Generally, the standard of proof for any civil infraction (that is, a violation of law prosecuted by the state that is not a crime) is less than reasonable doubt; either a preponderance standard or whatever that state applies in its administrative hearings.
In states where traffic violations are treated as (minor) crimes, it’s reasonable doubt.
I don’t disagree, but it’s still a presumption you have to overcome. If you actually do have an argument like that the officer’s interpretation of the law is wrong, that’s one thing but if just show up with an argument that amounts to “did not!” the judge is probably not going to be particularly sympathetic.
The way states handle traffic citations varies from being pretty similar to any other minor trial to some states where they have some pretty darn perfunctory “streamlined” hearings. In states with more streamlined hearings, you usually make any deals on traffic school or point reduction with the judge, and so challenging a ticket (even if you don’t actually intend to argue the facts) is pretty standard and no big deal.
In states where the process resembles a mini trial, though, usually any deals you make are with the local prosecutor’s office. The process very rarely progresses to the point that you’re arguing in front of a judge and is time consuming to everyone involved if it does, and so if you’re going to insist on going that far you’d better have an at least somewhat decent case.
Recently on this board I read of some small town that funded itself with unjust speeding tickets. Googling, it may have been**Randolph** MO.
So in effect, it sounds like on traffic tickets the defendant would have to prove innocence since all else being equal LEO word > defendant’s word.
That’s the reality but legally on an infraction there’s no burden of proof or it’s just ignored by judges?
You don’t have to prove your innocence, just like a criminal trial you have to present a case that is convincing to the judge. If you have nothing to tell the judge except for “I didn’t do it” then you don’t have much of a case next to the LEO who witnessed it and made a written record of the event at the time.
The MGM lion ----- I thought everyone knew that. 
I can’t speak for other states or countries, but here in California, we have something called ‘trial by written declaration’, which allows you to go to court, pay the full value of the fine, and then provide a written defense to the court to be reviewed at a later time in order to try and get some or all of your money back and some or all of the violation dismissed.
As near as I can tell, this was created for the simple fact that most people work, and can’t take time off to stand in court for half a day waiting for their opportunity to defend themselves. The advantage is, the cop ALSO has to provide a written response, and cops hate doing this. Most don’t bother to respond, in which case you win by default, and I write for a living, so my response will be far better than the cop’s will be.
My strategy is to find any fault with the ticket or the conditions under which the ticket was given and yes, I ask for advice on this board when doing so. Always be very respectful in the letter, saying “Your Honor” and “the Officer” rather than “judge” and “the cop”, and always end it with something that provides options to the court. I use text something like: “I believe this ticket should be dismissed. If you disagree with all or part of this testimony, I would request that the court consider a reduced fine and/or a reduction to a non-moving violation, and in the event you feel it necessary to render a guilty verdict, I would request traffic school be granted as an option given my outstanding driving records over the past X years”.
Again, I can’t speak for other states, but with most moving violations that aren’t reckless driving or other more severe issues, what you are really trying to avoid more so than the actual fine is the hit to your insurance and/or having to spend the extra money (and time) for traffic school to remove the ticket from your record, so that is a last resort. I just helped a friend fight her ticket for crossing a ‘simulated island’ (two double yellow lines) to get to a Starbucks drive-through, which the cops knew people would do because it had recently been painted, so they hide in the parking lot and nail people while they are in line to get what becomes the world’s most expensive cup of coffee when you add in the cost of their citation. I call bullshit on activities like that and fight them at every turn. It usually takes 3-4 months to get the money back from the court, but you almost always win.
This is one of the best ideas I have ever heard. Not just for the reason you gave, but because I bet it does a lot to keep the court dockets manageable which is a big deal these days.
