That’s kind of what I was asking about the notebooks for. Notes aren’t all inclusive. There can facts – mitigating circumstances – not present in the notes.
I think most of us are guilty of presuming guilt, now that I review some of the other statements. Officers make mistakes, and machines aren’t infallible. Just because lots of people speed doesn’t mean you were speeding at the moment you were stopped. (I’m not suggesting that this is the majority of the cases, either.)
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/civil_infractprocedure.pdf
I’m going to make a crazy suggestion now. Our initial assumption is true! The number of jurisdictions in the U.S. in which you’d be able to commit a traffic infraction and be one of the first 10,000 to receive a citation for it is zero or nearly zero. How does he find his notes? Why not ask how he eats breakfast. It’s just not that complicated.
**pkbites ** and **Loach ** have both talked about the systems they’ve used. I’m sure that there are departments that are less careful about managing their information. I wouldn’t pin my hopes on the one in question being among them.
If you want to fight the ticket, go for it. Just don’t blow it by assuming you are the smartest guy in the room.
While I absolutely agree that you shouldn’t play lawyer (unless you really are one, and maybe not even then), my point was that you don’t need a defense: you are presumed innocent, and it’s up to the state to prove your guilt. IME, simply going to court and saying something like, “I didn’t think I was driving in an unsafe fashion,” pointing to one’s good record, or even saying nothing, is more likely to reduce the fine and points than pleading guilty by mail.
Although I have had a parking ticket overturned by mail (after I sent them pictures that showed there were no “No Parking” signs in the area in question) I would never expect anything but the maximum penalty from pleading guilty by mail on a moving violation. I’m interested to hear that it can happen, but (call me cynical) I suspect it’s the exception rather than the rule.
The presumption of innocence does not apply to civil proceedings. E.g., Agomo v. Fenty, http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/pdf/03-CV-813.PDF
That said, most traffic courts do require the municipality to meet some burden of proof (the case notes that in D.C. the standard is clear and convincing evidence) in a contested ticket case.
The broader point here is that trials cost money. If you lose, you can be required to pay for the trial. Also, offering a fine less than the maximum in exchange for not wasting the court’s time is likely to screen out the time-wasters. It’s a lot like plea bargaining. Some jurisdictions do it, some don’t. Prosecutor | Oakland County, MI (noting “no plea bargaining” policy).
Let’s say that there was another car near me, and I felt the officer clocked him instead of me. If I ask the officer about this on the stand, then all I will get is “I don’t recall” s, instead of an affirmative answer (and IMHO, a true confrontation of a witness against me) where he may say “You could be right” or “No, I saw that car, and had my laser device pointed at YOUR 2003 Toyota Camry”.
Gfactor has cited some excellent sources as to how the courts hold that I am wrong, but I think it is just another way to take money from you while getting around some basic rights.
How about this: Why doesn’t the government do away with crimes, and make everything a civil offense? You commit murder, then the government becomes a civil party and “commits” you to confinement for life? Then they get around that pesky “beyond a resonable doubt” nonsense…
The one time I contested a moving violation in court, the following happened:
Bunch of folks contesting their violations are packed into the courtroom. Judge gives two options:
Accept a supervisory judgment. You pay a fine (the same as the full fine), but it doesn’t go on your record/insurance can’t get a hold of it unless you get another moving violation within 6 months. If you do get another moving violation within six months, both appear on your driving record.
Plead not guilty and have your case heard after everybody else in the courtroom is taken care of
I was going in with the intention of contesting my violation, but decided just to accept the supervisory judgment. Illinois doesn’t have a point system. I don’t even know how a point system works, but here if you get a moving violation and it goes on your record, your insurance rates generally go up. You normally have an option of paying the fine and an extra fee to sit through a four-hour traffic school class to avoid having your moving violation show up on your driving record.
If I plead guilty through mail, my insurance rates would’ve been jack up.
If I plead guilty with traffic school, I would have to pay an additional cost and sit through four hours of traffic school on a Saturady, but my insurance would be none the wiser.
By going to court, I spent less time, avoided getting the moving violation on my record, and paid the normal fine.
Your jurisdiction’s procedures may vary.
