I received a red light camera generated ticket in the mail that shows my car in an intersection with the light being red. I live in Georgia.

According to the summons, this is a civil case, not a criminal one. If I go to court and loose the case, can the court force me to pay the $70 ticket, or can they only serve a judgment in the case? If so, what happens if I ignore the judgment and not pay?

The photo doesn't show me driving the car and in fact, I may not have even been the driver. I don't recall as I have the car for sale and a potential buyer may have been driving it. The summons states that I can name the driver at the time of the incident. Am I required to keep detailed records of who drives my car and when they do so? I've had several people drive the car who were looking to buy it, but I didn't get detailed info on them when they test drove it such as full name, address, etc.

Those traffic light laws were made go after the vehicle owner. You are responsible since you let someone drive your vehicle. Unless you can prove the camera was defective, you will lose. You can then try to cleect from the driver, if you can identify them.

This is legal and yes you as the owner of the car can be held liable for civil action against things done by the driver, one reason this is civil not criminal.

If you don't pay they can merely get a judgement, garnish you paycheck, or attach your bank account. And of course after adding legal and court fees. Which would triple at least the amount of the fine

This really sounds absurd. It seems to me that the county should be compelled to charge me with a criminal offense (which is what running a red light amounts to) and then have to prove their case. Unbelievable.

Any chance of beating this?

No

So how do they determine the amount of the fine, er, judgment?

In this case it's $70, but what is to stop them for asking for $1000 or $10,000?

The fine level is set by law. If you were stopped by a cop it would probably have been higher.

Hello wren:

Even though it's civil and not criminal, they STILL have to prove their case. The burden of proof has simply been reduced to a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. A picture of your car at an intersection ISN'T proof. Oh, it's proof that SOMEBODY ran a red light - just not you.

In Arizona, where this technology was invented, they take TWO pictures - one of your car, and one of your face. If it's YOUR face, you pay. If not, you don't. (I used to carry a clown mask that I would wear when I tore through one of those traps.)

Therefore, I would say you have an excellent chance of beating it.

In my view, red light cameras were set up to produce revenue - not safer streets. As proof of that, I suggest the cheaper jurisdictions don't buy TWO cameras, cause they think they can make plety of money with just one. It's true too, because MOST people are just going to send in their money, and the state will be waaaaay ahead, even though they may not collect yours.

excon

Since this is a civil matter, can I stand at a traffic light with a camera and take photos of cars and then sue the owners in civil court? Who would receive the proceeds from such a suit? How could I get the local gov't to provide me with the names, addresses, etc. of the lawbreakers?

I know that sounds a bit absurd and it is a little tongue-in-cheek of course.

Hello again, wren:

Nahhh. You need to get a handle on how our legal system works...

In order to sue, someone has to DO some wrong against YOU, and then you have to show how much that wrong COST you.

Your neighbors going through a red light isn't something they do to YOU, and it doesn't cost YOU a dime.

It's something they're doing to the CITY (which is everybody), and the city has determined that it costs them $70. It probably does.

excon

This is not a civil case. It is a criminal one. You are being charged with the crime of running a red light or whatever it's technically referred to in Georgia's motor vehicle code ; probably failure to observe a traffic signal or something similar. If you go to court and lose, the $70 that you'll pay is actually a fine. Alternatively, you probably have the option of paying it without making a court appearance by simply mailing it in or maybe paying online. Understand that if you do, that constitutes a guilty plea. If you don't answer the summons at all, then a warrant may be issued for your arrest. But you will never face a civil judgement arising out of this ; that's a completely different issue. Now, if it was in fact not you who was driving the car when the incident in question took place but rather someone else, you may have a defense if you can muster enough evidence to convince the judge. That would probably entail getting the driver to testify that (s)he was the one at the wheel when the car was photographed. Naturally the driver may not want to testify to that and there's little to compel him/her to do so. Also trying to argue that the photograph doesn't actually show your car in the intersection is probably futile. In motor vehicle violation cases, judges very rarely give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Your best bet may be to inform the court that you intend to contest the ticket and report to court on the date indicated on your summons. Then hope that the prosecutor doesn't bring any evidence to present against you (i.e. the photo of your car in the intersection), thereby prompting the judge to drop the case. But don't count on it and have your checkbook with you. Be prepared to drop the $70 along with possible additional court charges. As a side note, I have to ask you, are you always in the habit of letting potential buyers test drive your car without you accompanying them? That's an invitation to having your car stolen.