How do I beat a speeding ticket?

[Loach]

[QUOTE=pkbites]
Are you phoning them in from the scene? I know that’s what Milwaukee does.

The department I was on had us dictate reports on micro cassettes. Clerical staff would type them up within 48 hours. We also kept a notebook, which we had to turn in when full, had an activity log in squad cars we had to make an entry into every 15 minutes whether we did anything or not, and had a shift log that each officer had to fill out giving a brief synopsis of his shift. :rolleyes:

Since retiring from there I took a part-time position with another agency. We type our own reports using templates on the computer. I keep my own notepad. No more notebook/squad logs (except milage).
And only the shift commander fills out a shift log.
[/QUOTE]

I have to type them (poorly). Thank god for spellcheck. It’s all in the computer. Once you put a persons info in then you can pull it back up for another report. Saves a lot of time when dealing with frequent flyers. The reports get done in the car. Once you click complete a supervisor can then review and approve or request corrections. A lot easier than when it was all done by pen (back in the dark ages, four years ago). No activity log. Yet. And still people complain.

[John_DiFool]

[QUOTE=Loach]

Just about everytime I have seen someone go to trial they think they have found a flaw in the case and go into Perry Mason mode.
“Officer could you look at the ticket? You forgot to sign it!”
“You’re right I forgot to sign it”
“AhHA” looking around waiting for the judge to bang the gavel and dismiss.
Judge:“Did you write the ticket?” “Yes” “Ok Mr Smith you got anything else?”
You can just see the guy deflate when it doesn’t work the way he planned.

[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, and I’m glad to see a traffic court judge appear in this thread, but I’ve read about (see link in my post above) enough valid arguments being shot down by the judge on very flimsy grounds that I just know that some of these courts are of the Hopping Australian Kind (get you in to pay them the loot no matter what it takes, presumed guilty until “proven” guilty). [e.g.] See the OP in this thread. It’s an obvious (and arguably unconstitutional) conflict-of-interest when the court/police dept. depends on traffic fines to maintain its existence.

[John_DiFool]

[QUOTE=pulykamell]
Along the same lines, one of my high school girlfriends got pulled over for speeding in the suburbs. Her brilliant idea was to pop a contact out of her eye and tell the officer she was speeding because she wanted to get home quickly to put the contact into solution. :smack: Guess what? The officer let her off.
[/QUOTE]

My dad did this once-knew the cop had him nailed (my Dad always drove red cars, nice big fat targets in the best of circumstances), but kept speeding towards the nearest exit, drove into the nearest gas station, and ran into the bathroom. I think he got off on that one when he came back out…

[Balthisar]

So for you guys that don’t keep notebooks due to policy or whatnot, how do you recall the details during trial? I don’t mean for the purposes of letting anyone beat tickets, but, just, in all good conscience? That doesn’t sound right; I don’t mean that in an accusing tone… but what about other facts of the case? How was traffic that day? Is what the perp says about avoiding an accident possibly true? Is it possible you missed it? That kind of stuff.

[commasense]

Several posters here speak as if you’re worse off by going to court and pleading not guilty than just mailing in the ticket and pleading guilty. As if the judge will be pissed off for wasting his time by asserting your rights.

I can only speak to my experiences here in Maryland, but I certainly hope that there are no jurisdictions in the US in which one is treated more harshly for not automatically pleading guilty. We do still have the presumption of innocence in this country, don’t we?

In my experience, if you show up in court well dressed, act respectfully toward the police officer and the court, and state your case clearly and briefly (don’t pretend to be a lawyer), chances are good that your fine and points may be reduced. (I am assuming you weren’t caught doing something really stupid, and don’t have an extensive record of infractions.) This can’t happen if you plead guilty by mail.

Conversely, IME the worst the judge is likely to do, unless you really piss him off, is give you the same penalty you would have gotten by mailing it in. So unless the max fine is trivial, and/or the cost of your time is high, going to court is a wash at worst and can be a net gain at best. (Having to pay court costs, as in Virginia, would change the equation, obviously.)

And the real best-case scenario is if the officer doesn’t show up, which in Maryland means the case is dismissed. But you have to go to court to have a chance at that outcome.

If that’s the way it’s treated in your state, you might consider gaming the system by calling the court and asking to reschedule your court date. Your initial date is almost certainly one on which the officer will be testifying on many other tickets he issued. By rescheduling you may get a date he can’t make.

[Loach]

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
Fair enough, and I’m glad to see a traffic court judge appear in this thread,
[/QUOTE]

I think you missed something in my posts. I’m a cop not a judge.

