Do You Have to Pay a Camera Ticket? What Happens If You Don't
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 12, 2026). · 16 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Whether you actually have to pay a traffic camera ticket depends on which of three legal models your state uses, not on advice you read in a comment thread. Most camera-ticket states issue a civil penalty against the vehicle's registered owner that carries no license points and cannot be used to raise your insurance. A minority of states process the ticket as a real moving violation against the driver. And in roughly a dozen states, no lawful camera-ticket program exists at all. Ignoring the wrong kind of ticket, in the wrong state, is where the expensive mistakes happen.
The Short Answer: It Depends on Your State's Legal Model
Camera-enforcement law is entirely a matter of state statute; no federal law requires, prohibits, or standardizes it. Most owner-liability states write a «not a conviction» clause directly into the statute. New York's is typical: a camera penalty «shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed nor shall it be used for insurance purposes» (N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1111-a(f)). Illinois uses nearly identical language for its red-light and Chicago speed programs (625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(j)). Arizona and California's red-light program work the other way: the camera is evidence for an ordinary traffic citation against the driver, and a conviction is treated like any officer-issued ticket (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1602). A dozen states, including Texas, have banned camera ticketing outright (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 707.020-.021, from 2019's HB 1631). Knowing which category your state falls into is the entire answer to «do I have to pay.»
What Happens When You Ignore an Owner-Liability Civil Ticket
Owner-liability states do not treat nonpayment as consequence-free, even though the underlying fine is civil. Washington, D.C.'s statute lays out the clearest escalation clock: fail to answer within 30 days and «a penalty equal to the amount of the fine shall be added» (D.C. Code § 50-2302.05(d)); fail to answer within 60 days and «the commission of the infraction shall be deemed admitted and all points, penalties, and fines shall be assessed» (§ 50-2302.05(e)), though a deemed-admitted automated traffic enforcement infraction can be vacated within a year if the respondent shows they were not the owner or lessee at the time, or that the plates were stolen. Read that points language carefully, because it comes from the District's general traffic-adjudication chapter rather than from its camera statute. A camera notice runs against the registered owner, who «shall be liable for payment of the fine assessed» (§ 50-2209.02(a)); the District's separate vehicle infraction point system exists «for the purpose of determining a vehicle's eligibility for immobilization and impoundment» (§ 50-2451(a)(1)); and § 50-2209.01(c) provides that a license «shall not be suspended for a violation detected by an automated traffic enforcement system» for failing to answer, appear, or pay. The immobilization consequence is real, though: DC DMV states that a vehicle «may be booted if you have two or more outstanding parking and/or photo enforcement tickets,» and a booted vehicle is subject to towing. New York adds up to $25 for failure to respond, on top of the $50 per-violation cap (VTL § 1111-a(e)). Illinois adds up to $100 for failure to pay, and an unpaid fine becomes «a debt due and owing the municipality,» enforceable as an ordinary civil money judgment, with vehicle immobilization, the boot, available once an owner accumulates the number of unpaid final determinations set by local ordinance (625 ILCS 5/11-208.3).
Florida's Two-Stage System, the Model Case for Escalation
Florida runs the clearest two-stage owner-liability escalation in this research, and it is worth walking through because so much of the «just ignore it» advice online implicitly assumes Florida's rules apply everywhere. A red-light violation starts as a $158 Notice of Violation; the owner has 60 days to pay, submit an affidavit naming the actual driver, or request a hearing (Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)). Miss all three options and the notice becomes a Uniform Traffic Citation issued by certified mail (§ 316.0083(1)(c)). School-zone speed cameras work the same way at a $100 Notice of Violation with a 30-day window (§ 316.1896; § 318.18(3)(d)). The widely repeated figure of roughly $262 for the citation stage does not appear anywhere in Florida's statutes; that number reflects court costs added by individual county clerks, not a statewide fine (§ 318.18(23) caps contested-and-convicted costs at $250 on top of the base penalty). Even at the citation stage, Florida law is explicit that points cannot be assessed and the violation cannot be used for insurance purposes (Fla. Stat. § 322.27(3)(d)). Nonpayment's teeth depend on which stage you are in. At the notice-of-violation stage the clerk notifies the state and «the department... may not issue a license plate or revalidation sticker» for the owner's vehicle until the assessed amounts are paid (§ 318.15(3)), which is a registration hold rather than a license suspension. Once the matter escalates to the Uniform Traffic Citation, it is an ordinary chapter 316 noncriminal infraction with 30 days to pay under § 318.14(4), and the next step is not discretionary: on the clerk's report of noncompliance, «the department must immediately issue an order suspending the driver license and privilege to drive of such person» (§ 318.15(1)(a)). A Florida camera ticket left unanswered long enough does reach the driver's license, and driving on the resulting suspension is a criminal offense in its own right, a second-degree misdemeanor on a first knowing violation (§ 322.34(2)).
