Speeding Ticket Question

[Frylock]

I was going 73 in a 60mph zone, and got a speeding ticket as a result.

But I am not convinced I should have to pay this thing.

I got onto the highway I was speeding on from street A, and got the ticket near the exit for street B. I have now driven over that section of the highway a few times looking for a speed limit sign, and there are none. (It so happens, incidentally, that I established w/ the police officer at the time of the issuing of the ticket that A was the street where I had entered the highway. So that's in the record assuming his memory works correctly.)

The law here in Texas is that speed limits on highways are generally 70 except where local municipalities have decreed otherwise. So basically, I was going what I assumed was the speed limit, and my assumption was a reasonable one since there was no speed limit sign telling me otherwise. (It was also a reasonable assumption since all the cars around me were going, as far as I can tell, 65-75, but I would think that observation would have less traction than the lack of speed limit signs would.)

Moreover, I am a visitor here.* I do not regularly drive in the county I got the ticket in, so I couldn't reasonably have been expected to know about the special speed limit even if it's something like "common knowledge" around here.

So my question is, are these the kind of consideration that ever get speeding tickets dismissed? I mean the following two considerations:

1 There are no speed limit signs that I should have seen
2. I'm visiting here and so am unfamiliar with any local conventions.
3. I was obeying the law to the best of my knowledge, driving at the limit that generally holds on interstate highways in this state.

Or do 1 through 3 generally not appear relevant to traffic courts?

Thanks for any information,

-Kris

*Actually, I did live near this city (Ft Worth) until 1996, a little less near until 2000, and far away but still in texas until 2004. (Minus the year in Japan during that interval.) But for the past four years I've been nowhere near this area, having lived in California during that time. And at no time have I lived near enough to this highway to need to drive on it with any regularity.

[Loach]

1 There are no speed limit signs that I should have seen
2. I'm visiting here and so am unfamiliar with any local conventions.
3. I was obeying the law to the best of my knowledge, driving at the limit that generally holds on interstate highways in this state.

Don't go with #2. Ignorance is not a valid defense.

Bring pictures. Show that there are no signs. It is up to the judge. Depends on him. You have a defense. No guarantee it will fly.

ETA:
The law here in Texas is that speed limits on highways are generally 70 except where local municipalities have decreed otherwise. So basically, I was going what I assumed was the speed limit, and my assumption was a reasonable one since there was no speed limit sign telling me otherwise. (It was also a reasonable assumption since all the cars around me were going, as far as I can tell, 65-75, but I would think that observation would have less traction than the lack of speed limit signs would.)

Make sure this really is the law. Also think of what you are arguing. You think the speed limit was 70. You were going 73. So at best you will be arguing that you were purposely going over the speed limit by 3mph. Which is still a violation.

[Bearflag70]

You think the speed limit was 70. You were going 73. So at best you will be arguing that you were purposely going over the speed limit by 3mph. Which is still a violation.

Yup. Looks like the ruling will go against you. Your defense may reduce the fine if it is based upon how far over the limit you were going. Ask yourself if it is worth all the trouble to go to court and prove all this stuff just to knock 10 MPH off your violation.

[John DiFool]

One thing you can check is the engineering survey of that stretch of road. Basically the engineers go out there (I believe they use those road cable things) and see what the 85th percentile speeds are, and set the limit accordingly (or to the highest legal speed, and in Texas I believe they have some 80 MPH zones in the west part of the state). If the actual limit is much less than what the survey recommends, that could be brought up in court in your favor. At that point I wouldn't sweat the 3 MPH difference, unless you admitted this to the officer.

In any event THIS (http://www.radardetector.net/forums/how-beat-your-ticket/) is the forum you need to post on, as they have some guys who really know their stuff about getting people off.

[JerseyFrank]

In any event THIS is the forum you need to post on, as they have some guys who really know their stuff about getting people off.
Thank goodness for context.

[racer72]

Texas has a statatory speed limit law which states that if there is no speed limit sign the statatory limit is in effect. In your case it is going to depend where the highway is located, the statatory limit is 70 in rural areas, 60 in urban areas. The engineering survey thing won't work in Texas, all speed limits are consider "prima facie", this means the limit is the law irrelevant of other factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

[Bearflag70]

The engineering survey thing won't work in Texas, all speed limits are consider "prima facie", this means the limit is the law irrelevant of other factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

I thought a prima facie speed limit is not "absolute" or speeding "per se" but simply gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of what is considered a reasonable speed. A defendant can rebut a prima facie speed limit with other relevant factors.

[Frylock]

Texas has a statatory speed limit law which states that if there is no speed limit sign the statatory limit is in effect. In your case it is going to depend where the highway is located, the statatory limit is 70 in rural areas, 60 in urban areas. The engineering survey thing won't work in Texas, all speed limits are consider "prima facie", this means the limit is the law irrelevant of other factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

I saw that wikipedia page, but I think its information for Texas is incorrect. Everything I can find online that's actually from the state of Texas indicates only a 70 mph limit on interstate highways, with an option for local authorities to lower it if they so choose.

-FrL-

[Loach]

I saw that wikipedia page, but I think its information for Texas is incorrect. Everything I can find online that's actually from the state of Texas indicates only a 70 mph limit on interstate highways, with an option for local authorities to lower it if they so choose.

-FrL-

Even if that is the case (which I will assume it is since I have no direct knowledge of Texas law) you will have to prove to the judge that it is reasonable for you to assume that the speed limit was 70mph where you were clocked. Then you will have to somehow prove that the reading was wrong and you weren't going 73. In fact if you can prove that there was something wrong with the radar you won't have to prove anything else. Remember it is a speed limit. Anything over is a violation. Arguing that you thought you were only going a little over the limit isn't a very effective argument in court.

[sailor]

It seems to me 73 is what the officer said. The car's speedometer could say 69.8 MPH.

[Bearflag70]

I was going 73 in a 60mph zone, and got a speeding ticket as a result.

<snip>

I got onto the highway I was speeding on from street A, and got the ticket near the exit for street B.

Admissions. Were you speeding or is that just what the cop said? Did you admit to the cop you were speeding?

I mean the following two considerations:

1 There are no speed limit signs that I should have seen
2. I'm visiting here and so am unfamiliar with any local conventions.
3. I was obeying the law to the best of my knowledge, driving at the limit that generally holds on interstate highways in this state.

Were you in the same math class as Joe Biden? ;)

[Frylock]

Admissions. Were you speeding or is that just what the cop said? Did you admit to the cop you were speeding?


I've been taking the radar gun's word that the speed was 73. In truth, I was, to the best of my knowledge at the time, controlling my speed at 70.

I have no means by which I can argue I was not going over 60 mph. Rather, the argument I've offered in this thread is that I could not reasonably have been expected to know that that was the speed limit at that spot.

Some people in this thread have said "ignorance of the law is no excuse." But I am not claiming ignorance of law, I'm claiming ignorance of fact. The law is, obey speed limit signs. I was fully aware of that law, and to the best of my knowledge at the time, I was obeying that law.


Were you in the same math class as Joe Biden? ;)

That's what happens when I add an item to a list and forget to look to see how many items I said there were on the list in the first place.


-FrL-

[Frylock]

Even if that is the case (which I will assume it is since I have no direct knowledge of Texas law) you will have to prove to the judge that it is reasonable for you to assume that the speed limit was 70mph where you were clocked. Then you will have to somehow prove that the reading was wrong and you weren't going 73. In fact if you can prove that there was something wrong with the radar you won't have to prove anything else. Remember it is a speed limit. Anything over is a violation. Arguing that you thought you were only going a little over the limit isn't a very effective argument in court.

