Worked for me- in CA. Mind you the street (PCH) had the speed limit lowered to a crazy low speed (25 MPH) just to gather income for the HBPD, it was 3 AM, and my speed was perfectly legal on either side of Hermosa Beach. (45MPH)
In fact, all I had to do was say “Present your honor”, then watch as the judge ripped the cop a new one, and said “Dismissed!”. Thus despite all the “Obey the damn law you scofflaw” BS being spouted off here- in this case the judge clearly thought the cops were the ones violating the law, since as he pointed out, my speed was “perfectly safe”. Mind you, extreme speed is dangerous and needs to be illegal. But speed traps are wrong also.
DrCube’s advice may well work. Except- if the OP’s ticket is a not a actual crime as in a misdemeanor, in that it’s a “infraction” then hiring a lawyer is a waste of money.
Sort of the situation here. IE Massachusetts where if you try to obey the speed limit (hey, i tried it the past few days) you always get tailgated. Let me tell you having a semi 10-15 feet behind you actually feels dangerous unlike speeding on the highway when you don’t have anybody around you. (Which in my case makes it fairly easy to argue they targeted my car correctly.)
I guess it’s worth looking into. Actually it was a laser unit, no idea how often those need to be calibrated. Oh I hear here the state troopers can use a representative so it’s rare for them to not show up. (Oh and it’s civil infraction fwiw.)
This really, really depends on the state and even which local court you’re in. There’s some where the process is “streamlined” so the cop doesn’t even need to show up and most discrepancies are hand-waved away. In practice, it’s pretty much impossible to outright defeat a ticket, although the judge may give you some sort of deal on points, etc. On the other hand there’s some states where challenging a ticket is actually like a mini-trial, where you show up and plead not guilty but then have to meet with the prosecutor, make discovery, and then come back later for the actual trial. My state is more like the latter, and you can even get a jury trial, although you’re held responsible for the costs if you lose*. It’s a lot easier to win, but not really worth the trouble. A lot of other states are somewhere in the middle, but I don’t think there’s that many where you have a good chance of actually beating a ticket simply by showing up.
*Side story-- one of the many radical militia groups that flourished in NW Montana and Northern Idaho during the Clinton years was undone when the founder demanded a jury trial for a $20 speeding ticket, presented some sort of malarkey about how the federally-imposed speed limits were illegal, lost, and then ended up getting arrested as a result of not paying all the court costs for the trial. Ironically, right about at the time he was getting locked up, Montana indeed did unshackle itself from those big-government speed limit rules and had its brief “reasonable and prudent” period.
If it comes down to it, you can always ask the prosecuting attorney for a “deferred disposition”. Basically, you pay some money to be supervised, and as long as you don’t get any more tickets within, say, 90 days, your ticket is dismissed. It’s not always cheaper than just paying the ticket outright, but you won’t have points or the insurance consequences.
I do not have the case in my head, but could find it with some library research, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that while exceeding the posted limit is a prima facie violation, and provides probable cause for an arrest or citation, the officer must prove that the excess speed was in fact UNreasonable for the conditions to gain a conviction. Of course the court is the arbiter.
So at least in Ohio, while not a defense to an initial seizure, one can argue it in court.
This is the case, I got lucky online.
VILLAGE OF BELLVILLE, APPELLEE, v. KIEFFABER, APPELLANT.
Cite as Bellville v. Kieffaber, 114 Ohio St.3d 124, 2007-Ohio-3763.
Criminal law — Municipal ordinance — Traffic regulations — Citation for
speeding that contains notice of both the prima facie offense and the basic
facts supporting that charge includes all the necessary elements of the
offense even if the citation does not also allege that the speed is
unreasonable for existing condition — Driver may rebut or negate the
prima facie case with evidence that the speed was neither excessive nor
unreasonable.
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
A citation for speeding that contains notice of both the prima facie offense and the
basic facts supporting the charge includes all the necessary elements of the
offense even if the citation does not also allege that the speed is unreasonable
for existing conditions. The driver may rebut or negate the prima facie case
with evidence that the speed was neither excessive nor unreasonable.
