If I get a red-light camera ticket in the mail, do I have to respond, and what is the difference between a 'notice of violation' and a real court-issued ticket?

Plain-English summary

The opinion distinguishes a uniform traffic ticket and complaint from a notice of violation. Under the version of A.R.S. § 28-1593(A) it analyzed, a traffic complaint could be served by delivery to the person charged or a method authorized by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The issuing authority could also use certified mail, return receipt requested and delivered to the addressee only, for a violation issued after an investigation connected with a traffic accident.

If an agency sends a photo-enforcement complaint by a method outside § 28-1593(A), subsection (C) requires it to tell the recipient that there is no obligation to identify the driver or respond. It must also say that failure to respond will probably result in formal service and likely require payment of service costs. The AG explained that sending the complaint by another method does not itself satisfy the formal service rule. The opinion does not require this disclosure on a complaint properly served under subsection (A).

A "notice of violation" is a document from a municipality or photo-enforcement company that is not a uniform traffic ticket or complaint. Under § 28-1602(B), every such notice must say it is not court issued, that the recipient has no obligation to identify the person or respond, and that failure to respond may result in official service and an additional fee. The AG concluded these requirements apply to municipalities.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Senator Antenori asked about service of citations and notices generated by photo-enforcement systems. The opinion quotes § 28-1593(A) for the authorized methods of serving a traffic complaint, § 28-1593(C) for the disclosure required when a photo-enforcement complaint is sent another way, and § 28-1602(B) for the statements required on a notice of violation.

The disclosure requirement depends on which document was sent and how. A notice of violation must carry the § 28-1602(B) statements. A photo-enforcement traffic complaint must carry the § 28-1593(C) statements if it is sent by a method outside § 28-1593(A). The opinion does not predict the outcome of a particular citation.

The opinion's footnote contrasts parking complaints under A.R.S. § 28-1591(C): that provision allowed regular mail and deemed service complete on mailing.

Common questions

Q: I got a photo-enforcement ticket in the mail and ignored it. What happens?
A: If the agency sent a photo-enforcement complaint by a method outside § 28-1593(A), the opinion says it had to disclose that you need not respond and that failure to respond would probably lead to formal service and likely service costs. It does not decide what happened in any individual case.

Q: What is the difference between a "notice of violation" and a real ticket?
A: A notice of violation from a municipality or photo-enforcement company is not a uniform traffic ticket or complaint and must carry the disclosures in § 28-1602(B). A traffic complaint carries the no-response disclosure under § 28-1593(C) only if it is sent by a method outside the formal service methods in § 28-1593(A).

Q: Do I have to identify the driver if I was not the driver?
A: Under the provisions the opinion analyzed, a notice of violation must say the recipient need not identify the driver. A photo-enforcement traffic complaint must say this when sent by a method outside § 28-1593(A). The opinion does not decide liability for an identified or unidentified driver.

Q: Can I rely on the 2011 service rules for a citation received today?
A: Check the current text of §§ 28-1593 and 28-1602 and the applicable service rules. This opinion explains the statutes as they stood in 2011.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.R.S. § 28-1593 (traffic complaint service)
• A.R.S. § 28-1602 (photo enforcement notices)
• A.R.S. § 28-601 (photo enforcement system definition)
• A.R.S. § 28-1591 (parking complaints; mail service)

Cases:

• State v. Williams, 175 Ariz. 98, 854 P.2d 131 (1993), plain-language interpretation rule

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i11-008-r11-016
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I11-008.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

The Honorable Frank Antenori

Arizona State Senate

Question Presented

What are the requirements for service of citations and notices of violations stemming from traffic violations detected by photo enforcement systems under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 28-1593 and 28-1602?

Summary Answer

Section 28-1593(A) requires that a uniform traffic ticket and complaint be personally served by being delivered to the person against whom the complaint is brought or by any means that the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure authorize and permits service by certified mail, return receipt requested, under certain circumstances. Where a law enforcement agency or its agents seek to achieve service of a traffic ticket and complaint that a photo enforcement system has generated through a means other than those authorized by § 28-1593(A), the agency must inform the person against whom the complaint is brought that he or she is not obligated to identify the driver or to respond to the citation, but that failure to respond will probably result in the person being formally served and being required to pay service costs. Similarly, where a municipality or a company contracted to supply photo enforcement services provides a notice of violation, the notice must give the recipient the same information and must also state that the notice is not a court-issued document. A.R.S. § 28-1602. These statutory requirements apply to municipalities.

Background

Some Arizona cities enforce traffic laws through photo enforcement. See, e.g., City of Mesa, Photo Safety Enforcement FAQs, http://www.mesaaz.gov/residents/police/divisions/photo-safety-program (“The Mesa Police Department uses an automated traffic enforcement program to supplement traffic enforcement by Mesa police officers.”); see also A.R.S. § 28-601 (defining photo enforcement system).

Analysis

The language of a statute is the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning. State v. Williams, 175 Ariz. 98, 100, 854 P.2d 131, 133 (1993). Section 28-1593 sets forth the requirements for service of a traffic complaint, as well as the substantive requirements of notice that must be included with such a document if it is not served in accordance with the statute and arises from photo enforcement.

Section 28-1593(A) provides that

[a] traffic complaint may be served by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic ticket and complaint to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure. At the discretion of the issuing authority, a complaint for a violation issued after an investigation in conjunction with a traffic accident may be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested and delivered to addressee only, to the address provided by the person charged with the violation.

However, “[i]f a law enforcement agency issues a citation as a result of a photo enforcement system” and serves that complaint in a manner “other than” the ones that § 28-1593(A) prescribes, “the agency shall inform the person that there is no obligation to identify the driver or respond to the citation.” A.R.S. § 28-1593(C).(1) It must also inform the recipient that “[f]ailure to respond to the citation will result in the probability that the person will be formally served pursuant to state law and the Arizona rules of civil procedure which will likely result in the person being required to pay the costs of the service.” Id.(2)

A related statute, A.R.S. § 28-1602, provides for notices of violation “obtained using a photo enforcement system.” A “notice of violation is “a notice issued by a photo enforcement company or municipality that is not a uniform traffic ticket or complaint.” A.R.S. § 28-1602(C). Such notices “must state” that “[t]he notice is not a court issued document and the recipient is under no obligation to identify the person or respond to the notice” and that “[f]ailure to respond to the notice may result in official service that may result in an additional fee being levied.” A.R.S. § 28-1602(B).

Conclusion

Law enforcement agencies and those with whom they contract for services who do not serve photo-enforcement-generated traffic complaints pursuant to § 28-1593(A) must provide the information that § 25-1593(C) requires with the traffic complaint if the traffic complaint is served by some other means. Notices of violation issued in conjunction with photo enforcement systems by municipalities or photo enforcement companies must include the statements required by A.R.S. § 28-1602(B).

Thomas C. Horne

Attorney General

Providing the uniform traffic citation and complaint generated from photo enforcement by means other than those permitted under § 25-1593(A) does not satisfy the statute’s service requirements. See A.R.S. § 28-1593(C) (noting that where service is attempted by other means, recipient need not respond and may be “formally served.”).

In contrast, standing and parking complaints “may be sent by regular mail to the address provided to the department by the individual made responsible for the alleged violation by the applicable statute or ordinance” and “[s]ervice of the summons and complaint is complete on mailing.” A.R.S. § 28-1591(C).