[QUOTE=Balthisar]
So for you guys that don’t keep notebooks due to policy or whatnot, how do you recall the details during trial? I don’t mean for the purposes of letting anyone beat tickets, but, just, in all good conscience? That doesn’t sound right; I don’t mean that in an accusing tone… but what about other facts of the case? How was traffic that day? Is what the perp says about avoiding an accident possibly true? Is it possible you missed it? That kind of stuff.
[/QUOTE]

I probably wasn’t clear enough. I don’t keep a notebook. Everything I need to say in a report I put in the report. I use the report to refresh my memory. For traffic tickets there is no report. I write notes on the back of the ticket in the space provided. Also you can believe it or not, I have a very good memory. Add that to the fact that I’m not a big ticket writer and I can assure you I know what I am talking about when I get on the stand*. I also don’t write borderline tickets. If I wrote you a ticket there is no grey area. If you can convince me that there were extraneous circumstances around your bonehead driving then I will let you off without a ticket. If I wrote you a ticket you were not avoiding an accident and my testimony will reflect that. I have never lost a traffic case. Which sounds more impressive than it is. Most people know they were wrong and are happy to just get the chance to plea to a lesser charge which I never have a problem with.

*There are exceptions. I once got subpeoned for a civil case (injury) involving a motor vehicle accident that I investigated and wrote the report on. The accident was almost three years old when it came to a trial. According to my report it was a fender bender with no reported injuries at the time. There is no way that I could remember that accident. I thought I was going to get hammered on the stand. I didn’t really care, it was a civil matter and it didn’t matter to me which side won. Both attorneys were aware that there was no way that I could remember such a minor incident and they both just asked me questions off the report and didn’t ask for any personal recollections. I think they just wanted the report to be on record for when the parties involved got on the stand.

[Gfactor]

[QUOTE=commasense]
Several posters here speak as if you’re worse off by going to court and pleading not guilty than just mailing in the ticket and pleading guilty. As if the judge will be pissed off for wasting his time by asserting your rights.

[/QUOTE]

The judge might or might not be annoyed, more likely bored if you’ve got a bullshit defense. Nevertheless, it can cost more to plead not guilty and lose. Missouri exemplifies the worst case scenario for this sort of thing:

The court is not bound by the Fine Collection Center fine schedule and will assess additional costs and possibly a higher fine.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id=1919 :eek:

[Loach]

[QUOTE=commasense]
And the real best-case scenario is if the officer doesn’t show up, which in Maryland means the case is dismissed. But you have to go to court to have a chance at that outcome.
[/QUOTE]

As I said upthread this is a dangerous assumption to make. Don’t count on this to get out of a ticket. I have no doubt that this is the case in some jurisdictions but certainly not all. In the town I work in it is not the case. I was deployed for a year. I assure you all my cases were not dismissed. I have a friend in another town where the cops are actually forbidden to go to court. They can only go in when they are called specifically for a trial and nothing else. Cuts down on the overtime.

[UltraVires]

What about this argument:

The officer is reading from his notes. He doesn’t specifically remember the day he pulled me over. He doesn’t remember me, my car, my clothes, nothing because he pulls 15 people over per day.

So, since he remembers nothing, am I not effectively denied my right to confront the witnesses (him) against me?

He is just reading his notes and can give no specific answers to any probative questions I might ask which could lead to a doubt on his part. Therefore…should be dismissed? Right?

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Balthisar]
Oh, yeah, you say that from a country without a constitution!
[/QUOTE]

No, I don’t, though we didn’t wrest full control of it from the grubby tea-stained hands of the British until 1982.

[Gfactor]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
What about this argument:

The officer is reading from his notes. He doesn’t specifically remember the day he pulled me over. He doesn’t remember me, my car, my clothes, nothing because he pulls 15 people over per day.

So, since he remembers nothing, am I not effectively denied my right to confront the witnesses (him) against me?

He is just reading his notes and can give no specific answers to any probative questions I might ask which could lead to a doubt on his part. Therefore…should be dismissed? Right?
[/QUOTE]

And therefore nobody should ever lose a contested ticket case.

Or maybe there are some rules of evidence that deal with this. These exceptions permit the introduction into evidence of the ticket and the officer’s notes:

(5) Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’ memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803

(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

*Id. *

This rule lets the officer review notes to refresh recollection:

Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh Memory

Except as otherwise provided in criminal proceedings by section 3500 of title 18, United States Code, if a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either–

(1) while testifying, or

(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice,

an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.