Registration Holds vs. License Suspension, State by State
Registration-renewal holds are a real, named consequence in several states, and they are frequently confused with license suspension in online advice, which is a different and much rarer tool.
| State | Tool for nonpayment | Statutory hook |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | Registration hold at the notice stage; mandatory driver license suspension once the clerk reports an unpaid citation | Fla. Stat. § 318.15(3); § 318.15(1)(a) |
| Washington | Registration-renewal hold | RCW 46.16A.120 |
| Delaware | Registration-renewal refusal, plus license suspension after a lost hearing and continued nonpayment | 21 Del. C. § 4101(d) |
| Georgia | Department of Revenue referral, then registration-renewal refusal | O.C.G.A. § 40-14-18, as amended by 2026 HB 651 |
| Maryland | Registration refusal for red-light and speed camera fines; registration refusal OR outright registration suspension for work-zone camera fines | Transp. §§ 21-202.1(h), 21-809(g), 21-810(g) |
| Illinois | Civil judgment and vehicle immobilization (boot); license suspension was repealed in 2021 | 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3; former § 6-306.5 |
| Colorado | No vehicle immobilization at all; no collection action without personal service | C.R.S. § 42-4-110.5(4.7), (2)(a)(IX) |
| Tennessee | No credit-report disclosure permitted | Tenn. Pub. Ch. 425 (2011), codified at T.C.A. § 55-8-198 |
| Texas | No registration hold; the old hook was repealed with the state's 2019 camera ban | Tex. Transp. Code § 707.017 (repealed) |
Maryland is worth a second look because its own state page had left this hedged: all three of its camera statutes name the registration consequence directly in the same sections that supply the no-points guarantee, and the work-zone section, § 21-810(g), goes further than a simple hold, giving the Motor Vehicle Administration the choice to refuse registration or suspend it outright. North Carolina's brand-new school-zone speed law, effective October 2025, is a similar outlier: it carries no license points but does include a genuine registration-refusal hook for unpaid fines, an unusual pairing for a no-points civil regime.
Delaware: The One State Where Losing a Hearing Can Cost Your License
Delaware deserves its own explanation because it reaches the driver's license by a different route than Florida does, through defiance of a court order rather than through an unpaid citation. If an owner does nothing at all, that is, does not pay, does not request a hearing, and does not submit a not-the-driver affidavit, the consequence is a registration-renewal refusal (21 Del. C. § 4101(d)). But if the owner requests a hearing, is found responsible, and then fails to pay as the court orders, or requests a hearing and simply fails to appear, «the Division of Motor Vehicles shall suspend the license of the owner or operator» (§ 4101(d)). The trigger is not the camera violation itself, which still carries no points and stays off the operating record either way; it is defying a subsequent court order. A Delaware camera ticket you ignore completely is safer, procedurally, than one you contest and then fail to follow through on.
The Interstate Question: Mississippi vs. South Dakota
Two states sit at opposite ends of the same question, whether a home state will act on an out-of-state camera fine, and both put it directly in statute. Mississippi bans camera ticketing within its own borders (Miss. Code § 17-25-19), yet its interstate-recognition statute states that the Department of Public Safety «shall not suspend the driver's license of a person for failure to pay any civil or criminal fine, fee, citation or penalty for such a violation unless the state that is due the fine... is a member of the Driver License Compact» (Miss. Code § 63-9-37). Read the other way, that is an explicit statutory path for Mississippi to act on a Driver License Compact member state's unpaid camera fine. South Dakota runs the opposite policy: its Department of Public Safety and Division of Motor Vehicles «shall not enter into any compact to provide to another state... information used to impose or collect a civil fine that results from an alleged violation captured by a red light camera or speed camera» (S.D.C.L. § 32-28-21). That shield covers South Dakota's own DMV data-sharing channel; it does not stop an issuing state's own mailed notices or private collections efforts from reaching a South Dakota driver by other means.
Does a Camera Ticket Show Up on Your Driving Record or Raise Your Insurance?
