How do you think it will be expensive or inconvenient? On court days they are going to be there anyway. It will be expensive and inconvenient for you. For them it will be another day at work.
And you really haven’t answered the real question. Did you do it? Because by the OP it certainly sounds like you say you were. Not liking the the officer’s attitude is a horrible defense.
But a worse defense is “I’m guilty of speeding but it was only 14 mph over.”
They don’t get “tossed out” just for “showing up” - they either find you not guilty (usually cause the cop didn’t show up) or the judge reduces the fine/penalty/points based off of mitigation.
I’ve seen hundreds of traffic cases and every once in a while you’ll see someone try to “prove their innocence” - the most common is a variation of what I call the “third gear defense”. It goes like this:
“Your honor - the cop says I was going 55 in a 35, but I was in 3rd gear - my car doesn’t go 55 in third gear - therefore I wasn’t speeding”. These judges went to law school - that proves nothing.
Neither does what the cop said. It is a statutory violation - and all the sate has to do is provide evidence of your speeding (which if the cop shows up they have). Of you provide evidence that you weren’t speeding (you didn’t see a sign and videotaped it) - no judge is going to sit there and watch video of this. He/she will ask the cop if the sign was there. Sometimes the sign doesn’t even have to be there - as some areas have default speeding limits - it isn’t like if you TURNED on that road - you would necessarily see the sign.
Anyone who thinks cops are out there entrapping speeders is delusional (I know this isn’t what the OP said, but others seem to support this notion). Cops don’t have to entrap speeders - people speed all day long. Do people really think they have a hard time catching speeders that they need to make shit up?
Oh and cops are allowed to lie - I don’t know where people get this notion. The question is whether or not a dependent charged with a crime is guilty a not how honest the cop was. Of course they aren’t allowed to lie in court under oath - but who put a speed limit sign is irrelevant - and doesn’t matter for shit.
Also - there is a difference between making a mistake - and telling a lie. I don’t think you’ll get very far, but you are welcome to try. I’ve seen plenty of people accuse the cops of lying - and if memory serves - most didn’t get their fines reduced.
I’ve only seen one case where I recall someone totally BEATING a speeding ticket. The person presented an article from an academic journal regarding the accuracy of radar guns after cross examine the cop on various thing. The judge was fairly old, but said something like “young man what you have done is raised a doubt in my mind - so I’m finding you not guilty”. There may have been others, but that was the one that stuck out in my mind.
The way I used to get out of tickets (and I think the procedure has changed in my state) - was to show up to court to fight the ticket (you were automatically assigned a court date). If you paid the ticket up to and including the day of court - you could request a different court date. So if the cop wasn’t there - I’d go up and plead not guilty - and be found not guilty. If the cop was there I’d go out in the hallway - pay the ticket - and ask for a different court date. I think I did this twice. Both times the cop didn’t show up the second time.
I don’t think it works anymore in my state.
I’ve probably been pulled over 20-25 times in my life and have only gotten 3-4 tickets. I used to not have my registration - and noticed if I was nice (I’m always nice) the police were too. The vast majority of the time they’d write me up for not having my registration (which is a small fine) and let me go. This worked so consistently I’ve never found the need to have the registration in my car 
He doesn’t have to. This is something he’ll be asked about in court and that’s the only time he’s required to talk about it. You can subpoena the device he used and his training records in a discovery motion. But on the road he is not required to tell you anything except why he pulled you over and what he’s charging you with.
People seem to think an officer has to show them the reading on a radar or laser gun. This is false.
The cop not showing up thing is not true every where. For instance in my department we are not allowed and do not get a subpoena for the first appearance in traffic court. So if you initially ask for a court date the officer will not be there. When you talk to the prosecutor he’ll probably try to make a deal. If you want a trial they will set it on a different date and subpoena the officer. If he doesn’t show up for that date because of a scheduling conflict the judge will probably set another date. So that could be three trips to get it dismissed.