Addendum: I actually did end up getting another moving violation within six months of my supervision, but somehow the two court systems (Skokie and Chicago) never ended up checking with each other, so I have a clean record.
As an additional data point, my one experience with traffic court was in Mongomery County Maryland, where I went to contest a bogus ticket. At the beginning of the session, the judge explained what all of the legalese we would hear meant, and reminded us that we had the right to appeal should any of us be unhappy with the outcome. Everyone who plead guilty but offered some excuse or another had their fine and/or points reduced, and my ticket was dismissed completely.
I’m a muni court magistrate and often hear traffic cases. The OP will lose if he just argues that the officer can’t specifically remember what happened. I routinely let officers refer to their notes, just as I routinely let defendants refer to theirs; no one’s memory is perfect. A plausible explanation by the defendant of what happened, given in a concise, polite manner, will often result in me either acquitting, or imposing a reduced fine.
If the officer fails to appear on a routine traffic citation (speeding, running a red light, failure to wear a seatbelt, broken tail light, etc.), I dismiss the case. If it’s a higher-level misdemeanor (failing to have a driver’s license, driving under suspension, hit-skip, etc.) and the officer fails to appear, I’ll usually grant the prosecution a continuance.
No one will be penalized for insisting on a trial in my court. That is, of course, your right, and I’ll be in court no matter what you decide. I actually like presiding at trials. But making arguments that you know - or reasonably should know - are specious will not please me.
I suggest the OP go to court well before his ticket is scheduled to come up, so that he can see what goes on, what works and doesn’t before the judge or magistrate who’ll hear his case.
What’s the most preposterous argument you’ve heard as a magistrate?
Start with these books–
Speeding Excuses That Work: The Cleverest Copouts and Ticket Victories Ever
How to Fight Your Traffic Ticket and Win!: 206 Tips Tricks and Techniques
Thanks for your input, and I appreciate you posting. But I can’t help but feel you have been sucked in by the rapid processing of the traffic court for revenue enhancement.
Assuming it is a civil infraction and not criminal, so both parties (me and the state) are on equal footing. You let the officer refer to his notes (and I to mine as you said) and I state that I observed “officer obviously intoxicated, can’t operate laser device”. Also when given the citation, “Officer stated that if I performed fellatio, said ticket would be dismissed.” When asked about specifics, I said, “I can’t recall the exact circumstances”.
Do you also agree and side with my notes as having the same value as the officer’s notes, because “no one’s memory is perfect”?
I know this is unlikely, but the officer’s notes will be irrefutable because he can’t possibly answer any question which conflicts with them. He doesn’t recall anything else.
And as I look at my notes, all I remember is that the officer asked me to perform fellatio, but all else is hazy.
Is everything equal, or is it a turnstile for citizens to pay the driving tax to our rulers?
Be sure to wear a kangaroo costume to court.
NB. this happened in a court near my hometown
Surprisingly few, actually. I had a guy on a DUI case who came into court obviously intoxicated, which is not exactly a recipe for success. I’ve had lots of people who say they took off their seatbelt to get their license and registration from the glovebox, and that’s why the officer thought they weren’t wearing their seatbelts. Several defendants have complained that police didn’t immediately pull them over upon observing a traffic violation, and the police officers, or I, then patiently explain that sometimes there’s a short delay due to traffic conditions, the need to run a check on the car’s plates, etc. Perhaps the most memorable was the guy who must have heard Arlo Guthrie’s “Alice’s Restaurant” a few times too many and came in with lots and lots of exhibits - photos of the intersection, his car, the adjoining streets - from every possible angle. Even the officer was a bit tickled that this guy did his homework so thoroughly. I ended up acquitting him.
Oh, and I still remember the guy who said, with apparent sincerity, “You look fresh and clean, Your Honor.” :dubious:
I’ve actually posted in another thread about helping a judge write a decision barring a police officer’s testimony where the officer was in a “minimally-marked” zone car which, in the judge’s view, wasn’t different enough from other cars on the road to inform the average driver that it was a bona fide cop stopping him. The judge concluded that the officer was writing tickets just to raise revenue, and not for a legitimate public-safety or law-enforcement purpose. Can’t say that I disagreed with him. See Cleveland v. Martinez (2003), 126 Ohio Misc.2d 36.