In every owner-liability state researched here, the statute itself answers this directly, and the answer is no. New York's clause, quoted above, is the template; Illinois, Florida, Delaware, Colorado, and Washington all carry substantively identical no-record, no-insurance language. Arizona is the genuine exception: because a camera citation there is prosecuted as an ordinary civil traffic moving violation against the driver, a responsible finding functions like any other traffic conviction, on the record and visible to insurers. The specific point values commonly reported for Arizona camera convictions were not independently confirmed against an official Arizona source this session; treat any number you see for Arizona points as commonly reported rather than verified until you check Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division directly.
The Arizona Exception, Precisely Worded
Arizona is the source of the single most misapplied piece of camera-ticket advice online, that you can just ignore the ticket. The statute does say something close to that, but only for one specific document. Arizona's mailed notice of violation must state that «the notice is not a court issued document and the recipient is under no obligation to identify the person or respond to the notice» (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1602(B)). That is a real, statutory no-duty-to-respond rule, and it is unusual among the states researched here. But it applies only before a citation is actually served on the driver. Once formal service happens, personal or by the statute's alternative-service method, the case becomes a real citation with a real duty to respond, and the ordinary consequences of ignoring a traffic citation apply. Generalizing Arizona's narrow pre-service rule to any other state, or to a served Arizona citation, is exactly the misinformation this article exists to correct.
The Bottom Line
No state in this research lets a driver simply make a camera ticket disappear by ignoring it, once it has moved past the narrow Arizona pre-service window. The honest range runs from Colorado and Tennessee, where the statutes actively bar aggressive collection tools, to the boot in Illinois and Washington, D.C., Delaware's hearing-triggered suspension, and Florida's mandatory suspension once a camera citation goes unpaid. Check your state's specific model before you decide what to do with the notice in your mailbox.
Information last verified on 2026-08-12. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Related Resources
- Traffic Camera Ticket Laws by State
- How to Fight a Camera Ticket
- NYC Camera Tickets
- Chicago Camera Tickets
- Illinois Traffic Camera Tickets
- Florida Traffic Camera Tickets
- Automated License Plate Readers
- Can You Get a Speeding Ticket Without Being Pulled Over?
Last updated: 2026-08-12.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will a red light or speed camera ticket affect my insurance?
In most owner-liability states, no. New York, Illinois, Florida, Delaware, Colorado, and Washington all bar insurers from using a camera penalty. Arizona is the exception; because its camera citations are ordinary moving violations against the driver, a conviction there is insurance-visible like any other traffic ticket.
Can a camera ticket suspend my driver's license?
Often no, but there are real exceptions. Illinois's license-suspension hook for unpaid camera tickets was repealed in 2021, and Washington, D.C. bars it by statute: a license shall not be suspended for a violation detected by an automated traffic enforcement system for failing to answer, appear, or pay (D.C. Code 50-2209.01(c)). Florida is the largest exception. Once an unanswered notice of violation becomes a Uniform Traffic Citation and that citation goes unpaid, Fla. Stat. 318.15(1)(a) requires the department to suspend the driver license. Delaware is a narrower exception: losing a hearing and then defying the court's payment order can trigger suspension.
What happens if I never pay an Illinois or Chicago camera ticket?
The unpaid fine becomes a collectible civil debt and can be reduced to a court judgment; Illinois law also allows vehicle immobilization, the boot, once an owner accumulates enough unpaid final determinations under local ordinance (625 ILCS 5/11-208.3). Illinois no longer suspends licenses over unpaid camera tickets; that statute was repealed in 2021.
Do camera tickets go on my driving record?
In owner-liability states, no. Statutes in New York, Illinois, Florida, Delaware, and elsewhere say explicitly that a civil camera penalty is not a conviction and is not part of the operating record. In driver-liability states like Arizona, a responsible finding is treated as an ordinary moving-violation conviction.
Can I ignore a camera ticket in Arizona?
Only the mailed pre-service notice of violation. Arizona law states the recipient has no obligation to identify themselves or respond to that notice. Once a citation is formally served, it functions as an ordinary traffic citation with a real duty to respond and real consequences for ignoring it.
Will my home state suspend my license for an out-of-state camera ticket?
It depends on the state. Mississippi's statute contemplates suspending a Mississippi license over an unpaid camera fine owed to a Driver License Compact member state. South Dakota's statute blocks its own DMV from sharing driver information for that purpose. Most states' practices on this were not independently verified in this research.
Can unpaid camera tickets stop me from renewing my car registration?
Yes, in several states. Florida, Washington, Delaware, Georgia, and Maryland all have statutory registration-renewal holds for unpaid camera fines, and Maryland's work-zone camera statute goes further, letting the state suspend the registration outright instead of just refusing renewal. Texas repealed its version of that hook when it banned cameras in 2019, and Colorado's statute bars immobilization tied to unpaid camera fines outright.
