[NinjaBraap]

For anyone on social media, there's been a few videos circulating that talk about why "photo enforced tickets" are actually not legally binding. From state to state theres varying reasons, and varying legalities, however the majority of state have very similar statutes or codes that are lined out similarly to where I live in Oregon.


The following statutes the apply, permit, and limit photo radar enforcement in Oregon are: ORS 810.438, ORS 810.439, ORS 810.441, ORS 810.442. According to both ORS 810.439 and ORS 810.442 which define the parameters being as it states, "A citation for speeding may be issued on the basis of photo radar if the following conditions are met: (A) The photo radar equipment is operated by a uniformed police officer. (B) The photo radar equipment is operated out of a marked police vehicle." Therefore, according to Oregon State Law, any mailed "citation" that doesn't meet those two requirements, isn't a valid citation enforceable by law. This means that traffic cameras that are permanent fixtures, not "(A) The photo radar equipment is operated by a uniformed police officer." and "(B) The photo radar equipment is operated out of a marked police vehicle.", do not meet the requirements to be enforced by law and have any effect on you in any way, other than intimidation and revenue generation. In fact, if you read these Statutes, you'll find another interesting fact that will further prove this in ORS 810.438, section (2), subpart (c), it states, "May not be used for more than four hours per day in any one location." That means that if you see a camera that operates for longer than 4 hours a day, it's not officially enforceable by the law and if only operates for 4 hours a day, and the citation time falls outside of that time then it is also unenforceable. So next time you receive a "citation" in the mail, think, examine, and research before acting.


I posted this along with one of the above mentioned videos, after seeing it doing the research to back it up. As many then pointed out another reason they're not legally binding is that in the U.S., according to the constitution you have a right to face your accuser. Since your accuser has to be a person who physically witnessed you personally (with reasonable suspicion it was you), a camera alone does not count.

If you receive a "photo enforced citation", before even opening the letter, see if its 1. sent from your state or city, 2. if its sent from an official office such as the court. Then when you open it, check who the issuing authority is. Often it says something that sounds very official and could be or sounds like a lawyers office. If that's the case, it's not from a governing authority, and you throw it away. Another thing to look for is the officer who issued it. If there isn't one, you throw it away. Next look for where to respond to, and what the court date is. If there isn't both, one, or any combination thereof, throw it away. A real citation will ALWAYS have a court date and where to show up to that court date.

The long and short of this is that while cities may adopt "photo enforcement" programs, they are literally revenue generation program with no actual legal binding financial or otherwise. In fact until you respond to the mailed "ticket" from these, usually the police force isn't even aware of them. By responding you are essentially "admitting guilt" and therefore no one needs to have physically witnessed you committing the offense.

Basically, cities usually adopt these programs, often with lots of pushback from many areas. They have no legally binding authority behind them, so when they do adopt them they have to work them around the statutes for the state AND city. One way that they make them sound official is they issue press notices, and use local news to have an officer talk about the program and why people should "look out" for these camera's, often saying "an officer personally reviews each and every case" but never mention that the police directly issue the initially mailed "citation". This is a sidestep or sort of loophole that they use so that when a lawyer goes after the case after you respond, they aren't caught on going against basic constitutional laws, and it's that much harder for the case to be dropped.

If you're still skeptical and think you may still get in trouble, the best advice is the moment you receive the mailed "citation", immediately get a lawyer before you respond in any way. Chances are they'll tell you it's bs and to throw it away, or if it does go to court it'll be immediately dropped as long as it's outside of the codes or statutes.

Hope this helps clear this topic up, good luck!