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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
I think you missed something in my posts. I’m a cop not a judge.
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.
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:
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.
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?
No, I don’t, though we didn’t wrest full control of it from the grubby tea-stained hands of the British until 1982.
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:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803
*Id. *
This rule lets the officer review notes to refresh recollection:
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
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.
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:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/ (Emphasis added.)
State law might offer similar protections, though.
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?
- The computer.
- I presume that your hearing is transcribed and the notes entered into evidence.
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.
Wouldn’t it be easier just to pay the ticket?
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.
Yeah, but now it’s the principle of the thing.
What doubt are you referring to? Do you have reason to doubt the officer’s notes?