In other courts if you show up once and the officer doesn’t the case will be dismissed. There is not one answer.
If you have a clean driving record, go to court.
Seriously. I lived in Tennessee for 12 years. Unless they’ve changed things since I was there, here’s how it works.
#1 Show up to court. If the cop shows up, you WILL be found guilty. All that stuff you said won’t matter. They will find you guilty. In fact, you might as well say “no contest” when the judge asks you your plea.
#2 The judge will ask you how’s your driving record. If it’s clean (for several years back anyway), say so. Don’t bother lying, they can easily find out. Then the judge will give you probation for 30 days and there won’t be any points on your license unless you get another moving violation in that 30 days. If you keep your nose clean for 30 days, the slate is wiped clean and it’s like you never got the ticket at all.
#3 You still have to pay the fine even though they gave you probation. But it’s better than sending in your money. If you just send in the money, that’s a guilty plea and they will put points on your license. And when you renew your car insurance, your rates will go up if you have moving violations on your record.
#4 You might get lucky and the cop won’t show up, in which case they might find you not guilty and you don’t have to pay the fine, but don’t hold your breath. They might just reschedule the hearing. This is like trying to win the lottery.
Every time I went to traffic court in Tennessee, every single person I saw was found guilty, no matter how good a defense they put up. The ones who told the judge they had clean driving records all got probation.
IANAL
But doesn’t this all depend on several factors, including the jurisdiction and your record?
Last ticket I got, I planned to fight but I was really busy with work and hated to take the time off. I just sent in the fine. I hadn’t had a ticket for many years prior and it wasn’t going to impact my insurance rates.
So I figured, meh, I was actually guilty of speeding, just pay the stupid thing because it’s the path of least resistance.
First of all cops lie all the time and they lie in court on a regular basis; I have fought two tickets in court and the cops lied each time. The first case I lost when the cop brought a fellow cop who also lied and said he was with cop one when he gave me the ticket, he wasn’t there! I won the second time when I actually proved in court that the cop was lying and torn his testimony to pieces.
If you want to have any chance your either going to have to catch the cop in one of his lies or ask the cop to provide the calibration ticket for his radar on the day of the infraction (if he clocked you with radar) their radar has to be calibrated each day and if it wasn’t calibrated on that day, you win! If the cop fails to show, you win! If he shows and has the calibration, you probably lose. You might get a lenient judge who will take into account the fact that you drove 5 hours to fight the ticket, but I wouldn’t bank on it. Good luck!
Were you guilty? You still haven’t answered the question. Your best bet is to pay the ticket if you are guilty. You’re only hurting yourself otherwise.
Request a jury trial.
Yes, it depends on several factors, but let me state this again, more clearly. I lived in Tennessee for 12 years. I went to traffic court three times in three different counties in Tennessee. All three times that I went, every single person I saw was found guilty (including myself) and, every time, the judge asked them what their driving record was like and, if they said they had a clean record, the judge gave them 30 days probation (after which the record would be expunged). No points on the license, no insurance premium increase, but you still have to pay the fine.
If you mail in the money, you have no opportunity to talk to the judge, they put points on your license, it goes on your record, and your insurance premiums may go up when you renew your insurance.
It’s possible that they’ve changed things in the last few years. and YMMV. But I’m telling you what I saw,** in Tennessee**, which is where the OP said his ticket happened. Of course, if the OP has a lousy driving record then all this advice won’t help. If you tell the judge you’ve gotten four speeding tickets in four years, they’ll say “guilty. Pay the clerk on your way out.” If that’s your situation, then just mail in the money.
Either way, I agree with Loach, mmmiiikkkeee, and Suburban Plankton. Give up the idea of beating the ticket; it won’t work. But it’s still worth it to show up if you can get probation.
