Beat Your Camera Ticket—Legally, Easily, and in Minutes
Customer Testimonials:
Thank you for the education! What I find so disappointing is the deceptive nature of the whole “camera ticket scheme,” as you call it. My dismissal letter came today and I wanted to send this note of thanks. —Jennifer E.
I used the dismissal template as instructed, sent it to my municipal court, and the ticket was dismissed without a hearing. The process was simple and clear and saved me over $100. I highly recommend Camera Ticket Dismissal! —Mary D.
The court responded to my response by scheduling a contested hearing. I came back here and got the “no thank you” letter and sent it off. The dismissal notice came in the mail a couple weeks later. I love it! —Alex S.
State-Specific Documents that Get Camera Citations Dismissed
Have you received a notice in the mail stating you owe a fine stemming from an automated camera traffic citation?
If so, you want to know whether you can fight it and beat it.
With our solution, you can do precisely that.
- Tens of millions of automated traffic‑camera citations are issued each year across the United States.
- Jurisdictions justify automated camera citations as “safety measures,” but impartial studies do not show they increase safety.
- Non-profit safety group Vision Zero notes that speed‑camera revenue can become a budget crutch for cities, creating a conflict of interest that shifts the program’s focus from safety to revenue.
- In every state that authorizes automated traffic‑camera citations, the system conflicts with civil and criminal evidence rules and undermines core constitutional protections.
- CHECK THIS OUT…
- These camera‑fine systems rely on fast, uncontested processing. When someone raises real constitutional or evidentiary challenges, jurisdictions often dismiss the case rather than spend more fighting it than the citation is worth.
- No matter your state, we provide a powerful multi-part response document [we call it a response “packet”] that you can use to obtain a dismissal of any citation, infraction, or fine that is based on photo or video camera “evidence.”
WHAT DOES OUR SOLUTION COST?
You can pay either $47 for a single use
or
$67 for a lifetime use membership
OUR PROCESS:
- Fill out two simple forms—one to create your account and one to address the specific citation/infraction you want to be dismissed
- Choose and pay for either single-use or lifetime access
- You will immediately receive an email with the personalized response packet you will send to the court
- If the court tries to get cute by scheduling and sending you a contested hearing notice (that you didn’t ask for or consent to), we have a solid response to shut that down as well. Just come back here to your account, fill out the form, and we will email you the response letter to send to the court
Want to Take it Deeper?
Our About page explains why traffic and school‑bus camera programs have become a massive commercial enterprise that violates citizens’ rights while failing in its publicly-stated mission—to improve public safety. Click below for the full breakdown, including…
Evidence Issues
- In any criminal proceeding, the accused person has a right to face their accuser.
- In any criminal or civil proceeding, the defendant has a right to challenge the reliability of the evidence against them.
- Evidence is admissible only if it is relevant and legally reliable. Evidence that does not tend to prove any fact at issue—including whether the accused committed the violation—should not be admitted. In fact, such material is not considered “evidence” by the court. Unfortunately, because of the deceptive nature of camera ticket proceedings, the court WILL consider the photo or video “evidence” against you unless you raise that issue by properly pointing out the inadmissibility of that material.
- The signature on the citation has no legal significance. It doesn’t establish that the signer witnessed, verified, or can testify to anything. It’s a formality, nothing more, and it carries no evidentiary weight against you. None. It is only there to intimidate people and serve as an element of the scheme’s overall deception for those who do not know better.
Constitutional Issues
- Due process is your constitutional guarantee that the government must follow fair, lawful procedures before penalizing you. It requires clear notice of the accusation, a real opportunity to be heard, a neutral decision‑maker, and the ability to meaningfully challenge the evidence used against you.
- Automated camera systems expand continuous, suspicionless government surveillance, which raises Fourth Amendment concerns about unreasonable searches and privacy.
- Under our constitution, an accused person is presumed innocent. That is not the case with traffic-cam schemes created to intimidate the citation recipient into surrendering their money, even though the system never identifies a driver, never produces a human witness, and never meets the burden of proving the accusation.
- These are issues that the courts in jurisdictions that financially benefit from the traffic-cam schemes DO NOT want to litigate.
“These measures… violate constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments by expanding government surveillance and prioritizing revenue generation over individual liberty.”
