Skip to main content

Is there a statute of limitations on a photo violation?

Saint Louis, MO |

I received a notice of unpaid traffic code violation in the mail the other day . The violation is a photo violation - no right on red which I apparently committed over a year ago , however , this is the first I've heard of it . I apparently committed the violation in March of 2012 , which is when I was changing apartments . So I'm guessing the original traffic ticket was sent to my old apartment , but I had no idea . My court date to contest has obviously already passed , but was told I can set up a new one if I'd like to speak to the judge . So is there a statute of limitations ? Do I still have to pay this ? What if the judge says I HAVE to pay this ?

+ Read More

Attorney answers 3


The reality with camera tickets, is that even though they would normally be violations with points, they are no point violations when by a camera. The fine is usually $100, and there should not be any late fees. If this is the case, and you can confirm from the paperwork with it says clearly no points violation, I would just go ahead and pay it and Not waste your time.


There is no statute of limitations on unpaid tickets. Please note that some courts issue arrest warrants for defendants who fail to pay the fine for a red-light camera ticket or speed camera ticket, and warrants never expire. Just because you moved and didn't receive the notice from the court doesn't mean you are exempt from paying the fine. Red-light camera tickets and speed camera tickets in St. Louis are all non-moving, no-point infractions, so I would just pay the fine if it were me. If the judge says you have to pay the fine, then you have to pay the fine or risk contempt of court and a warrant for your arrest being issued.

The answers submitted on AVVO by The Rogers Law Firm, LLC d/b/a are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal advice, are not intended to be advertising, and are not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date. The transmission of information on AVVO is not intended to establish, and receipt of such information does not establish or constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The reader should not act on the answers without first consulting legal counsel.


Yesterday a court of appeals in Missouri heard argument challenging red light cameras.

My comments are general in nature, are not legal advice as to your specific issue, and do not establish an attorney-client relationship. Disregard this solicitation if you have already engaged a lawyer in connection with the legal matter referred to in this solicitation. You may wish to consult your lawyer or another lawyer instead of me. The exact nature of your legal situation will depend on many facts not known to me at this time. You should understand that the advice and information in this solicitation is general and that your own situation may vary. This statement is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Matthew S. Chase

Matthew S. Chase


Ron, thanks for posting this! I missed news of that case. It is interesting to note that all studies done of red light cameras, not just in Missouri or the US, but internationally, have shown that red light cameras always do two things: (1) they raise awesome revenue for the government, and (2) they increase accidents.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer