Speeding Ticket Trouble

[RickJ]

I respectfully disagree with a number of things people have said so far. 

First of all in the US we have the concept of being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,with the state having the burden of proof.  It's one of the pillars of our freedom.  So in this case being guilty doesn't mean that you done it;  it means that you done it and that the state has shouldered it's burden and proved it's case.  Allowing the state to convict people without meeting it's obligations is a much greater threat/danager to the public than any individual criminal.    So I say by all means go to court, everyone.

The next thing to realize is that public safety is not the issue here.   The state doesn't really give a shit they just want the money.   Most people are not habitual speeders but will  unintentionally, on ocassion,  drift over the line.  For these people a warning would be sufficient since they had no intention of speeding then nor in the future.    Now since giving warnings makes a distinction between intentional and unintentional violations (btw ussually to be guilty of a crime it's rerquired that there be intention to do so, although neglicence is sometimes sufficient) increrased penalties for ctual convictions could be justified.   So in this case giving warnings on the first offense,  citations on subsequent offenses, and increasing the penalty for each subsequent conviction,  would better serve the purpose of public safety.   But it's not done this way, because it would not generate nearly as much revenue for the state.

Mitigation
If you ask for a mitigation hearing you are pleading guilty but with extenuating circumstances.  This is probably a high percentage move for you.  Just go in and tell the judge what you told us, if you have an otherwise clean driving record  the judge will most likely lower the fine and charge.  Be sure to say that you pride yourself on being a safe driver and that you can't believe that you were going that fast. Also tell him/her that you know that those machines can sometime be wrong, etc...  Most importantly be nice and sincere to the judge.  So instead of being found guilty of being 20mph over the limit you are found guilt of being 7 mph over the limit and fined accrodingly.

Not Guiilty
If you goto court and challenge the charge you may have a better chance at winning than some people seem to think.  While it's true that the judge has some bias towards the police officers he also has standards of ethics and professionalism he is obligated to follow.  Most if not all judges take these obligations seriously.   They have also heard/seen it all before, probably many times, so if you are going to provide testimony there is extra burden on you to persuade the judge of your crdibility.

Experience - These things are tried differently in every county and state in the US.   Go to traffic court and watch what happens prior to your court date.  You will have to stay there the whole session though because there a couple of things you will ant to see happen. 

• What is the order of the types cases guilty, not guilty, mitigation, etc.   If the attorney is present when does he leave the courtroom for good.  When do the police officers leave for good. 
  
  
• What happens if/when someone comes in late.  There is uaually a way to report to the clerk without interrupting the proceedings.   What are the logistics of doing this?  Ask the  clerk about this at the end of the day (What happened when that guy came in ....? Oh, what is the proper procedure in that case?)
  
  
• Listen carefully to the people tell their story to the judge.  Watch the judge's reactions and see if you can tell what parts the judge believes and what parts he disbelieves.  Pay attention to when the judge is respoinding postively and negatively.  Which people do you believe and disbelieve>?
  
  
• When they get to the "not guilty" cases, is there a prosecuting attorney present?  If not is this normal procedure (you can ask the clerk at the end of the day or when the judge is out of the court room)?   If present when does he leave for the day, before the proceeding are over or at the very end?
  
  
• No Prosecutor - In some jurisdictions they don't send the state attorney because attorneys cost money.  So in this case the police officer comes in and gives his testimony.  The judge is typically allowed to ask questions to clarify the testimony.  For example the judge may ask something like, "let me see if I understand correctly.  You were on the NE corner of X and Y and Mr. Radiant approached on eastbound on X...".   There is however a fine line between this and the judge actually presenting the other side's case, which is not permitted.   Watch and see what the rules are and see if you can catch the judge presenting the proscecution's case.  When it's your turn and you  think the line is being crossed you can object and politely ask if the judge intends to present the other side's case which he clearly cannot do.  Don't be an asswhole about this, be sincere, respectful, and determined. 
  
  Testimony
  You do not have to provide any testimony at the hearing.   If you cannot testify to any facts that damage the case against you there is no point in testifying.  If the only thing you have to offer is "I don't think I was speeding." there isn't much point in testifying.  If you decide not to testify then you don't need to take the oath nor do you need to asnwer any questions from the prosecution or the judge.   When they ask you to take the oath politely explain that you do not intend to provide any testimony yourself and that you are here to try your case. 
  
  Strategy
  The first thing to is be carefull how you fill out the citation when you ask for a trial.  In my state they have a check box if you want to question the calibration technician.  If they are asking then they are prepared for this so leave it blank.  You may get lucky and confuse them into thinking you want a mitigation hearing.   
  
  The next thing you can try is to come in late. This depends upon the logistics of the court which you were studying in the above observations.  Usually they do all the "not Guilties" before the "mitigations" so that the attorney and the police officvers can go back to work.   Remember that the state's objective is to collect money from as many people as possible with as little effort as possible. So the attorney and the police will usually leave immediately after all the "not guilties" are done. 
  
  You came late so at this point they think you missed the trial.  However, after the "mitigations" are done, the judge will ask if there was anyone that was missed or that came late.   This your cue, stand up and register and wait your turn present your case.   In this circumstance simply state that were definitely not speeding and that you know that people and measurement devices can sometime make mistakes.  YOu don't want to testify because this will give you a chance to convict yourself.  You have a right to question your accuser an so if he is not there you win.
  
  In the legal system they have this standard that says if you lie about one thing then it can be assumed that you have lied about other thing.  This is also true about mistakes.  If someone was mistaken about one thing they could have been mistaken about other things.  So with this strategy you have to show that the officer made one or more mistakes.   
  
  Citation - Read your citation carefully.  Is everything correct, license number, street/cross street where infraction occurred, etc.  Police officers often get the streets and/or other details wrong.  They don't really expect that you are going to show up in court.
  
  Cross Examination of the Officer - He almost certainlily has no recollection of giving you the ticket, unless you have distinguished yourself in some way at the time he wrote the ticket.   When he give his testimony he is assuredly doing so from notes he made at the time and and not from his own memory.   
  
  You can ask question obout the location, landmarks, street directions, etc.  Once I saw a policeman in corut draw a picture of the intersection where someone supposedly ran a stop sign.  His drawing however did not match up with the city street maps. He was shown the actual street map and the attroney for the defense asked him to look at the map.  He then said there isn't a parking lot on the northeast corner of this street/intersection as you have testified to is there?  The police officer had to admit that he was mistaken.    That was it,  the defendant won the case. 
  
  If this not adequate you can press further and establish that in fact that he doesn't remember the incident, ask directly "Do you remember this or that?"  You said "this", is that in your notes also?   You also said "the other thing" is that also in your notes.  Have you said anything here today regarding this incident that is not in your notes?  If you ask enough questions he will eventually have to answer I don't remember.  And so if he doesn't remember one thing there are perhaps other things which he doesn't remember.
  
  This is where shbaz's comments come in to play.   If he can't remember the traffic patterns how can he be sure that he measured you instead of someone else.   Ask him to describe obstacles to his line of sight and obstacles that would interfere with the radar signals (any metalic structures or objects, especially road signs).  Ask him to describe in a qualitative way how radar is used to measure spped.  Ask under what circumstances there will be eroneous readings etc.
  
  Also get hime to descibe his actions in detail about how he operated the radar gun to measure your speed.  In particular ask how he aimed the gun at you.  Was it at his side and then he raised it to measure your speed?  If so this will add the speed of his arm to your speed.  Baseball players routinely move their arms at 90+ mph  when throwing a baseball so it ought to be easy for anyone to throw a ball at 20 mph.
  
  Ok, so far your doing a stealth defense, they don't know you're comming and so they will perhaps not be prepared.   You can decide to go further by asking for the source code and schematics of the device.  You also want to ask for the hardware and software revision histories.  This will show that there are mistakes in the hardware and software in the past that have been corrected and that there are likely more mistakes that will be corrected in the future.  Use this to dispel the notion that the device is far from perfect. 
  
  This will likely cause a stirr and let them know you are serious about going to court.  It may cause them to bring an attorney that would otherwise not be interested.   They will resist giving you this information because the radar gun company won't want to make that information public.  However, you have a right to it and to have it examined and analysed by an army of experts.  You can't afford to hire an army of experts but you have access to a world wide community of experts via the internet.   There is prescedent in a Flordia DUI case.  You can look at the news archives at http://groklaw.net/.
  
  This latter gambit will be a tough fight and I would think, requires the assistance of an attorney to succeed.  However, if you have access to one of those law school clinics or public legal services you may try to interest them in the case.  It's sort of a human rights issue, man vs machine, open source, etc.   
  
  Lastly don't make excuses for yourself to the judge.  Tell him/her clearly that you don't think you were speeding and that the officer and/or machine somehow made an erroneous reading.   You are there because the officer believes otherwise and you have faith in the judge's ability (even if you don't) to sort it out correctly.  If you have asked to see the innards of the machine and are denied you can point this out to the judge also.  Be respectful and sincere. 
  
  It's been my experience that you win some and you loose some in just about any aspect of life.  Why should this be any different? 
  
  I wish you the best of luck.  Let us know how it turns out.

[Pumaman]

Thing is, if you were speeding then you should really just take the punishment.
I won't lie, I creep over the limit on the odd occasion.  It's easy to do.  I realise, though, that the laws are there for a reason and if I did get caught I would take responsibility, take the points and the fine and maybe learn my lesson.

Without getting dragged down into this discussion again, it's worth pointing out that the word "speeding" means two different things -- to most people, "speeding" means driving too fast, ie. driving in an unsafe manner. But to the law, "speeding" means exceeding the posted limit.

Those two interpretations do not agree, which is why you see mothers protesting against "speeding drivers" in their village who then find themselves being caught by the enforcement that is then done to stop it.

[Snarky]

The judicial system most places in the US is heavily overburdened. If the courts have to spend resources on traffic cases, that means they'll have less to spend on more important cases. You have a right to take this to court if you absolutely must, but I have to tell you, I think it's a bullshit case. "I don't know what speed I was going" is not an argument; it's damn near an admission of guilt. All the other stuff about changing speed limits and "everybody else were speeding too" is just lame excuses.

Bringing this to court is just going to waste everybody's time, and cost way more than the amount of the ticket. If this was a matter of abuse of authority, or an obviously bogus fine, of course you should protect your rights. But given the circumstances, just pay the damn ticket!

[Nikolas]

Just a small note, without wanting to get draged in, either, 

That the "law" is there to settle arguements, and not to be fair all the time. It usually has some common sense in most countries (UK, USA, France, for example), or is outright stolen from these countries to use (Greece for example, where every law is pretty much a messed up version of a foreign law... )

But thing is this. You can't really let any driver decide who has priority, or who goes first, or who should give way. A "stop" sign, or a "give way" sign, or a round about, or a traffic light is there to make things work. It's a simple agreement. What if you are in a hurry? Only police and ambulances can make way pretty much. Then again, as far as I know, if you have an emergency and just put the alarms on and go like nuts, and you can prove that it was an emergency (I was pondering on that, when my wife was pregnant) chances are that people will see your point that you needed to hurry (not a good idea to deliver a baby in you car, by yourself).

But generaly laws just are agreements (even if you don't agree), and you... well... abide...

Not to say that one should bite in anything that comes in their way. God knows how many idiotic laws are out there, and how they can be challenged (speeding, parking, cameras, etc... I'm in full agreement that they suck), but...

Ok. Time to stop contradicting myself I think. 

[shbaz]

The judicial system most places in the US is heavily overburdened. If the courts have to spend resources on traffic cases, that means they'll have less to spend on more important cases. You have a right to take this to court if you absolutely must, but I have to tell you, I think it's a bullshit case. "I don't know what speed I was going" is not an argument; it's damn near an admission of guilt. All the other stuff about changing speed limits and "everybody else were speeding too" is just lame excuses.

Bringing this to court is just going to waste everybody's time, and cost way more than the amount of the ticket. If this was a matter of abuse of authority, or an obviously bogus fine, of course you should protect your rights. But given the circumstances, just pay the damn ticket!

I looked in my states statutes and the fine is $20 for my $180 ticket.  The rest are court costs and state pork, so yes, he will pay for the court hearing one way or the other.

Giving people tickets for speeding up to 50 mph 100 yards before the 45 mph sign (just guessing - he said it was nearby) is a superfluous waste of time and bogus ethically as well.

[Raggit]

If this was a matter of abuse of authority, or an obviously bogus fine, of course you should protect your rights. But given the circumstances, just pay the damn ticket!

