feeling like I was running from the law. But alas, on December 11th, some portly guy holding a cup of iced tea came looking for me. I answered the door, he asked for me, and I said I was unavailable and closed the door. I felt bad about it. He started looking at the paper work and then reading it aloud and stuffed it into my door handle. Arizona allows “substitute” service to cohabitating adults. If the server sees an adult (loosely defined as older teenagers too) in the house/premises but is unable to get physically close to them and give them the summons, they can leave it on the doorstep or tape it to the door, etc.

crap.

For those of us out there who aren’t constantly being hounded by the Paparazzi, the FLASH of a camera from the side of the road is a bit unusual. So there I was, driving East of Payson Arizona on SR260 on my way to spend the weekend at Boy Scout Leadership training (see what a good person I am?). As I left town the speed picked up to 55MPH, but less than 10 minutes later, on a downhill slope, the town of Star Valley posted a speed change down to 45MPH and installed a Photo Enforcement System. That’s when I saw it. The FLASH. I was genuinely surprised and thought that I must have seen something else. I was traveling east bound, downhill, at 7:53 AM, into the sun, on a major state Highway, but I didn’t think anything more about it until the letter showed up.

The Star Valley Magistrate Court of Gila Valley issued a traffic ticket and complaint and summoned me to court on Nov. 22, 2010. I couldn’t believe it. The photo enforcement system claims that I was traveling 56MPH in a 45MPH zone. I was in denial. I didn’t want to pay a $197.00 traffic ticket! Then, a few days later, I got a post card from the Arizona Academy of Defensive Driving. Look at that cute little traffic signal holding the stop sign that says, “Uh-Oh!”. On the back is said, “Got a ticket? Join Signal Simon at one of his next classes in your area.” Really? How did this company get my informations so quickly? Could it be that the photo enforcement company and this driving school are in league together? Now I was in denial AND I was upset. I started to look around on the internet and figured that I’d wait and make them actually serve me the ticket.