I do everything I can to ensure that both prosecution and defense receive a fair, impartial trial in my courtroom. If there is insufficient evidence to convict, I acquit. If I believe the cop and not the defendant and the offense has been proven, I convict.
If, in the hypothetical you pose, you could remember nothing other than that, and the officer vehemently and credibly denied it, and the elements of the offense had been met, I would convict you. I’d be very doubtful that you’d remember nothing other than that eye-opening testimony. Sounds like the kind of encounter which would be burned into your cerebral cortex, not just another routine traffic stop which an officer might confuse with a hundred or a thousand others. I would also encourage you to file a police-misconduct report with the department; care to invite a perjury prosecution?
There’s no turnstile in my court. And in a democracy, you have no “rulers” other than those whom you, I and the other voters elect.
I told one I had to pee when I ran a stop sign in my neighborhood. He was dubious: “Is that true? You really have to pee?” “Yes, I really do! My house is at the end of the block. Please just follow me there and give me a ticket after I go, okay? Please?” He followed, I went in, I came out = no ticket. Then again, I was young and lovely at the time…
And when the judge bangs his desk with that hammer thingy–that’s your cue to start arguing.
Seriously though, I’ve seen the ol’ beat-the-ticket-in-court backfire in a bad way many times. One time I witnessed the slow grinding wheel of justice so thoroughly come down on a guy who was gonna beat a ticket that I had to rush out of the courtroom to keep from busting out laughing.
I know I’m spitting in the ocean but I always have to try. I have no doubt that in East Bumfuq Iowa and in some other towns that traffic tickets have been used to raise revenue. Do not presume that it is the case in most places. In New Jersey most of the money from traffic fines goes to the state, by a large percentage. What the town gets is basically enough to run the court. Pay the part time judge and prosecutor and the full time court staff. I have never been pressured to write tickets to generate revenue. The state would benefit from me writing more tickets but I have yet to hear from Corzine.
Thanks. I may have told this story here before, but it’s a classic. I once represented another attorney who had a speeding ticket. The jurisdiction in which the ticket was issued (not where I live now) worked along the lines described earlier in the thread: The best defense to a ticket was to request a continuance. The cop would not show up on the new date. The prosecution would move for a continuance. If you objected, the case was dismissed, unless as Elendil’s Heir notes, it was a more serious offense. Anyway, so there was a long line of cases, and it was time for docket call.
Court: Is the prosecution ready to go?
Prosecutor: Your honor, in cases A-M, we are ready to proceed. In cases N-Z the officer has not arrived and we request a continuance.
Court: Mr. N, do you object to the prosecution’s request?
Mr. N: Yes.
Court: Case dismissed.
Court: Ms. O, do you object to the prosecution’s request?
MS. O: Yes.
Court: Case dismissed.
(Mr. W patiently awaits his turn as the court repeats the dance with defendants P-V)
Court: Mr. W. Do you object to the prosecution’s request?
Mr. W: [in broken English] Your honor, I’m innocent. I want my day in court!
Court: Sir, the prosecution has requested a continuance because the witness against you is not here today, do you object?
Mr. W: No. I want my day in court.
Court: Sir, if you object, I’ll probably dismiss the case. Do you object?
Mr. W: I want my day in court.
Court: I’ll take that as an objection. Case dismissed. 
If it were me, I’d just pay the thing and be done with it. I got a speeding ticket once for passing a semi on the freeway and received a million pieces of advice that said to just show up for the court date and they’d knock a bunch of money off the cost of the ticket just because you were there.
I showed up to my court date, first in line, and still waited three hours for the thing to start. I was there with a couple other traffic offenders, we got bloody reamed by the judge in this very showy “don’t you know you were all about to murder innocent children, bystanders, and puppies with your stupid and reckless behavior?!?!” lecture and then, when I got called up, knocked two dollars off my ticket. It cost me probably $100 worth of my time to get lectured for speeding.
I’m a careful driver, but if I ever get a ticket again, I’m just paying at the stupid window. It’s not worth it.
In minor cases I have been known, in the interests of justice, to “construe” a defendant’s remarks, or pro se motion, in such a way as to help them, even if that’s not exactly what they had in mind.