In some jurisdictions, it may be possible to have a jury trial for a traffic ticket. Back in 1988, I was called for jury duty in Fairfax County, Virginia. The only trial I actually sat on was for a speeding ticket. The ticket was issued as the result of a hand-held and -aimed radar. The defendant made a couple of persuasive points in his testimony: (1) the ticket was issued at a point where he had recently made a turn from an intersection with a stop sign and (2) he was driving a rather large van, leading to (3) it was almost unbelievable that said van could have reached the speed noted on the ticket from a full stop within the distance at which he was ticketed. Moreover, the defendant noted that there was other traffic on the road and the officer may have inadvertently misattributed the speed of another car to his van. In jury deliberations, it turned out that one of the jurors had some familiarity with radars and stated that it was entirely possible for the officer to misattribute the speed, particularly if he was not thoroughly trained. Since the officer’s training in the use of radar had not been brought up by the prosecution, it was an unknown – and we voted unanimously to let the guy off. So in this case, we didn’t think the LEO was lying but simply mistaken.
Heh, “mistaken”. I once had a DUI years ago that was so bad that the prosecutor didn’t even make a closing argument. I had been pulled over for gesturing with my hand out the window while talking to my passenger and was pulled over because the cop wanted to know why I was “motioning him to pass me” and it went downhill from there.
Two of the reasons the prosecutor didn’t make an statement:
The cop said I was weaving and had crossed the white line. I came to court with photos and the cop had to admit on the stand there was no white line on that road where I was driving (there was a curb). He probably added that while writing it up back at the station.
I had “failed” the Nystagmus test. After my lawyer had him admit I was standing behind his car and looking into his emergency lights, the cop tried to claim his flashing lights weren’t on. Really? You pulled someone over at night on a road with no shoulder and you don’t have your lights on? How did I know to pull over if you didn’t have your lights on? There were actually chuckles in the gallery at that one.
The judge used the phrase “There is more than reasonable doubt here.”
This was probably a rare case where it could be shown that the cop was making demonstrably false statements on the stand (there were others, but those were the worst).
However, I was found guilty of crossing the double yellow line because there was no way I could disprove that. It was obvious the whole arrest was BS, but the court had to recoup its costs, I guess.
I love the implication here that, because the lines had recently been painted, this somehow excuses the illegal turn.
Know what i do when i’m driving? I look at the road. Those big, wide yellow lines usually become quite obvious when you do that.
The only time I had a ticket to contest, I was 16, and the officer didn’t show up at the courtroom. The judge decided I was guilty anyway, because my dead father didn’t testify on my behalf. :mad:
It’s people who are very familiar with a road (IOW most drivers on that route) and it’s associated lines and signs who often miss changes or new additions at first. There’s no claim that it’s not illegal to disobey a new rule, just that it’s normal and predictable human behavior to not notice it right away. People deciding on the new lines and signs as well as law enforcement are well aware of this and often put up warning signs stating “new speed limit” or “new traffic signal”. There are ads in papers sometimes, and law enforcement will often have a grace period where they issue warnings only to people they bust violating a new or changed law.
It may be technically legal to throw the books at every violator of a new rule right away, but it’s seen as pretty unfair, and there is a distinction there. There are close to 100 speed limit signs on my daily commute… I don’t read every one of them every trip because I know the limits in various places. It’s not unreasonable to expect me not to notice right away if one of the 100 signs I barely glance at gets changed. Noone’s saying it wouldn’t be illegal, but law enforcement is better served by going after people who know and don’t care about the limit rather than coming down hard on people who didn’t notice the sign change until the 2nd time they passed it.
mhendo - I never said what my friend did wasn’t illegal. I simply believe that:
Honestly, yes she is 100% guilty, but if I can introduce doubt or the cop doesn’t write in a response, I might save a friend several hundred dollars by doing an hour’s worth of work in my spare time. Who wouldn’t help a friend like that?
You should have moved for dismissal for want of prosecution. The judge could postpone the trial to a later date, however.
The officer is an officer of the court. Unless you are also an officer of the court, his testimony has more weight.