I'd rather a fine be assessed as though I were going 73 in a 70 rather than 73 in a 60. Assuming I can make the case that it was reasonable for me to think the speed limit was 70, then also assuming that this fact (that it was reasonable for me to think so) has some legal significance concerning my culpability or my fine, then I don't see how there couldn't be some less negative outcome for me than if I simply paid the fine as is.

As noted elsewhere, I thought I was going 70. (In any case, isn't there some well known fudge factor when it comes to radar guns? Something like plus or minus five miles per hour? Or is that just a kind of urban legend?)

-FrL-

[Loach]

If the radar is more than +/-1 it is broken and taken out of service. They are tested before and after every shift (at least in NJ). I don't remember this ever happening to me. When they break, they stop working.

I had someone come in to court and argue that his speedometer was broken and showed a repair bill. Driving with faulty equipment was not an effective defense with the judge that day.

I have had several people argue that "there is no way I was doing 40, at the most 30." In a 25mph zone. That argument was not a very effective defense with the judge that day.

It all comes down to if you can get the judge to agree with you. No one on this board can answer that. Just don't be surprised if your defense doesn't work.

I'd rather a fine be assessed as though I were going 73 in a 70 rather than 73 in a 60. Assuming I can make the case that it was reasonable for me to think the speed limit was 70, then also assuming that this fact (that it was reasonable for me to think so) has some legal significance concerning my culpability or my fine, then I don't see how there couldn't be some less negative outcome for me than if I simply paid the fine as is.

In most courts you will probably be offered to plead to a lesser charge anyway.

[Frylock]

It all comes down to if you can get the judge to agree with you. No one on this board can answer that.

I am glad, then, that I did not ask that question or any similar question.


So my question is, are these the kind of consideration that ever get speeding tickets dismissed? I mean the following two considerations:

1 There are no speed limit signs that I should have seen
2. I'm visiting here and so am unfamiliar with any local conventions.
3. I was obeying the law to the best of my knowledge, driving at the limit that generally holds on interstate highways in this state.

Or do 1 through 3 generally not appear relevant to traffic courts?


As this is GQ, I was careful to ask a factual question. I was not asking for speculation or legal opinions.

Nevertheless your assistance so far has been appreciated.



In most courts you will probably be offered to plead to a lesser charge anyway.

I am starting to see this as I do more research--which could make it worth it in any case.

-FrL-

[Frylock]

If the radar is more than +/-1 it is broken and taken out of service. They are tested before and after every shift (at least in NJ). I don't remember this ever happening to me. When they break, they stop working.

Hmm, I'll have to look into it. I thought for sure that back when I took drivers ed way back when, the teacher told me radar guns are only considered to be accurate to within 5 mph when used in the field. But I never knew just what the authority for her claim was supposed to be. I've heard the same claim several times, but never from anyone who would be particularly likely to know what they were talking about. It just seems to be one of those things "everybody 'knows'".

-FrL-

[Balthisar]

It's probably accurate within ±1 mph in the right conditions, but there may be conditions where the reading can vary by ±5. I'm sure that officers are trained in using the radar in the right conditions. Whether they all do so all of the time is a different matter.

[Lanzy]

I have personal knowledge of a case similar to this one being kicked by a Judge in Ft. Sill, OK. The speeds were different but the absense of a sign was the same. Fought it with that logic and won it, within a week a new sign was put up.

[Frylock]

I have personal knowledge of a case similar to this one being kicked by a Judge in Ft. Sill, OK. The speeds were different but the absense of a sign was the same. Fought it with that logic and won it, within a week a new sign was put up.

Do you happen to remember, was it just that there was no sign, or was it that there was no sign even though some standard said there should have been a sign?

-FrL-

[Balthisar]

Slight hijack... but I have a related question. I've tried searching the Michigan Compiled Laws, but not gotten a good definition.

What defines what a "rural road" is versus a "residential road" (or whatever the proper wording in Michigan is for 55 mph vs. 25 mph)?