I make no claims about this strategy working in other states apart from Tennessee. I know for a fact it does NOT work in Oregon. In Oregon, you get points no matter what and probation is not an option. Also, they don’t have traffic school where you can take points off. The only way to get rid of points in Oregon is to wait two years for them to expire. But the insurance company can search your record going back three years, or even five, and adjust your premiums accordingly.
Three times does not make you an expert. Or even a good source of information since you don’t know the particulars in each case other than your own.
I did not say give up hope to beat the ticket. What I was saying is that everything he is harping on, specifically what the officer said after the stop, is irrelevant. If you have the facts on your side by all means fight it. I have seen plenty of people fight tickets and win. But your argument has to be based on the elements of the statute and not the demeanor of the officer. Were you speeding? Was the speed posted? If not is there a default speed in the state for unmarked roads? Was the speed measuring device calibrated? Was the officer’s certification up to date? Not if he was wrong about when school let out.
Or not. That is not always an option. Quite a few states do not allow jury trials for traffic court. Or for only traffic violations that have consequences of magnitude.
The last time I was in traffic court in Tennessee, which was less than 12 months ago, everyone with a clean driving record got traffic school, not probation. But it is still better than points on your license.
You lost me right here when you ventured into crazy territory. Defending your rights? What rights are being violated? You were speeding, you got a ticket. Big deal. Pay the fine and move on with your life.
True, but it probably makes me a better source of information than someone who’s only been to traffic court in TN twice, or only once, or has only been to traffic court in just one county in TN, or someone who has only been to traffic court in other states and is guessing what it’s like in TN. But I freely admit that I’m not nearly as a good a source of information as someone who’s been to traffic court in TN four times or more. If you find someone like that, please tell them to post in this thread right away.
I moved away from TN in the fall of 2004. Things might be different now than they were back then. Or my experiences might not be a representative sample.
Well, there you go.
Would questions about the cop’s statements or demeanor ever be useful, if the defendant wanted to question the cop’s credibility?
I suppose it’s possible. If the cop’s behavior was so off the charts that it caused the judge to question the cop’s credibility, and you were able to document it, assuming the judge found your evidence to be admissible, and you stuck to a believable story which doesn’t says “Yes I was speeding but…” and instead you say “No I was not speeding.” then maybe MAYBE the judge would find you not guilty.
I’m willing to bet you could sit in the back row of traffic court just watching people come in and plead their case, day after day after day, ten thousand cases over the span of a year and the scenario described above probably would only happen once or twice. So that means the odds it won’t work for any given case are 0.02% in favor vs. 99.98% against.
Rellamyn:
Your original post and the subsequent conversations seem to be discussing two different questions.
1) Can Rellamyn go to court and dispute the citing officer’s integrity before the presiding judge?
Much of the narrative talks about conversations with the citing officer and later discoveries which could seem to suggest the citing officer’s statement were untrue. I would strongly caution against challenging the integrity of any government official, from chambermaid to King. Furthermore, the evidence you discovered which you wish to bring up as challenges to the citing officer’s statements are extremely weak points of evidence.
A) “The reason he could not give me a warning was school was already out, lie #1” based on “I quickly found out from a local that school didn’t let out for another hour” counter-evidencing "“He said he couldn’t because school had let out early today and I could have hit one of the many kids running around.”
–Unless the local wasn’t aware that the school day was shortened for some reason and was answering based upon a regular school day’s schedule.
B) “I discovered there were 2 30 MPH signs (1 obviously old, the other possibly newer, lie # 2 lack of 3 signs as stated)” used to suggest “told me that I couldn’t have missed the signs because “he” (stating he himself) just put up 3 new 30 MPH speed signs in the past few weeks” was untrue.
–Unless those three new signs were implanted in two or three different locations, only one of which included the stretch of road on which Rellamyn was cited.
C) “I also found that from the point I entered the 30 MPH zone to the point I came to a stop was .5 miles (lie #3, nowhere near 2 miles).” The officer’s poor mathematical skills are not evidence of corruption. However, see below.