Does an unpaid camera ticket ever lead to arrest?
None of the owner-liability statutes reviewed criminalize simple nonpayment of the civil fine. Most escalation paths are administrative or civil: late penalties, default judgments, registration holds, and vehicle immobilization, which Illinois allows and which DC DMV applies to a vehicle with two or more outstanding parking or photo enforcement tickets. Florida is where the chain can still reach criminal law indirectly, because an unpaid camera citation triggers a mandatory license suspension under Fla. Stat. 318.15(1)(a), and driving while suspended is a misdemeanor under Fla. Stat. 322.34.
Updates
Corrected the Florida section: an unpaid camera citation triggers a mandatory driver license suspension under Fla. Stat. 318.15(1)(a), not only a registration hold, and also corrected the scope of Colorado's immobilization ban and noted that Washington, D.C. boots vehicles over unpaid photo enforcement tickets.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
New York Vehicle and Traffic Law
§ 1111-aOwner liability for failure of operator to comply with traffic-control indicationsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
* § 1111-a. Owner liability for failure of operator to comply with traffic-control indications. (a) 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each city with a population of one million or more is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt and amend a local law or ordinance establishing a demonstration program imposing monetary liability on the owner of a vehicle for failure of an operator thereof to comply with traffic-control indications in such city in accordance with the provisions of this section. Such demonstration program shall empower a city to install and operate traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring devices at no more than six hundred intersections within such city at any one time. 2. Such demonstration program shall utilize necessary technologies to ensure, to the extent practicable, that photographs produced by such traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring systems shall not include images that identify the driver, the passengers, or the contents of the vehicle.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Matter of Monroe St. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2022, 2022 NY Slip Op 00972)“…ntent and meaning of the "sworn to or affirmed" language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a(d): that the reviewing technician merel…”
- Reese v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2024, 91 F.4th 582)“…e or she does not timely respond to a notice of liability. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1111-a(e). A driver who violates a bus lane r…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Fight a Camera Ticket: Real Defenses by State, NYC Camera Tickets: Red Light, Speed, and Work-Zone Rules, New York Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: How the Red Light, School-Zone, and Work-Zone Programs Work
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 625, Act 5 (Illinois Vehicle Code)
§ 11-208.6Automated traffic law enforcement systemIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) As used in this Section, "automated traffic law enforcement system" means a device with one or more motor vehicle sensors working in conjunction with a red light signal to produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering an intersection against a red signal indication in violation of Section 11-306 of this Code or a similar provision of a local ordinance. An automated traffic law enforcement system is a system, in a municipality or county operated by a governmental agency, that produces a recorded image of a motor vehicle's violation of a provision of this Code or a local ordinance and is designed to obtain a clear recorded image of the vehicle and the vehicle's license plate. The recorded image must also display the time, date, and location of the violation. (b) As used in this Section, "recorded images" means images recorded by an automated traffic law enforcement system on: (1) 2 or more photographs; (2) 2 or more microphotographs; (3) 2 or more electronic images; or (4) a video recording showing the motor vehicle and, on at least one image or portion of the recording, clearly identifying the registration plate or digital registration plate number of the motor vehicle.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fischetti v. Village of Schaumburg (Appellate Court of Illinois 2012, 359 Ill. Dec. 920)“…uch a violation.” Pub. Act 94-795, § 5 (eff. May 22, 2006); 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6 (West 2006). Section 11-208.3 of t…”
- Kennedy v. City of Chicago (Appellate Court of Illinois 2022, 2022 IL App (1st) 210492)“…The red light camera statute of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(m) (West 2014)) authorizes municipalit…”
- Farrar v. The City of Rolling Meadows (Appellate Court of Illinois 2014, 2013 IL App (1st) 130734)“…r a similar provision of a local ordinance.” 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(a) (West 2012). Section 11-306 o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Chicago Camera Tickets: Red Light and Speed Camera Rules, Illinois Camera Ticket Laws: Red Light, Speed & License Rules
§ 11-208.3Administrative adjudication of violations of traffic regulations concerning the standing, parking, or condition of vehicles, automated traffic law violations, and automated speed enforcement system violationsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) Any municipality or county may provide by ordinance for a system of administrative adjudication of vehicular standing and parking violations and vehicle compliance violations as described in this subsection, automated traffic law violations as defined in Section 11-208.6, 11-208.9, or 11-1201.1, and automated speed enforcement system violations as defined in Section 11-208.8. The administrative system shall have as its purpose the fair and efficient enforcement of municipal or county regulations through the administrative adjudication of automated speed enforcement system or automated traffic law violations and violations of municipal or county ordinances regulating the standing and parking of vehicles, the condition and use of vehicle equipment, and the display of municipal or county wheel tax licenses within the municipality's or county's borders. The administrative system shall only have authority to adjudicate civil offenses carrying fines not in excess of $500 or requiring the completion of a traffic education program, or both, that occur after the effective date of the ordinance adopting such a system under this Section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 28 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Waicekauskas v. Burke (Appellate Court of Illinois 2002)“…e violates the fair hearing requirement of Illinois Statute 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3. Between April 5 and April 14, 1999…”
- Mashal v. City of Chicago (Illinois Supreme Court 2012, 981 N.E.2d 951)“…hould be mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner. See 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3(b)(3), (b)(5)(i) (West 2010); Chicago…”
- Fischetti v. Village of Schaumburg (Appellate Court of Illinois 2012, 359 Ill. Dec. 920)“…vehicle.” Pub. Act 94-795, § 5 (eff. May 22, 2006) (adding 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3(b)(3) (West 2006)). Section 11-208…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 50: Motor and Non-Motor Vehicles and Traffic. - Chapter 23: Traffic Adjudication. - Subchapter II: Moving Infractions.
