# Michigan traffic court defense strategies? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 18, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452 "2009-07-18T16:43:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/21 "2009-07-30T15:03:42Z")
Since the trial is over, I would like to reiterate the advice listed by Finagle, and that is if you are having or suspect overheating problems, the best course of action is to stop the car. Driving faster is not better, and disregarding stop signs and such in order to continue is also bad. While I sympathise with the fact that you might be broke and have no cell phone or other way to call for help, unless you were in critical need of medical care, the best course of action would have been too stop and call a tow service. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/22 "2009-07-30T15:44:42Z")
> [@crazyjoe](#): > > While I sympathise with the fact that you might be broke and have no cell phone or other way to call for help, unless you were in critical need of medical care, the best course of action would have been too stop and call a tow service. Doesn’t the first half of this statement logical negate the second half? How is the best course of action something already ruled out? (tow trucks don’t work for free) ---
**Author:** ![MrFloppy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@MrFloppy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrFloppy)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/23 "2009-07-30T17:06:38Z")
Wow. Michgan traffic court sucks. They have a prosecutor? For a minor speeding case? FWIW and anecdotally, in MD, you appear before a judge in a packed room full of similar offenders. You are called to the front, the policeman that issues the ticket stands up and you plead your case. I’m sure there are bad-ass judges but I’ve never been in front of one. In 20 years, I’ve had 5 tickets - all speeding between 15 and 20 over. In two of them, the cop didn’t show up - instant not guilty. In the other three I got no points, probation before judgement and a fine. A prosecutor??? ---
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/24 "2009-07-30T18:33:42Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Doesn’t the first half of this statement logical negate the second half? How is the best course of action something already ruled out? (tow trucks don’t work for free) Well I guess it’s either that or simply accept the risk that you’re going to get a ticket. And there is no such thing as a $45 ticket anymore. Complaiing that “I had to speed because I’m broke” doesn’t seem like a valid argument to me. ---
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/25 "2009-07-30T18:35:33Z")
> [@MrFloppy](#): > > Wow. Michgan traffic court sucks. They have a prosecutor? For a minor speeding case? > > FWIW and anecdotally, in MD, you appear before a judge in a packed room full of similar offenders. You are called to the front, the policeman that issues the ticket stands up and you plead your case. I’m sure there are bad-ass judges but I’ve never been in front of one. > > In 20 years, I’ve had 5 tickets - all speeding between 15 and 20 over. In two of them, the cop didn’t show up - instant not guilty. In the other three I got no points, probation before judgement and a fine. > > A prosecutor??? He did say he requested a formal, rather than an informal, hearing. For those I would expect a prosecutor to appear. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/26 "2009-07-30T23:01:43Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Doesn’t the first half of this statement logical negate the second half? How is the best course of action something already ruled out? (tow trucks don’t work for free) Not if you have AAA or a similar service. And really, if you don’t have something like that, \*and \*you can’t afford a tow truck- then take the bus. ---
**Author:** ![Harry061746](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/bcef8e/32.png) [@Harry061746](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harry061746)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/27 "2013-02-07T19:25:57Z")
Sadly; from your description, you were doomed from the start. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/28 "2013-02-07T19:58:54Z")
DWD: Driving while [un]Dead ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/29 "2013-02-07T22:34:58Z")
In the hope of adding something useful (which I think hasn’t been mentioned already) to this zombie thread, it should be mentioned that OP apparently misinterprets the Basic Speed Law in California. It is _never_ legal to drive faster than the posted speed limit, regardless of road conditions. And it is never legal to drive faster than is safe for the road conditions, regardless of posted limit. In other words, the speed limit is whatever is safe for conditions, or the posted limit, whichever is less. From the [California Driver Handbook](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/speed_limits.htm): > [@](#): > > All [posted] speed limits are based on ideal driving conditions. . . . > > Driving faster than the posted speed limit or driving faster than safe for current conditions on any road is dangerous and illegal. I would be surprised if this particular type of law is not the same, or similar, in all states. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/30 "2013-02-08T18:43:48Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Questions: > > (1): Are the speed laws in Michigan of the “presumed” variety, as in California and some other states? “Presumed” speed laws allow a speeder to legally argue that they were driving safely under the prevailing road and weather conditions and, even though they were exceeding the _prima facie_ posted speed limit, it nevertheless didn’t violate the state’s speed laws. Obviously, that’s the judge’s call and by no means a reliable argument (though it worked for me 2 out of the 3 times I tried it in California), but I can’t even _consider_ doing so if Michigan’s speed laws aren’t of that type. Ohio has such; 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.** [http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-3763.pdf](http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-3763.pdf) Pay a vist to a law library maybe of a college/university’s law school, or a main branch of a public library will have the MI Compiled laws. Look up the section you were charged with, after it will be Case law Annotations, such as would be in Ohio’s case I cited if I were looking in Ohio’s. See if any case listed helps. > [@](#): > > (2What do you folks think about these suggestions from Nolo and elsewhere: > > "You may also successfully argue that your actions were “legally justified” considering the circumstances of your alleged violation. For example, if you were charged with driving too slowly in the left lane, it is a legal defense in all states that you had to slow down to make a lawful left turn. In this situation you do not have to deny that you were driving significantly below the speed limit and causing vehicles behind you to slow down, but you can offer the additional fact that legally justifies your otherwise unlawful action. Such defenses can be very successful because they raise an additional fact or legal point, rather than simply contradicting the officer’s testimony. Scanning MI laws, while some affirmative defenses are codified, I did not find a “catch all” one. Some state’s specifically codify the defense of Necessity/Justication for all/some criminal acts, but since MOST traffic offense are considered “strict liability”, meaning no intent need be proven, the argument may fail. Some even codify, I know from past research “mistake of fact” and “mistake of law” as a defense. Of course arguing such is never a sure thing. The Model Penal Code, I believe, has them listed also. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/31 "2013-02-08T21:49:30Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > In the hope of adding something useful (which I think hasn’t been mentioned already) to this zombie thread, it should be mentioned that OP apparently misinterprets the Basic Speed Law in California. > > It is _never_ legal to drive faster than the posted speed limit, regardless of road conditions. And it is never legal to drive faster than is safe for the road conditions, regardless of posted limit. In other words, the speed limit is whatever is safe for conditions, or the posted limit, whichever is less. > > From the [California Driver Handbook](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/speed_limits.htm): > I would be surprised if this particular type of law is not the same, or similar, in all states. > **[State Traffic and Speed Laws](http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html#mixed)** > > List of speeding and reckless driving laws As this link shows, speed limits in California are absolute for highways, but prima facie for lesser roads. As others have said, a prima facie speed limit basically means, “This is what we feel is the maximum speed by law and it will be given a lot of weight, but if you can convince us that you travelling at a greater speed was reasonable, then you are not guilty of speeding.” Absolute speed limits are just that: If the sign says 70, then there are no (well, very few) excuses for going 71. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/32 "2013-02-09T01:05:35Z")
Sometimes going faster than the limit is the more prudent choice. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/33 "2013-02-09T01:09:59Z")
Legal advice is best suited to IMHO, even if three years too late. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/34 "2013-02-09T02:57:07Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > [State Traffic and Speed Laws](http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html#mixed) > > As this link shows, speed limits in California are absolute for highways, but prima facie for lesser roads. As others have said, a prima facie speed limit basically means, “This is what we feel is the maximum speed by law and it will be given a lot of weight, but if you can convince us that you travelling at a greater speed was reasonable, then you are not guilty of speeding.” > > Absolute speed limits are just that: If the sign says 70, then there are no (well, very few) excuses for going 71. Sounds like what you are calling a “prima facie” speed limit means an implied limit where there is no actual physical sign posted. Wherever there is a physical sign posted, showing a speed limit, that limit is the absolute maximum legal speed regardless of conditions. However, the limit may be slower depending on conditions and any police officer’s judgment (or how magnanimous the judge is feeling that day). To be sure, most cops would not give a ticket for driving 71 in a 70 zone. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/35 "2013-02-09T04:41:41Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Sounds like what you are calling a “prima facie” speed limit means an implied limit where there is no actual physical sign posted. Wherever there is a physical sign posted, showing a speed limit, that limit is the absolute maximum legal speed regardless of conditions. [http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=22001-23000&file=22348-22366](http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=22001-23000&file=22348-22366) “Whenever the Department of Transportation determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the limit of 65 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of a state highway where the limit of 65 miles is applicable, the department may determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30 or 25 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared prima facie speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the highway.” If the default speed without a sign would be 65, it seems that a lower posted speed limit is not absolute. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/36 "2013-02-09T06:28:16Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > If the default speed without a sign would be 65, it seems that a lower posted speed limit is not absolute. I’m not sure how you and **jtgain** are reading this interpretation into the “prima facie” laws. The prima facie laws appear to describe many classes of roadways, and specify default speed limits for each class of roadway in the absence of any physically posted signage. This absolves the Department from the need to post a physical sign on _every_ piece of road – if a road has no sign posted, then its prima facie speed limit is given by the statute. This, I gather, is a speed limit you might be able to exceed, and get away with it, if conditions are really right and you can convince a judge of that. Good luck with that. But the Department may determine that a different speed limit (higher or lower) is suitable for any given piece of roadway, and post an explicit sign showing that limit. (And in fact, most roads, certainly within cities at least, have posted limits – even where that limit is just what the prima facie limit is.) When an explicit speed limit is thus posted, there is nothing prima facie about it. That posted limit is the absolute maximum limit. And even then, it is _still_ subject to “The Basic Speed Law”, which says that you cannot drive faster than is safe for the conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/37 "2013-02-09T06:50:27Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > When an explicit speed limit is thus posted, there is nothing prima facie about it. “…the department may determine and declare a **prima facie speed limit** of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30 or 25 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared **prima facie speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the highway**.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452/38 "2013-02-09T14:51:08Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Sounds like what you are calling a “prima facie” speed limit means an implied limit where there is no actual physical sign posted. Wherever there is a physical sign posted, showing a speed limit, that limit is the absolute maximum legal speed regardless of conditions. However, the limit may be slower depending on conditions and any police officer’s judgment (or how magnanimous the judge is feeling that day). > > To be sure, most cops would not give a ticket for driving 71 in a 70 zone. No. A prima facie speed limit means that the sign along side the road that says “Speed Limit 35” is the presumed safe maximum allowable speed. If you can show the judge by convincing evidence that your speed of 47mph was safe under the circumstances, then you can be acquitted. In an absolute speed limit jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter if Christ himself descends from heaven and tells the judge that 47mph was safe. The fact that the sign said 35 and you were going 47 means that you are guilty. Period. No discussion of what is safe or not. I agree with you that you had better have a dossier of evidence to prove that exceeding the posted limit was safe under the circumstances to try this defense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-traffic-court-defense-strategies/503452.md?page=1)