There are two spots of which I'm thinking where 55 is absolutely ridiculous (yeah, yeah, basic speed law, drive per conditions), but wonder if I'd be subject to a ticket. The first one, I'd probably not make it to 55. The other is perfectly reasonable at 55 until you reach the traffic circles, but all the minivans seem to want to cruise at 30 or so (plenty of passing room).

Here's a link to the latter. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.623192,-82.94225&spn=0.010626,0.021479&t=h&z=16) The road I'm interested in is "Partridge Creek Blvd." Not a speed limit sign, not a house, driveway, or anything, other than small roads coming off of the two traffic circles.

[racer72]

I saw that wikipedia page, but I think its information for Texas is incorrect. Everything I can find online that's actually from the state of Texas indicates only a 70 mph limit on interstate highways, with an option for local authorities to lower it if they so choose.
Not according to the state law.




Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.


Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1



(b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;
(2) 70 miles per hour in daytime and 65 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car, motorcycle, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer bearing a vessel, as defined by Section 31.003, Parks and Wildlife Code, that is less than 26 feet in length, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer used primarily to transport a motorcycle, or passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer designed and used primarily to transport dogs or livestock, on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road;
(3) 60 miles per hour in daytime and 55 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car or motorcycle on a highway that is outside an urban district and not a highway numbered by this state or the United States;
(4) 60 miles per hour outside an urban district if a speed limit for the vehicle is not otherwise specified by this section; or
(5) outside an urban district:
(A) 60 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that has passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201 and is on a highway numbered by the United States or this state, including a farm-to-market road;
(B) 50 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that:
(i) has not passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201; or
(ii) is traveling on a highway not numbered by the United States or this state; or
(C) 60 miles per hour in daytime and 55 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or if the vehicle is a truck tractor, trailer, or semitrailer, or a vehicle towing a trailer other than a trailer described by Subdivision (2), semitrailer, another motor vehicle or towable recreational

[Frylock]

Not according to the state law.




Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.


Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1



(b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;
(2) 70 miles per hour in daytime and 65 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car, motorcycle, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer bearing a vessel, as defined by Section 31.003, Parks and Wildlife Code, that is less than 26 feet in length, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer used primarily to transport a motorcycle, or passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer designed and used primarily to transport dogs or livestock, on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road;
(3) 60 miles per hour in daytime and 55 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car or motorcycle on a highway that is outside an urban district and not a highway numbered by this state or the United States;
(4) 60 miles per hour outside an urban district if a speed limit for the vehicle is not otherwise specified by this section; or
(5) outside an urban district:
(A) 60 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that has passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201 and is on a highway numbered by the United States or this state, including a farm-to-market road;
(B) 50 miles per hour if the vehicle is a school bus that:
(i) has not passed a commercial motor vehicle inspection under Section 548.201; or
(ii) is traveling on a highway not numbered by the United States or this state; or
(C) 60 miles per hour in daytime and 55 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or if the vehicle is a truck tractor, trailer, or semitrailer, or a vehicle towing a trailer other than a trailer described by Subdivision (2), semitrailer, another motor vehicle or towable recreational


I'd seen that. The two things you highlighted specify "outside an urban area," but (I didn't explicitly mention this in the thread, I guess) I was inside an urban area, as defined by the law. (An urban area is, if I recall correctly from earlier today, any area within 100 yards of a location where buildings are placed less than ten feet apart. Something like that anyway.)

There's nothing on that list about what happens "inside an urban area," which I found puzzling. From elsewhere (I don't have my notes with me where I am) I have gathered that inside an urban area, it's either the default or otherwise whatever some local authority has decided.

-FrL-

[Loach]

I am glad, then, that I did not ask that question or any similar question.



As this is GQ, I was careful to ask a factual question. I was not asking for speculation or legal opinions.

Nevertheless your assistance so far has been appreciated.





I am starting to see this as I do more research--which could make it worth it in any case.

-FrL-

Your factual question is are these the kind of consideration that ever get speeding tickets dismissed? whch was answered in post #2. I will say it again. You have a defense. No guarantee it will convince a judge. Your arguement would carry a lot more weight if you weren't going over the speed limit that you thought was correct.