§ 50-2302.05Answer.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) In answer to a notice of infraction, a person to whom the notice was issued may: (1) Admit, by payment of the civil fine, the commission of the infraction; (1A) Admit with an explanation; or (2) Deny the commission of the infraction. (1) A person charged with a moving violation may contest the charge by mail, through the Department’s website, or through a personal appearance scheduled by appointment; provided, that a person charged with a violation that was detected by an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to § 50-2209.01 may contest the charge by mail, through the Department’s website, or by appearing on a walk-in basis during regular business hours at a location designated by the Department. (2) A motor vehicle owner or operator shall be permitted to contest by mail the charge of operating or permitting to be operated a motor vehicle without required insurance being in effect with respect to that motor vehicle pursuant to § 31-2413(a)(3).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2010
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tate v. District of Columbia (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2010, 627 F.3d 904)“…device or mechanism is in place,” i.e., by a boot. See also D.C. Code § 50-2302.05(d)(1) (“A person to whom a notice of in…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: DC Traffic Camera Tickets: The Country's Biggest Automated Enforcement Program
Florida Statutes
§ 316.0083Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program; administration; report.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1)(a) For purposes of administering this section, the department, a county, or a municipality may authorize a traffic infraction enforcement officer under s. 316.640 to issue a traffic citation for a violation of s. 316.074(1) or s. 316.075(1)(c)1. A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right-hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection where right-hand turns are permissible. A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued under this section if the driver of the vehicle came to a complete stop after crossing the stop line and before turning right if permissible at a red light, but failed to stop before crossing over the stop line or other point at which a stop is required. This paragraph does not prohibit a review of information from a traffic infraction detector by an authorized employee or agent of the department, a county, or a municipality before issuance of the traffic citation by the traffic infraction enforcement officer.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- City of Hollywood, a political subdivision of the State of Florida v. Eric Arem (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2014, 154 So. 3d 359)“…Factual and Procedural Background Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, known as the Mark Wandall Traffic Safe…”
- City of Fort Lauderdale v. June Dhar (Supreme Court of Florida 2016, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 61)“…tandards in mind, we turn to the statute at issue. Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, also known as the Mark Wandall Traffic…”
- City of Fort Lauderdale v. Gonzalez (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2014, 134 So. 3d 1119)“…r of jointly-owned vehicles. The Relevant Provisions of Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Camera Ticket Laws: Red Light and Speed Camera Rules
§ 318.15Failure to comply with civil penalty or to appear; penalty.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1)(a) If a person fails to comply with the civil penalties provided in s. 318.18 within the time period specified in s. 318.14(4), fails to enter into or comply with the terms of a penalty payment plan with the clerk of the court in accordance with ss. 318.14 and 28.246, fails to attend driver improvement school, or fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, the clerk of the court must notify the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of such failure within 10 days after such failure. Upon receipt of such notice, the department must immediately issue an order suspending the driver license and privilege to drive of such person effective 20 days after the date the order of suspension is mailed in accordance with s. 322.251(1), (2), and (6). The order also must inform the person that he or she may contact the clerk of the court to establish a payment plan pursuant to s. 28.246(4) to make partial payments for court-related fines, fees, service charges, and court costs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wooden (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2012, 92 So. 3d 886)“…d on the failure to comply with a civil penalty required in section 318.15, Florida Statutes (2011). See § 322.34(10)(a)3., Fla. Sta…”
- Kinman v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1989, 550 So. 2d 1190)“…at. (1987) (forgery). [2] This testimony is confirmed by section 318.15 Florida Statutes (1987) which states: (1) If a person…”