Lack of memory does not equal denial of confrontation. *E.g., * http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\0501\opa032027-0118&invol=1
http://www.apltwo.ct.state.az.us/Decisions/CR20060024_OPINION.pdf

[A.R.Cane]

[QUOTE=commasense]
Several posters here speak as if you’re worse off by going to court and pleading not guilty than just mailing in the ticket and pleading guilty. As if the judge will be pissed off for wasting his time by asserting your rights.

I can only speak to my experiences here in Maryland, but I certainly hope that there are no jurisdictions in the US in which one is treated more harshly for not automatically pleading guilty. We do still have the presumption of innocence in this country, don’t we?

In my experience, if you show up in court well dressed, act respectfully toward the police officer and the court, and state your case clearly and briefly (don’t pretend to be a lawyer), chances are good that your fine and points may be reduced. (I am assuming you weren’t caught doing something really stupid, and don’t have an extensive record of infractions.) This can’t happen if you plead guilty by mail.

Conversely, IME the worst the judge is likely to do, unless you really piss him off, is give you the same penalty you would have gotten by mailing it in. So unless the max fine is trivial, and/or the cost of your time is high, going to court is a wash at worst and can be a net gain at best. (Having to pay court costs, as in Virginia, would change the equation, obviously.)

And the real best-case scenario is if the officer doesn’t show up, which in Maryland means the case is dismissed. But you have to go to court to have a chance at that outcome.

If that’s the way it’s treated in your state, you might consider gaming the system by calling the court and asking to reschedule your court date. Your initial date is almost certainly one on which the officer will be testifying on many other tickets he issued. By rescheduling you may get a date he can’t make.
[/QUOTE]

I, for one, am not implying that you should not exercise your civil rights, but going to court w/ no reasonable defense, or some whacky idea that you’re going to play Perry Mason and leave everyone speechless, is just an execise in futility and a waste of public resources. Most jurisdictions provide for pleading guilty, or NOLO and submitting a written explanation of your circumstances. It’s worked for me several times, including one case where the charges were dismissed and my check was returned, uncashed.

[Gfactor]

[QUOTE=Gfactor]
Lack of memory does not equal denial of confrontation. *E.g., * http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\0501\opa032027-0118&invol=1
http://www.apltwo.ct.state.az.us/Decisions/CR20060024_OPINION.pdf
[/QUOTE]

And a civil ticket case (they are civil infractions in most jurisdictions) isn’t a criminal proceeding anyway. The Sixth Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/ (Emphasis added.)

State law might offer similar protections, though.

[copperwindow]

If I’m found guilty, can I appeal and drag the officer (and his notes) back into court? How does the officer even find his notes from that day, three months later?

[susan]

How does the officer even find his notes from that day, three months later

1. The computer.
2. I presume that your hearing is transcribed and the notes entered into evidence.

[Loach]

[QUOTE=copperwindow]
If I’m found guilty, can I appeal and drag the officer (and his notes) back into court? How does the officer even find his notes from that day, three months later?
[/QUOTE]

Again I can only comment on how it happens in the court I work in. If you wish to appeal you have 30 days to make the request. The appeal is heard at the superior court level (county court) by a superior court judge. Just like with criminal appeals it’s not a new trial. The officer does not go to the appeal. No new evidence can be entered, that boat has sailed. The appeal is done solely on the basis of the written transcript of the original trial. If all procedures were followed correctly then you are going to lose the appeal.

[Larry_Borgia]

[QUOTE=copperwindow]
If I’m found guilty, can I appeal and drag the officer (and his notes) back into court? How does the officer even find his notes from that day, three months later?
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t it be easier just to pay the ticket?

[pulykamell]

[QUOTE=Loach]
Again I can only comment on how it happens in the court I work in. If you wish to appeal you have 30 days to make the request. The appeal is heard at the superior court level (county court) by a superior court judge. Just like with criminal appeals it’s not a new trial. The officer does not go to the appeal. No new evidence can be entered, that boat has sailed. The appeal is done solely on the basis of the written transcript of the original trial. If all procedures were followed correctly then you are going to lose the appeal.
[/QUOTE]

And the filing fee isn’t worth it, IMHO. I was considering appealing a written decision on just a simple parking ticket, and the filing fee was a non-refundable $93. Even if I won the case, I’d be out more money than the parking ticket itself ($50). It was a battle I chose not to pick.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
Wouldn’t it be easier just to pay the ticket?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but now it’s the principle of the thing.

[Telemark]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
He is just reading his notes and can give no specific answers to any probative questions I might ask which could lead to a doubt on his part. Therefore…should be dismissed? Right?
[/QUOTE]

What doubt are you referring to? Do you have reason to doubt the officer’s notes?