Improper signage is a valid defense. As I stated earlier you need some evidence such as pictures for it to work.

Bad radar reading is a valid defense. Radar is not inaccurate +/-5mph. That argument won't work. Most if not all police departments use a checklist to go through the diagnostics of the unit. Generally they are completely accurate or it isn't working at all. If it was 5mph off it wouldn't be in service.

Being unfamiliar with the area is not a valid defense.

I am not pulling this out of my ass. I have eleven years of police experience so far. What factual questions were not answered?

[jakeofalltrades1964]

Get photos of the area on the highway you were driving. Get lots of them and arrange them in order. Keep everything organized. Show the judge you have your poop together. It's basically the judge's call, but being brief, to the point, and having your stuff together (offer it as evidence so the bailiff can hand it to the judge, but do not explain each and every photo) can help your case... but be prepared to pay the fine just in case. It may help to point out you were travelling 'at the same rate of speed as surrounding traffic'... having a guy travelling at 55 mph on a busy highway when everyone else is doing 70-75 mph can actually be a hazard, and you can tell the judge you didn't want to get rear-ended... but that's a toss up. Good luck!

[Frylock]

What factual questions were not answered?

I wasn't saying my questions weren't being answered. Rather, I was pointing out that you (and others) were starting to answer questions that I didn't ask. This wouldn't bother me, except that the questions that were being attributed to me were somewhat stupid questions. ;)

I was making sure you (and others) understood I was not asking the stupid questions you were answering.

-FrL-

[Frylock]

Get photos of the area on the highway you were driving. Get lots of them and arrange them in order.

Yeah, if I did go through with this, my plan was to take a continuous video of the area. Probably would help to break it up into individual photos.

Keep everything organized. Show the judge you have your poop together. It's basically the judge's call, but being brief, to the point, and having your stuff together (offer it as evidence so the bailiff can hand it to the judge, but do not explain each and every photo) can help your case... but be prepared to pay the fine just in case.

Something I haven't been sure of is whether after I get convicted anyway and have to pay the same fine, do I still have the drivers ed and/or probation options I have if I just plead guilty over the phone. This probably differs from district to district so I'll have to just go check.

It may help to point out you were travelling 'at the same rate of speed as surrounding traffic'... having a guy travelling at 55 mph on a busy highway when everyone else is doing 70-75 mph can actually be a hazard, and you can tell the judge you didn't want to get rear-ended... but that's a toss up. Good luck!

I have wondered if I should throw that in or not.

-FrL-

[Frylock]

Amazingly, I actually managed to have a genuine two way exchange about this via email with a member of the Ft Worth police department today.

I had sent off an email not really expecting an answer. To my complete suprise, I did get an answer.

The first reply from this officer showed he had not understood I was in a 60mph zone. He had thought I had gotten a ticket for going 80 in a 70.

I replied correcting the lack of clarity in my first email (slapping myself for good measure for having made such a bonehead mistake in that email). I explaining the whole situation as I have in this thread.

His reply, I quote in its entirity:



I would set it for trial.



Not exactly a full blown conversation, but certainly an exchange which was more than I expected.

-FrL-

[Frylock]

Well geez, someone else I never expected to respond did respond. This time, its a lawyer who according to his website used to be a prosecutor dealing with, among other things, traffic violations in the Ft Worth courts.

His response is not so happy. Point 2, especially, does not bode well for me.

From the lawyer's website, it did not appear to me that he works in traffic court anymore, but the last two paragraphs below seems to be fishing for me to ask for representation. I purposefully went looking for legal comments from someone who wouldn't be trying to buy my business, so I was kind of disappointed by that. Moreover, that fishing expedition puts everything else he said a little to the suspicious side to my mind.

Anyway, here's what he said:

:

Thank you for emailing.