Isn't that what the whole judicial process is about?  Getting to the bottom of whether or not this is a bogus ticket?  Even if I KNEW what speed I was going, it still would be a tough fight.  The only thing to do is to question the officer and get the details on the radar to see if I was just inadvertently going 20 mph over the limit, or if he's just going through the motions.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

A direct answer to all the people who are simply saying "You shouldn't have sped, take the punishment and don't do it again"... there ARE such things as speed traps, inane speed limits, and so forth. I personally know someone who, on a downwards slope, simply let go of the accelerator and, steering, just let the car roll down the slope, as did many other cars. In this way that person exceeded the limit and was fined. A very big WTF.

So please, don't automatically jump to conclusions like that.

[jetxl]

I say go to court if only to gain an experience.

[PixelPerfect]

Sorry to hear about the ticket. 
I don't really have an educated opinion about this, because for one I live in another country. But usually when dealing with authorities the more knowing and arrogant you seem to be the less you'll get done. Politeness and generally being "a good citizen" goes a long way when dealing with the government-type people. Even if you wouldn't believe in that sucking up-thing. It's just a matter of being "the good guy down on his luck" in the eyes of the judge.
I think RickJ had a few good pointers in there for defence but I don't know if the right way is to go as far as blaming police hardware faulty (maybe it is in USA?). Be civilized and reasonable in your arguments. Hopefully you'll win the case! 

[RickJ]

I think RickJ had a few good pointers in there for defence but I don't know if the right way is to go as far as blaming police hardware faulty (maybe it is in USA?). Be civilized and reasonable in your arguments. Hopefully you'll win the case!  Smiley

Thanks for the kind words.   The point is to raise a reasonable doubt about the states case and not to blame anyone or anything.  Anyone who has ever worked on a piece of electronics knows how easy it is to fool yourself using electronic instruments.    You really have to know how to use things, know what reading to expect,  and know when you are getting bogus results.   Further there is a presumption that these machines a infallible and their operation never questioned.  The truth is that they are not perfect and they are capable of mistakes.   How would you like to be convicted of a crime you did not commit because some programming error?   The firmware and hardware schematics of these machines should be open to public scrutiny.  They are not because they are imperfect and could be easily challenged in court.

Ask yourself how many  speeding tickets have been given to honest citizens who were in fact not speeding but were measured so because an unknowledgable or dishonest policeman failed to operate the equipment properly?  How much damage is done to a society that allows this kind of thing to go on unchecked?

I was once accused of going 50 mph at a T intersection where it was necessary to negotiate a sharp 90 degree turn left or right or else drive in to a pasture.   Since I did not drive in the pasture and since it is impossible to negotiate the required turn at 50 mph, which was plain as day to the policeman who wrote the ticket anyway.   I went to court and won the case.  If I had just paid the ticket, which was perhaps more convenient, it would have just encouraged the policeman to write more bogus tickets.

I think it's a little naive to believe that the government, any government, is primarily concerned with the best interests of it's citizens.   Sooner or later you will find yourself on the short end of a government imposed injustice and reality will set in.   

[InCreator]

I say... stay away from Blue Force. Well, you got a speeding ticket?
You will survive.

Starting a jihad against cop who had a bad day won't make yours any better.
When you go to... or even worse -- win at court, you will look him bad before his superiors, and make this miserable cop even more miserable.

Come on, he's punishing civilians for driving cars in illegal way on a tiny stretch of road. Way to improve our civilization! Maybe he just thought about this... and was really stressed at the moment.

If he acted like he acted, that's because he's either a rookie or trying a bit too hard to get a promotion. Either way, a court case won't help him. But battling him would probably piss him out more, open some tiny invisible psychological doors of his' to future corruption, more police abuse or hell knows what else.

For hundred bucks, it could be hell to pay.

But you figured it out yourself I guess.

[Andail]

I don't think I'd go through all the hassle, stress and anxiety to fight my case in the fashion Rick & co have described in this thread. Not for a speeding ticket at least. Especially when all that time you spent can just as well be wasted, seeing how you're pretty likely to end up paying the darn ticket anyway.

[Layabout]

To anyone recommending him not to fight his case. The police officer did not show him the reading. How can he know he was speeding or not?

[Snarky]

He should have known what speed he was going in the first place. (Being oblivious is just bad driving, and anyway, if a cop pulls up behind you, do you not even check your speedometer?) In a dispute over facts, it helps to have some.

This isn't the cop's word against his. Even without a reading, it's the cop's word against "I doubt I was speeding, but I'm not sure". If you're not sure, why fight it? And how do you imagine you would win (short of perjury)?