The practice here in SC is to go to court and plead guilty, if that’s appropriate. The judge will reduce the fine. I was stopped once, years ago, for speeding. At first the officer was rude and did not even say “Good morning.” But when he returned to my car, he was apologetic for being rude. He says that most drivers he stops are rude and deny any wrong doing. He could have given me a speeding ticket, which would increase my insurance, as it is a state offense. instead, he gave me a careless driving citation, which because it is a city offense, does not increase my insurance. He urged me, however, to go to court and the judge most likely would reduce the fine. The traffic judge knows all these officers and the judge usually goes with the officer as to fines. If the LEO testifies that the lady was very rude and denied the offense, the judge would not show any leniency.
BTW, i was found not guilty mainly because what the LEO wrote on his notes to the judge, but also because of another factor, not important to this OP.
I was in traffic court about 2 months ago (Tennessee). The process was get called up and the clerk reads your charge(s). Judge asks if you are guilty.
If you say yes, go to the fine/traffic school phase.
If you say no, you are sworn in, the Judge questions the LEO about how he determined you are guilty. Then you are allowed to ask the LEO any questions you would like, then the Judge decides. But there really isn’t a chance to say “I didn’t do that”, since the judge only directly talks to you to ask if you are guilty.
A couple of things.
The judge has probably dealt with the officer before. Highly doubtful that it was on a day to day basis as stated before. But enough that he may have a good idea of the truthfulness of the officer. If he perceived that the officer stretched the truth in a case 3 years ago he is likely to be skeptical in your case. Conversely if he has never found reason to doubt the officer’s word he will very likely believe the officer over you. But that still doesn’t guarantee he will agree with the officer on points of law.
Here in New Jersey judges are appointed not elected. When the assignment judge is reviewing the judge’s performance it does not look good if there is a 100% conviction rate. Everyone is not convicted.
Some judges are more (for want of another word) liberal towards defendants. We had a judge with the nickname of Let 'em Leave Steve.
Even if the judge believes the officer’s observations he may feel he is interpreting the law wrong.
More when I think of it.
Yeah, the best way to beat a ticket used to be pleading not guilty and hope the cop doesn’t show up. Doesn’t work as well as it used to.
This comes up a lot and I always have to say it greatly depends on the jurisdiction. In the town I work in they have stopped sending subpoenas to cops for municipal court to cut down on overtime. So the first time you go to court the officer will absolutely not be there. They will of course offer a plea bargain. If you say you want a trial they will send you away with the assurance that you will get a subpoena in the mail. That’s after you wasted hours of your time. When you next come into court the officer will probably be there. If not they will probably try and find out why not but usually give him another chance since time conflicts do happen. So you waste several more hours and have to come back again. Up to you if it is worth your time.
As for the OP, in my experience a lot traffic trials don’t hinge on if the officer is telling the truth or not. Many people who wish to fight their tickets seem to hinge their arguments on irrelevant points that they think are important. That is with people who represent themselves. They think they are going to get their Perry Mason moment.
“Officer were there other cars behind me?”
“Yes”
“Were they going the same speed as me?”
“Yes”
“Why didn’t you pull over them!”
“Because I can’t pull over everybody.”
When their irrelevant point does not get the reaction the wanted the whole thing falls apart. I’ve seen a guy bring in an invoice to prove that his speedometer was inoperable. For some reason he didn’t realize he was confessing to the judge that he was guilty of a further equipment violation in addition to the speeding.
Bottom line is there really is no incentive to lie. No one cares if I lose a case in traffic court. If I wanted to be a dick and write a lot of tickets I would just start pulling people over and writing tickets for going 5mph (or 3 or 1) over instead of my personal cut off of 15. No need to lie and jeopardize my livelihood over a stupid ticket.
To answer my question: yes
After making the deputy look like an idiot buy not knowing what the traffic controls were at that intersection.
Showed that the deputy could not clearly see the frame of the car moving or if the tires kept rotating.
Gave a coherent explanation to the Judge that not only was I aware of the traffic controls at that intersection but also that I was aware that particular intersection could be dangerous and running that stop sign was suicidal.
Proved the deputy did not look at my insurance card though he testified that he did (impeached his credibility).
The judge found me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on:
Everyone drives unsafely occasionally
The deputy probably observed my headlights moving (although given opportunity he did not testify as to that fact)
He wouldn’t have given me a ticket if I weren’t guilty.