Here are my answers to your questions:

1. In Texas, the state may charge speeding in two ways. One is without signs
- where the speed limit is presumed based on state law and the type of road
and area. This is called a prima facie speed limit. No posting is required.
The other is where signs are posted. This means that the municipality,
county, or state, has altered the prima facie speed limit. When there has
been an alteration - up or down - they must post such notice to drivers. It
is possible in Texas for no signs to be present and a citation to be issued.

2. Ignorance of the speeding laws of another state is no defense under the
law. And further, speeding in Texas is a non-culpable mental state crime.
This means, you don't have to intend to speed, or have knowledge of the
speed limit to be charged. Those issues are irrelevant.

3. [redacted, not relevant to the thread]

Having said this, do also know that there are attorneys - me included - who
fight such citations - and win often based on using the court system and
ineptitude to achieve dismissals. One court I've had exceptionally good
results in is Fort Worth Municipal Court. And, the other Tarrant County
courts are sometimes ripe for such dismissals.

My assistant [name] can provide you with more information about
representation.


So from point 1, I see (as I already knew) that the laws applicable involve speed limits altered by local authorities, and that they are required to post speed limit signs.

They did post signs, just not in the exact area in which I was driving.

From point 2, I get bad news. The first point is no problem, as I am not claiming ignorance of law. But the second point hits. Apparently, the law here doesn't care what my state of mind is. The only question is, how fast was my vehicle going and what was the speed limit. Nothing about what I could reasonably have understood the limit to be counts from a legal standpoint.

(I am a little confused by this. What if the local authority hadn't posted signs? Would I be expected to travel at the speed limit anyway? Or does the posting of signs count, itself, as constituting that the limit is now in effect, meaning if they haven't posted the signs then the speed limit isn't in fact altered? Anyway, those are theoretical questions irrelevant to my actual case.)

Based on these two email exchanges, and on what I've found on this thread and elsewhere on the web, it looks like the following is the case. First, legally, strictly speaking, I haven't got a case. Second, in practice, sometimes, some judges act reasonable about these situations nevertheless. And prosecutors tend to bring the fine level down when you go to trial anyway.

I still don't know whether, if I am found guilty after going to trial, I will still have an option to do drivers ed or probation to clear my record for insurance purposes. Also, the one account I have found online of a prosecutor lowering the fine (this happened to be in Ft Worth as well) involved that prosecutor stipulating that if the fine was lowered, the driver could not do drivers ed. I wonder if that's likely to happen to me.

Anyway, thanks for all your comments on this thread. It's very interesting.

-FrL-

[Balthisar]

The other option -- if you're prepared to go to trial anyway -- is to talk to the prosecutor beforehand, and see if she'll drop the charge. If you can't get an appointment, usually it's the person calling roll prior to the judge entering.

[Frylock]

The other option -- if you're prepared to go to trial anyway -- is to talk to the prosecutor beforehand, and see if she'll drop the charge. If you can't get an appointment, usually it's the person calling roll prior to the judge entering.

That's something I've considered, though I was afraid it was just a silly idea. I am having trouble tracking down just what office I would need to contact. I guess a simple inquiry with the city attorney's office would do it.

-FrL-

[Loach]

That's something I've considered, though I was afraid it was just a silly idea. I am having trouble tracking down just what office I would need to contact. I guess a simple inquiry with the city attorney's office would do it.

-FrL-

Each and every court across the country runs things a little different. But most that I have heard of run like ours. In our court it would be impossible to take every case to trial. There just isn't time. After the roll call everyone is given the oppurtunity to talk to the prosecutor. During that time unless there is something seriouly wrong with your driving record he will offer a lesser charge as a plea bargain. Most prosecutors I have worked with will not be interested in your pictures or arguments at this time, they just want to move you along. They usually tell you to take the plea or go to trial so they can move on to the next case. No guarantee that this what is done there but I bet it will be something similar. The first step is usually a plea of not guilty or a request for a court date from the court clerk.

I was making sure you (and others) understood I was not asking the stupid questions you were answering.
But I like stupid questions. They are the only ones I am qualified to answer.