Bill to Restrict Photo Radar Ticket Service Times

• April 23, 2013
• by Kimberly Faber

As many process servers know, if a person receives a photo radar citation for a traffic violation and chooses to not respond, the citation must be served. Recently, legislation was introduced in Arizona that proposed placing restrictions on what timeframe in which those citations could be served. The restrictions came in the form of Arizona House Bill 2292.

About the bill

Arizona House Bill 2292 was sponsored by representatives Steve Smith, Debbie Lesko, and T.J. Shope and was introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing on March 11th. The bill required that traffic tickets and complaints resulting from photo radar serves be served between 8 o'clock a.m. and 7 o'clock p.m. During the hearing, Smith shared that the proposed legislation was simply to solve a problem that a constituent had brought to his attention.

Notes from the Hearing

"There are no time frames in the statute for when a process server can serve a photo radar ticket," Smith shared. "All this bill does is put some sensible constraints on when a photo radar ticket can be served." Smith shared that he does not believe that 10 p.m. and an aggressive pounding on the door is warranted for a radar served, referring to an instance where a single mother with a one-year-old child was served at a late hour and with a harsh knock that led her to believe something was wrong. With regard to time constraints, Smith shares that the eleven-hour window is sufficient to serve a photo radar ticket. "We're giving them nearly half of the day to get it served," he said. He also shared that more time-sensitive and egregious cases should not be constrained.

When you have process servers making money on how many of these things that they can serve, and they're using any and all tricks in the bag to do it, and, frankly, at any and all hours, again, I think there's got to be a little bit of latitude in there.

Representative Steve Smith

"When you have process servers making money on how many of these things that they can serve, and they're using any and all tricks in the bag to do it, and, frankly, at any and all hours, again, I think there's got to be a little bit of latitude in there," Smith continued. He noted that he had been made aware of instances where papers were served in unscrupulous ways. 

One member of the committee noted that an arbitrary time restriction does not address issues with demeanor.

"You create a scenario where, at 8:05 a process server could be looking right at a person who needs to be served, and they can thumb their nose at them, say, "Ha, ha, ha. You're out of luck," he noted. He also furthered that for a person who works a job from eight o'clock to four or five o'clock, it may be difficult to serve within that window. "You're giving them perhaps an hour to do their job a day."

The same committee member made a note to Representative Smith that process servers are an extension of the courts. 

Testimony from an Arizona process server

This is not about me, per se. This is about due process. This bill is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. People are entitled to due process.

Joyce Nagy

The bill has been held for the time being, but the committee allowed for one process server to testify. Joyce Nagy, a certified private process server from Litchfield Park, Arizona. "The bulk of my work is serving summonses for photo radar. I do not serve photo radar tickets," she shared with the committee. "I serve summonses from courts with a court date and a time on them for people to come." She shared that her first issue with the bill is that what is served is a summons for a court, not a traffic ticket or complaint. 

Her second problem, she noted, is that process servers work under what she describes as a "very astringent set of rules." She made a note of the training programs and the standards to which she and many people in the profession hold themselves to. In addressing Representative Smith directly, she said, "I am insulted."

"This is not about me, per se. This is about due process. This bill is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. People are entitled to due process," she shared. "Under Rule 4, I am to be reasonable and prudent to do my job." Nagy closed by thanking the committee for hearing her testimony and firmly stating that she opposes the bill. 

The hearing was closed with the bill being held.

Arizona House Bill 2292: Photo Radar Citations; Service Times

What major issues does a bill like this present to process servers?

There are a number of difficulties that a bill of this nature can present to process servers. The primary issue with the terms of the bill is that it places major constraints on the timeframe in which process servers must operate in order to do their jobs. In an example provided by one of the committee members, process servers working in rural Arizona communities would likely have difficulty completing multiple serves if each day only allowed for a relatively small one or two-hour window. For individuals who work night and graveyard shifts, service may be nearly impossible as the person could potentially be sleeping during the entire allotted timeframe. The logistics aside, knowing the time restrictions would certainly aid a person who is already attempting to evade service.

A secondary concern raised with Arizona House Bill 2292 is that it sets a dangerous precedent for determining when is appropriate to serve a person in a specific type of case. The question was raised of what will happen when someone approaches the committee and says that there should be a restricted timeframe for serving papers related to divorce or family court cases, child custody or support hearings, and more. 

The third, and more ancillary effect of the bill being presented, is that it displayed a lack of familiarity with the nature of service of process. The confusion may have been one of terminology, in not understanding the difference between a traffic ticket or complaint and a summons for photo radar, but, and perhaps more alarmingly so, there is the possibility that it is unclear to the representative what is actually being served. Whether it's terminology or lack of understanding is regardless, as ultimately the proposal of this bill reiterates that there are many people who do not understand the role of a private process server.