The New American’s critique of automated enforcement laws
CLICK HERE TO GO TO ARTICLE
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I appeal if the court rejects my response packet?
If the court rules against you (essentially ignores your response packet) and rules that you owe the fine, you absolutely have the right to appeal. Once a decision is entered, due process guarantees you a legally recognized way to challenge that ruling. This is so in every state that allows the automated camera infraction scheme.
The precise process of appeal, which is unique in each state, is discussed here at the Camera Ticket Dismissal site. Just look up your state from the dropdown menu at the top of each page.
Let’s think about this. The fact that each unsuccessful challenge can be appealed is not missed by the courts that manage these inherently weak cases. Automatic camera infraction programs must be financially profitable. If and when they aren’t, they get canceled and shut down.
With that in mind, let’s apply some common sense. The fine amounts are relatively low sums of money. That’s why so few people fight back. But it is also why, when folks do fight back competently, these tickets get dismissed. The courts aren’t run by dummies. They will not spend more in court resources to deal with a vehicle owner challenging their camera ticket than the amount of the ticket.
Do you guarantee that my case will be dismissed if I purchase and submit your personalized statement to the court?
No. We cannot predict with certainty how your case will be decided. However, to date (after almost 10 years), our response statements have resulted in dismissals 100% of the time… so far! And, as stated above, the economics of these camera/fine schemes depend on quick, uncontested processing, not extended legal disputes. When a defendant raises substantial constitutional or evidentiary issues in an automated‑camera case, jurisdictions most often choose dismissal rather than invest more resources in litigating the matter than the citation is worth.
Why are you doing this? (cameraticketdismissal.com)
Two reasons:
1) A national problem calls for a national solution.
2) To help put an end to automated camera ticket systems in the United States of America. They are an abusive, harassing, and intrusive method of extracting money from members of the public who did not consent to such nonsense.
What about Idris v. City of Chicago (2009)—a federal case in which the constitutionality of camera traffic infraction enforcement was challenged—where the Seventh Circuit Court upheld Chicago’s ordinance?
Proponents of automated‑camera enforcement often cite Idris v. City of Chicago (2009) as proof that these schemes are constitutional. But this is misleading. The plaintiffs in Idris failed to raise most constitutional issues in the trial court, and the Seventh Circuit never ruled on them.
Why didn’t the federal appeals court rule on the constitutional issues raised by the appelants? Because the appellants failed to raise those issues in their initial challenge. Here’s what the Court wrote in its decision: “Litigants can’t reserve federal issues for a federal court.”
And…
“Objections to procedures used at a hearing must be made there (and then on review in state court), where they can be evaluated in context.”
Moreover, those litigants also failed to:
* address the Confrontation Clause [a defendant’s right to face their accuser],
* address the evidentiary reliability of machine‑generated evidence,
* address burden‑shifting or procedural due process,
* address Fourth Amendment surveillance issues, or
* consider any constitutional arguments the plaintiffs failed to raise (which was most of them).
Lastly, that decision applies only to Chicago’s ordinance and does not establish that automated enforcement programs are constitutional nationwide.
Our statement addresses ALL of the above issues, which not only increases the likelihood of dismisssal, but means that if the court rejects (or ignores) the constitutional challenges in your response document, all of these issues can be repeated in your appeal.
Is it correct that courts have an interest in avoiding any escalation of a case that could ultimately end this legally abusive scheme?
Absolutely. In over four decades since this type of law enforcement was first introduced, why hasn’t there been a single challenged case that has gone all the way up to the US Supreme Court? We believe the answer is obvious. None of the participants in the scheme wants to risk ending the money flow. They’ll ensure that any case that has enough substance to potentially be appealed—on constitutional grounds—to the highest court is dismissed in favor of the challenger.
What is the inherent conflict of interest that has been referred to in discussions about this topic?
Simple. The same government entities that issue the citations also profit directly from the fines. This financial dependence incentivizes more ticketing—not necessarily safer streets—and encourages partnerships with private vendors who are paid based on the volume of violations. When revenue becomes a driving force, neutrality, fairness, and due‑process protections are compromised.
Where can I find more extensive answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions?
Check out the FAQ page by clicking HERE