Why the moralising? Maybe that’s just what he plans to do. The OP is simply asking if he HAS to- wether or not the system has a way to track such a circumstance- and is curious about the details surrounding this potentiality.
So- Why not just answer the OP and stop moralising?
Because he is basically asking and planning on how to beat the ticket and trying to think of ways of justifying his wrong doing. I say wrong doing because he admits he did wrong; that’s not moralizing that’s a statement of fact.
I once contested a ticket for a burned out brake-light (seriously) because the officer described the light tan colored car as brown. I took a picture of the car and had it blown up to use as evidence. I had a color palette to show how different light tan was from brown.
The judge found my defense humorous (and questioned why I got a ticket in the first place) but pointed out that the error was harmless and not pertinent to my case.
I argued that the officer’s error brought into question his general powers of observation, and his ability to assess the operation of my brake light.
I lost.
He (She?) never said anything of the sort, as far as I can tell- you seem to be of the ilk that one doesn’t or can’t contemplate such things without acting on them.
I guess we disagree on this. I think it is PERFECTLY possible to explore potentialities and possibilities without any intention of acting on them. If we restricted discussion to only things we PLANNED to do and did away with hypotheticals, the world would be a less interesting place. IMHO.
I remember when I was a little kid the USPS fascinated me. The whole system. It occurred to me one day while daydreaming that perhaps it was possible to cheat the system by reversing the sender and receiver address, neglect to slap a stamp on it, and in theory it would be “returned” to the address you intended on sending the piece of mail to all along.
Now I discussed this with my Dad, we laughed about it, I NEVER even entertained trying it (not because I think it’s a heinous crime- it simply didn’t seem worthwhile), and have to this date not tried it out. No foul, right?
This whole process allowed me to undergo a thought exercise, and even though it wasn’t earth shattering, I can’t help thinking a person who forgoes all such thought experiments because ACTING on them would be wrong would be impoverished, if marginally for the lack of it.
Perhaps you can’t imagine contemplating something like that without acting on it. Many, nay, MOST I think, can.
Perhaps you didn’t bother to read post number three where the OP states that they intend to fight it? Jezz 
And then the OP admits to guilt later on in the thread.
Thank you 
I’ve done the MORAL thing and paid the ticket 
Yes, but as long as the method used as a defense is not what a Philadelphia lawyer would use, I personally see nothing immoral about raising it.
Fool, you could have beat that ticket. 
You sure that wasn’t a Seinfeld episode?
There’s nothing immoral about requiring the State to make its case, Si Amigo.
–Cliffy
Was it argued first before a magistrate, then appealed to district court?
It really depends on your jurisdiction. If he simply transposed the numbers on the plate or you are arguing over brown or light tan, those are generally harmless errors that a court will likely not throw out the ticket..
If he wrote down the plate of the guy behind the OP? Meh, that might work depending on the jurisdiction. In some places, they can amend that at trial. The bottom line though is that the OP would be standing in court with ticket in hand. How did it get in his hand if he wasn’t there driving? The question for the judge would be is the license plate number an essential identifying element for a conviction on the traffic offense. That depends on jurisdiction. In WV, where I live, it means nothing if the judge is convinced that the citation is substantially correct.
Traffic courts across the country range from eminently fair to kangaroo.
At least no I’m not going to hell 