- State v. Gomez (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2012, 103 So. 3d 258)“…s ruling granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and, citing section 318.15, Florida Statutes (2011), reducing the charge of unlawful…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 322.27Authority of department to suspend or revoke driver license or identification card.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in chapter 120, the department may suspend the license or identification card of any person without preliminary hearing upon a showing of its records or other sufficient evidence that the licensee or cardholder:(a) Has committed an offense for which mandatory revocation of license is required upon conviction. A law enforcement agency must provide information to the department within 24 hours after any traffic fatality or when the law enforcement agency initiates action pursuant to s. 316.1933; (b) Has been convicted of a violation of any traffic law which resulted in a crash that caused the death or personal injury of another or property damage in excess of $500; (c) Is incompetent to drive a motor vehicle; (d) Has permitted an unlawful or fraudulent use of the license or identification card or has knowingly been a party to the obtaining of a license or identification card by fraud or misrepresentation or to the display, or representation as one’s own, of a driver license or identification card not issued to him or her. This section does not include the provisions of s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Carnegie v. Department of Public Safety (Supreme Court of Florida 1952, 60 So. 2d 728)“…was advised by the Department under date of April 14, that Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorized the Department to s…”
- Zarsky v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1973, 281 So. 2d 553)“…he petitioner's contention that Fla. Stat. § 322.264 and Fla. Stat. § 322.27 (5), F.S.A., respectively entitled, "Ha…”
- Jones v. Kirkman (Supreme Court of Florida 1962, 138 So. 2d 513)“…eview an order of a circuit judge upholding the validity of Section 322.27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. We must determine the validit…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 28 (Transportation), Chapter 5 (PENALTIES AND PROCEDURES FOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS), Article 4 (Procedures for Civil Traffic Violations)
§ 28-1602Photo enforcement violations; law enforcement review; violation; classification; service of process; no duty to identify photo or respond; definitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. Notwithstanding any other law, if a person receives a notice of violation in the mail for a violation of chapter 3, article 3 or 6 of this title or of a city or town ordinance for excessive speed or failure to obey a traffic control device that is obtained using a photo enforcement system, the person does not have to do either of the following: 1. Identify who is in the photo. 2. Respond to the notice of violation. B. The notice of violation must state the following: 1. The notice is not a court issued document and the recipient is under no obligation to identify the person or respond to the notice. 2. Failure to respond to the notice may result in official service that may result in an additional fee being levied. C. Before a citation is issued, a law enforcement agency must review evidence that is recorded by a photo enforcement system to determine whether a violation of chapter 3, article 3 or 6 of this title or of a city or town ordinance for excessive speed or failure to obey a traffic control device occurred. D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Also relied on in: Arizona Traffic Camera Tickets: Why They're Real Moving Violations, Traffic Camera Ticket Laws by State: Where They're Legal, Limited, or Banned
Maryland Code, Transportation Article
§ 21-202.1In forcecited in 2 of our articles
§21–202.1. (a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) “Agency” means: (i) For a traffic control signal operated and maintained at an intersection under the control of the State, the law enforcement agency primarily responsible for traffic control at that intersection; or (ii) For a traffic control signal operated and maintained at an intersection under the control of a political subdivision, a law enforcement agency of the political subdivision that is authorized to issue citations for a violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law or of local traffic laws or regulations. (3) (i) “Owner” means the registered owner of a motor vehicle or a lessee of a motor vehicle under a lease of 6 months or more. (ii) “Owner” does not include a motor vehicle rental or leasing company or a holder of a special registration plate issued under Title 13, Subtitle 9, Part III of this article. (4) “Recorded images” means images recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring system: (i) On: 1. Two or more photographs; 2. Two or more microphotographs; 3. Two or more electronic images; 4. Videotape; or 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Also relied on in: Maryland Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: Red Light, Speed & Work Zone Cameras Explained
§ 21-809In forcecited in 2 of our articles
§21–809. IN EFFECT (a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) “Agency” means: (i) A law enforcement agency of a local political subdivision that is authorized to issue a citation for a violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law or of local traffic laws or regulations; (ii) For a municipal corporation that does not maintain a police force, an agency established or designated by the municipal corporation to implement this subtitle using speed monitoring systems in accordance with this section; (iii) For speed monitoring systems placed and used on Interstate 83 in Baltimore County or Interstate 695 in Baltimore County, the State Highway Administration; or (iv) For speed monitoring systems placed and used on Maryland Route 200 (Intercounty Connector), the Maryland Transportation Authority. (3) (i) “Erroneous violation” means a potential violation submitted by a speed monitoring system contractor for review by an agency that is apparently inaccurate based on a technical variable that is under the control of the contractor. (ii) “Erroneous violation” includes a potential violation based on: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2014