[Raggit]

Snarky, the point is I was watching the road.  I was more concerned about my ENVIRONMENT than my speedometer.  I don't think road safety hinges entirely on what speed you're going, like if you always go the exact speed limit nothing bad can happen.  Driving is inherently dangerous, and it takes more common sense than anything else.  It was an entirely straight road, with no curves or corners and the speed zone was about to change to 45.  (Like I said, I was so close that by the time I pulled over, I was already IN the 45 zone.)

The law specifies that the operator the vehicle is responsible for piloting it in a way that is prudent for current conditions.  There were no hazards on the road that day, such as ice or water.

I don't care about the money, I care about the prinicipal of the situation, that is I am charged with doing something I'm not sure I did.  I want to know what my options are.  Is that so wrong?  Or am I just supposed to throw my hands up and say, "Well, the authorities only have our safety in mind.  How noble of they are. I think I will just do what they tell me to."  Now that's not saying that I'm going to purposely speed and break the law.  In fact, I abhore the stereotype that males my age (19) are all dangerous or bad drivers when I attempt to be the OPPOSITE.

Most street cops (especially in small towns) are NOT concerned with public safety.  Most of them (not all) are corrupt and into drugs, and abuse the system for their own motives.  For instance, we had a sherriff in office for YEARS who was deeply rooted in a drug circle and was practically insane.  (There were other officers with guns ready at his trial, he was so unstable.)  Yet, until his position was threatened, he seemed totally cool and normal.  It took the loss of his position to another candidate to reveal who he really was after all these years in power.

So, to those saying just pay the ticket, don't question, and humor the cop because he maybe HAD A BAD DAY, I say no.  I'm not just gonna say "I must've deserved it" when I really don't know if I did.  I at LEAST wanna know what the radar SAID.  That's WHAT the court is for, so we can figure this stuff out.

[InCreator]

In that case, can't wait for results of your crusade!

[RickJ]

It was an entirely straight road, with no curves or corners and the speed zone was about to change to 45.  (Like I said, I was so close that by the time I pulled over, I was already IN the 45 zone.)

You may want to go to the traffic engineering dept and find out exactly where the speed zone changes.  It's entirely plausible that the engineers placed the sign after the speed zone change so that drivers would not see the sign and speed up prematurely (if they were interested in public safety of course).  Compare what they have to say with what the cop wrote on the ticket as to the location of your alleged infringement.

Btw, Police radar doesn't usually make a distinction between directions, it sends out a frequency and gets back another and the two are mixed resulting in four frequencies, the two originals frequencies, the sum of the two frequencies and the difference between the two frequencies.  The first three are normally discarded and the the difference analysed; the higher it's frequency the higher the speed.  But since the difference frequency is the same in either direction the radar does not make the distinction.  Additional analysis, likely of the sum frequency, is required to get the direction which adds expense to the equipment and I don't believe is commonly supplied on a police rig.   

[Snarky]

Look, Raggit. In my opinion, you should always be aware of your speed. It only takes one glance, you can be perfectly aware of your environment at the same time, and even if it doesn't matter (and in this case it clearly did) it's a good driving habit. All of this other stuff about how safe of a driver you are: great, but it doesn't matter. If you go over the speed limit, you can get a ticket.

Similarly, the cop's motives don't matter. If you broke the rules you broke the rules, and it's irrelevant why you got caught.

Now, you're not sure whether or not you were actually speeding, or if you're innocent. If this was a big deal, I'd say sure, get to the bottom of it, have your day in court. But a speeding ticket is a piddling case, a bullshit issue to clog the judicial system with. And the likelihood that you'll find out the actual facts is tiny, anyway. The cop might lie, or be mistaken, and you would never be able to tell. Or even if you can poke holes in his story, that doesn't mean you weren't speeding and the cop couldn't tell that you were speeding.

You don't really have any solid basis to claim that this is an instance of abuse of power, or any other important matter of principle. It sounds like you're just pissed at what happened. You asked for our counsel. Well, mine is: get over it, pay the fine, go on with your life. And the next time a cop pulls you over, know what speed you were going, so that if there's any dispute, you'll be able to state something more definite.

OK, I'm bored with this argument now.

[Raggit]

OK, I'm bored with this argument now.

Then quit posting.  I was well aware of your opinion from the start. 

Also, I don't think this ONE case is going to "clog" the judicial system.  Have you had a look at it recently?