(Cleveland v. Keah (1952), 157 Ohio St. 331, 47 O.O. 195, 105 N.E.2d 402,
approved and followed.)
So, by permitting this DEFENSE, the OSC has ruled that a defacto prima facie violation is not always fatal for the driver.
Obviously this whole issue is state-specific, but let’s turn back to California. Here are two relevant statutes:
22350 is affectionately called the “Basic Speed Law”. It gets cited when the officer can articulate you are driving too fast under the specific conditions. This is the law that gets cited when you are speeding through a school zone, or reading a book while you drive, or going 55 in a 35 in town. If you show up in court, the officer has to prove why you were driving at an unreasonable speed under the circumstances. Obviously, in this case, arguing that you were driving at a reasonable speed is perfectly valid (and might even be persuasive, i.e. raise a reasonable doubt).
Now, compare that with 22349(a). This is the section that gets cited on the freeways. All that is required for a violation is that you were driving more than 65 miles an hour. Typically this gets proved with radar/laser or pacing. In that case, showing up and arguing that you were driving over 65 but it was reasonable under the circumstances… that’s not a defense, that’s a confession and will be treated as such.
AS others have said, that is highly depend on location. I have tried to fight two tickets, one in upstate New York, and one in Honolulu. Neither went all that well.
In NY, the ticket was issued by park rangers at a (locally) known speed trap (major road that went through a park and speed limit drops about 20mph as you cross an intersection). Despite the fact that the judge clearly hated the park rangers, they did not need to show up, and he could not dismiss it. He did give me the smallest allowed fine, but he did that for every ticket issued by them.
In Honolulu, it was not speeding but a red a light violation. It was during a downpour and I had a witness that due to standing water I could not stop in time. The officer did not show, the judge did not allow witnesses, and he dismissed my defense with the comment that the ticket did not mention rain, so it must not have been raining. Result was I had to pay the full fine, plus court fees for about $180 more than if I had just paid the fine.
As a habitual speeder in TX, I can say this is the best that you can really hope for here. Your state may be different. Before the points system was adopted, I just paid the full fine, and went on my way. I only get tickets every 2 years or so, so the probationary period is really a non-issue. But my points would probably add up mightily if the “deferred disposition” system didn’t exist.
By and large, I think that “knowing” your speed isn’t unreasonable under the circumstances isn’t going to be an effective defense. Going 90 in my car, with an alert me at the wheel, in clear weather, with no traffic probably isn’t more dangerous than the same situation at 65. My mother in my car, or me in my mother’s car is a different set of circumstances, and 90 would be taking terrible risks. Either way, if nabbed for speeding, I knew what the limit was. I pay the fine, so I can least be an honest miscreant.
This is absurd. You will NEVER get a ticket for driving at or just below the speed limit.
As an aside, a doctor was pulled over for speeding on a toll road on a sunday morning driving to the hospital in response to an emergency. The judge found him guilty anyway.
On freeways the speed limit should be 80 just about everywhere, its just 65 so they can add revenue to the department at will, which should be criminal but hey people need to get involved in politics to change this stuff and we generally don’t for whatever reason. It’s just an annoying scam but hey we get the government we deserve and that’s that.
We’re well past the Basic Rule days where drivers had some discretion in determining a safe speed for their driving. Depending on the officer or judge, an experienced driver with good vision and a well-maintained car in good driving conditions could argue that he was entitled to drive faster on the same stretch of road than an older person driving on bald tires on a rainy day.
And if it were 80 some people would be saying the only reason it’s not 95 is so police can add revenue. There are actually few freeways where having everyone driving 80 would be reasonably safe… certainly not anywhere near even a modestly-sized city.
This has happened quite a few times right here in CA. Mostly, it when you drive too slow in a left lane. If you’re in the far right lane, you generally are OK, unless you’re REALLY slow.
If you are going to speed limit, but on a one lane road (each way) and there are turn-outs and signs “slow traffic yield” or "slow traffic use turn-outs’ and you get more than 5 cars backed up behind you, you can & will get ticketed, speed limit or no.