D) “Of course the DoT is responsible for the posting of speed limit signs (so unless this city operates differently and has cops go out and install brand new signs, lie #4)”
–Check before suggesting that’s a lie. Furthermore, you have no idea and would spend too much money trying to discover whether the citing officer is related to someone in the city/county infrastructural services department that installs speed limit signs. Maybe he was helping his nephew install a few signs, even by doing so little as gazing at the signs from 40 yards away to help make sure they set the poles straight up-and-down.
There is a consistent conspiracy theory that seems to suggest a greedy government only uses police officers as tools to squeeze money out of law-abiding citizens by issuing quota-levels of unnecessary citations for vehicular infractions. I’ll quote Colonel Potter and say **“Horse Puckey!” ** Not only is it exceedingly easy for LEO’s everywhere to catch bad drivers, it’s so easy that most traffic law violators are let off with just a warning or they’re completely ignored in favor of the more egregious hazard-makers. They’re not just doing their job in pulling people over and (ultimately) getting them to think again about their driving behaviors (if only to avoid stiffer penalties for multiple offenses), they’re doing the rest of us a favor!
By the way, population density isn’t much of a factor in setting the speed limit on a road. There are engineering factors like slope and visibility around curves and coefficient of friction and weather conditions, plus cross-traffic and even average customary speeds. The fact that Rellamyn “hadn’t even entered the populated area yet” is not a very good argument.
Also, if you admit to doing 30.01 miles per hour in a 30mph zone, most judges will find you guilty of exceeding the speed limit. That’s just how strict its gotten these days.
**
2) Can Rellamyn go to court and dispute the citing officer’s credibility before the presiding judge?**
This is very much a different approach.
Rellamyn could ask, in court, how the citing officer determined Rellamyn was speeding.
The citing officer would have to state the method he used and that method will have to be reasonable and logical.
Note that I’m not suggesting the citing officer won’t be able to do it. However, the method could be picked apart and its reliability examined.
Rellamyn could radically change his appearance (grow a beard, shave half your head, etc. but a simple change of clothes would be expected and therefore not radical enough) and ask the citing officer, in court, if he remembers the encounter and if Rellamyn appears the same as he did during that encounter. If the citing officer cannot remember Rellamyn’s appearance during the traffic stop clearly-enough, his powers of observation can be questioned.
Note that I’m not suggesting the citing officer won’t be able to do it or that such a radical change won’t affect other parts of Rellamyn’s life. However, there’s a chance the reliability of the citing officer’s perception can be examined.
**
If Rellamyn can raise reasonable doubts about the citing officer’s salient points of evidence and testimony, he may have a chance to beat the citation. However, it’s a very poor strategy to suggest the citing officer lacks integrity.**
I challenged a Failure to Obey Signs ticket eons ago. The officer said I turned right on a red where the signs said “No turn on Red.” and I was prepared to go in and show that the officer only assumed the light was red because the guy to the left of me stopped on a yellow. In court, the officer testified first and described the crazy intersection where we had met – but missed a few obvious landmarks. I started my testimony by noting the landmarks that the officer had left out of his drawing, then provided a photograph of the area*. My photograph showed the landmarks and they were clearly visible from where the officer said he saw me fail to stop. I didn’t even get to provide my planned argument; the judge said, “You’ve established doubt in the officer’s testimony so there’s no need to proceed any further. Not guilty; next case…”
—G!
*I had planned to use the photograph to support my argument that the officer could not have seen the color of the traffic light from his viewing angle.
Why 
It does not mean they did anything dangerous, and most likely what another off duty cop would have gotten off with a courtesy, why should they expect anything less that that very courtesy (they are equally human), and why should they not be royally pi$$ed off if they don’t.
Force does not equal right, never has never will.
Karma wins always
Maybe if they hadn’t been such jerks in their past life, karma wouldn’t have given them a ticket.