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Snider International Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights (District Court, D. Maryland 2012, 906 F. Supp. 2d 413)“…statewide use of automated speed monitoring systems. See Md.Code Ann., Transp. §§ 21-809, 21-810. 2 These systems use various f…”
- Snider International Corporation v. Town of Forest Heights, MD (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2014, 739 F.3d 140)“…roughout designated areas within the state. See Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-809. After a pilot…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 21-810In forcecited in 2 of our articles
§21–810. (a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) “Local police department” means: (i) The police department of any municipal corporation; (ii) The police department of any county; and (iii) The sheriff’s department of any county that has highway traffic patrol responsibilities. (3) (i) “Owner” means the registered owner of a motor vehicle or a lessee of a motor vehicle under a lease of 6 months or longer. (ii) “Owner” does not include: 1. A motor vehicle rental or leasing company; or 2. A holder of a special registration plate issued under Title 13, Subtitle 9, Part III of this article. (4) “Recorded image” means an image recorded by a work zone speed control system: (i) On: 1. A photograph; 2. A microphotograph; 3. An electronic image; 4. Videotape; or 5. Any other medium; and (ii) Showing: 1. The rear of a motor vehicle; 2. At least two time–stamped images of the motor vehicle that include the same stationary object near the motor vehicle; and 3. On at least one image or portion of tape, a clear and legible identification of the entire registration plate number of the motor vehicle.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Delaware Code, Title 21 (Motor Vehicles), Chapter 041 (RULES OF THE ROAD)
§ 4101Provisions refer to vehicles upon highways; exceptions; powers of local authorities.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) The provisions of this title relating to the operation of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon highways except: (1) Where a different place is specifically referred to in a given section. (2) That subchapter IX of this chapter shall apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the State. (3) That subchapter VIII of this chapter and § 4164 of this title shall apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the State, except that subchapter VIII of this chapter and § 4164 of this title shall not apply upon any nonresidential, commercial property, except as set forth in § 4172 of this title. For the purposes of this paragraph, “elsewhere,” except for purposes of § 4172 of this title, shall mean only those areas regulated by traffic-control devices which have been reviewed and approved as acceptable for the area by the Delaware Department of Transportation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Crossan v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 1971, 281 A.2d 494)“…sdiction as it may have over Washington Street by virtue of 21 Del.C. § 4101(b). 5 The defendant mi…”
- City of Wilmington v. Minella (Superior Court of Delaware 2005, 879 A.2d 656)“…7 — 95(b)(1) as authorized by the Delaware enabling statute 21 DelC. § 4101(d)(2). The civil assessment was imposed…”
- Lowicki v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2020)“…olation and ordered him to pay $172.50, as follows: 1 21 Del. C. §4101(d). Fine Amount: $75.00…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Delaware Traffic Camera Tickets: The One State Where Losing Can Cost Your License
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 42: Vehicles and Traffic
§ 42-4-110.5Automated vehicle identification systems - school buses - exceptions to liability - penalty - contracting - limits on use of photographs and video - rules - legislative declaration - definitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that the enforcement of traffic laws through the use of automated vehicle identification systems under this section is a matter of statewide concern and is an area in which uniform state standards are necessary. (1.1) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) (I) Automated vehicle identification system means a system whereby: (A) A machine is used to automatically detect a violation of a traffic regulation and simultaneously record a photograph of the vehicle and the license plate of the vehicle; and (B) A notice of violation or civil penalty assessment notice may be issued to the registered owner of the motor vehicle. (II) Automated vehicle identification system includes a system used to detect a violation of part 11 of this article 4 or a local speed ordinance; a system used to detect violations of traffic restrictions imposed by traffic signals or traffic signs; a system used to detect the overtaking of a stopped school bus with actuated visual signal lights in violation of section 42-4-1903 (1)(a); and a system used to detect violations of bus lane or bicycle lane restrictions.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Also relied on in: Colorado Traffic Camera Tickets: The Most Protective Nonpayment Rules in the Country
Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated
§ 63-9-37Recognition of traffic fines resulting from automated recording equipment of another state; suspension of driver’s license for failure to pay fine.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The Mississippi Department of Public Safety shall only recognize any civil or criminal fine, fee, citation or penalty for a violation of compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations in another state that results from the use of automated recording…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-07-08 · Read the full text in our law library
Also relied on in: Mississippi Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: Banned at Home, Recognized From Other States
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 32-28: TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
§ 32-28-21Prohibition on interstate compacts to provide information to impose or collect civil fine for violation captured by red light or speed camera.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The Department of Public Safety and the Division of Motor Vehicles shall not enter into any compact to provide to another state, or governmental entity located in another state, information used to impose or collect a civil fine that results from an alleged violation captured by a red light camera or speed camera.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: South Dakota Traffic Camera Tickets: The Vendor-Contract Ban and Anti-Reciprocity Shield
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 40-14-18[Effective July 1, 2026] Enforcement of speed limit in school zones with an automated traffic enforcement safety device; violations; failure to pay penalty; jurisdiction.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) (1) The speed limit within any school zone marked pursuant to Code Section 40-14-6 may be enforced by using recorded images for violations which occurred only on a school day during the time in which instructional classes are taking place and for one hour before such classes are scheduled to be
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lexisnexis.com
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- James R. Dutton v. School Zone Safety Program (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2025)“…state court to challenge a civil penalty he received under OCGA § 40-14-18. That Code section authorizes civil mon…”
- JEFFREY D. ALLEN v. MAURICE SHEPHERD (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2023)“…ss issued a “Notice of School Speed Violation” pursuant to OCGA § 40-14-18 against Allen, asserting that at 2:37 p…”
- Aaron McCullough v. State of Georgia (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2023)“…ORGIA. Aaron McCullough was cited for speeding under OCGA § 40-14-18, which provides for the imposition of a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia's School-Zone Speed Camera Overhaul Takes Effect: What HB 651 Changes, Georgia Camera Ticket Laws: School Zone Speed Cameras (HB 651)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1111-a (red light camera owner liability, no-conviction clause)(www.nysenate.gov).gov
- 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6 (Illinois red light camera civil penalty, no-record clause)(www.ilga.gov).gov
- 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3 (Illinois adjudication, civil judgment, and vehicle immobilization)(www.ilga.gov).gov
- 625 ILCS 5/6-306.5 (Illinois license-suspension statute, repealed eff. 7/1/2021)(www.ilga.gov).gov
- D.C. Code § 50-2302.05 (answer deadline, penalty doubling, deemed admission)(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. § 316.0083 (red light camera notice of violation and uniform traffic citation escalation)(www.flsenate.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. § 318.15 (registration hold for unpaid traffic infraction penalties)(www.flsenate.gov).gov
- 21 Del. C. §§ 4101, 4170A (red light and speed camera civil assessments; registration and license-suspension hooks)(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-110.5, as enacted by SB23-200 (no immobilization, no collections without personal service)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- Miss. Code § 63-9-37 (interstate camera-fine recognition tied to Driver License Compact membership)(billstatus.ls.state.ms.us).gov
- S.D.C.L. § 32-28-21 (bar on DMV data-sharing for out-of-state camera fine collection)(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1602 (photo enforcement notice, no duty to respond pre-service)(www.azleg.gov).gov
- Georgia HB 651 (2026), signed act (school-zone speed camera reform, no late fees, DOR registration-hold referral)(gov.georgia.gov).gov
- Texas HB 1631 (2019), enrolled (camera ban and repeal of the registration-refusal hook, § 707.017)(capitol.texas.gov).gov
- RCW 46.16A.120 (Washington registration-renewal hold for unpaid camera infractions)(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Transp. §§ 21-202.1(h), 21-809(g), 21-810(g) (registration refusal for red-light/speed camera fines; registration refusal or suspension for work-zone camera fines)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Fla. Stat. § 318.14(4) (30 days to pay the civil penalty on a noncriminal chapter 316 infraction)(www.flsenate.gov)
- Fla. Stat. § 322.34(2) (driving while license suspended; second-degree misdemeanor on a first knowing offense)(www.flsenate.gov)
- D.C. Code § 50-2209.01(c) (no license suspension for failure to answer, appear, or pay an automated traffic enforcement infraction)(code.dccouncil.gov)
- D.C. Code § 50-2209.02 (vehicle owner liable for payment of the fine assessed on a camera infraction)(code.dccouncil.gov)
- D.C. Code § 50-2451(a)(1) (vehicle infraction points determine eligibility for immobilization and impoundment)(code.dccouncil.gov)
- DC DMV, Failure to Pay a Ticket (booting after two or more outstanding parking or photo enforcement tickets)(dmv.dc.gov)