That’s the question at stake, though: what’s the law? There’s a difference between following the posted speed limit and obeying the law, if the law is written as prima facie.
It won’t effect my employment, I got the cdl a few years back becuase I knew a guy with a truck and wanted to see if I could get it on the first try. Its more the challenge coupled with a little boredom.
Maybe not but this is all the excitement I get since I quit drinking.
I know it’s my choice and I’m no “fucking idiot” . Laugh all you want but the fact is exceeding a prima facie speed limit isn’t straight up breaking the law. It simply places the burden on me to prove I wasn’t being unreasonable. See Blathisar’s quote below.
Thank you.
Bozo. Right. I can drive at what reasonable speed I like completely legally. Maybe I’ll switch to a bench trial who knows. I feel I understand the system quite well. A highly visible traffic enforcement unit would slow things down considerably on that stretch of road. No need for citations at all, just ride around and watch traffic stack up behind you. They don’t though, they hide in bushes, write citations for most of shift and sit in court a few months later to help collect from people who had the gaul to contest. They’re obligated to prove their end and I’m obligated to prove mine, if I succeed in demonstrating I was being reasonable then I wasn’t breaking the law in the first place, that’s how prima facie speed limits work as I understand it.
That does seem where the confusion stems from. The “prima facie” means that the posted limit is the law “at first appearance” (unless proven otherwise). That means that an officer can give you a ticket for going less than the posted limit if it is obvious (can be proven) that the posted limit is unsafe. It also means that it is lawful to exceed the posted limit if it is obvious (can be proven) to do so. In the second case, however, we have a LEO attesting that it was unsafe to exceed the limit (otherwise, no ticket would be given). So, we have a situation where the opinion of the officer differs from that of the defendant. Like I said, most of the people who will show up for jury duty will most likely feel that obeying the posted limit is lawful and take the officer’s opinion over the defendant’s on what is safe. Even if he is successful in convincing the jury that a speed of 65 or 70 was should be the safe limit, he was clocked at 77, by his own admission he is guilty even using his own rules.
Yes, technically, the OP has an argument. One that has been made many times. I doubt he will be successful with this strategy. His best hope is that the officer won’t show, but being that he has a CDL (and that is part of the record), I think that would be an unlikely event. A good lawyer could keep this off his record, but it would likely cost more than just pleading guilty and paying the ticket. Fighting it by arguing “prima facie” might be successful (if he had good evidence that the officer was mistaken) in front of a judge. I doubt it would work in front of a jury, who doesn’t understand the law as well as the judge.
When I lived in Texas, it was widely believed that fighting a traffic ticket in front of a jury was more beneficial for the defendant than if front of a judge. However, the people I have talked to who have been through the process (me, included) indicate that that is not true. Most jurors are going to have little concern as to the driver’s belief as to what the safe speed should be and would rather trust the officer’s opinion on that issue.
I understand that it’ll be mostly my word against his. I understand that success as a pro se defendant is unlikely and that there’s entire profession that exists solely to do it for me( I object to this being nessessary for a solid defense, but sadly it is.)
My argument is pretty much that I belive I was traveling at a safe speed for the conditions. I believe that though I would be willing to be convinced otherwise.
If you can PROVE that your speed was safe for the conditions, using a strict definition for the word “prove”, then you win. Otherwise I think it doesn’t look promising.
Missed edit window: Where I said “you win” should say “you might win”
And his word as a law enforcement officer whose job is to protect the public interest and does this on a daily basis, will be weighed much more heavily than yours.
As I have said. Have fun, if you’ve got the time to waste doing this you will get to see the west Texas traffic court justice system up close. But make sure you bring your check book to pay your fine after you get your day in court!
Well, since you have clarified that your employment is not based on you possessing a CDL, I don’t think this decision is nearly as stupid as before. That call was based on when I worked for a trucking company that fired any driver who got a ticket with points attached on the spot. That was the basis for the “anything important on the line” part of my post. If it will just cost you money, go nuts. When you lose, just write it off as tuition for the school of life.
That said, my time in jail and conversations with my fellow inmates taught me that free legal advice is usually worth less than what you pay for it. Even a fifteen minute consultation with a local lawyer regarding your specific situation will probably improve your odds considerably, or at least will reduce your odds of being laughed out of the courtroom.
As to whether you’re better off with a judge or a jury, my general thought is as follows:
If you’re making an argument which has broad application, then no matter how valid the argument is, you’re probably better off with a jury. Because a judge sees a lot of these cases, and he’s part of the system and not looking to overturn it. If you present him an argument which would apply to (for example) 50% of the cases that come in front of him, then he’s extremely biased against ruling in your favor, based on the fact that he’d be effectively ruling against 50% of all traffic cases and overturning the system. In that case you might be better off with a jury, which would be less likely to appreciate the broader application of your specific argument, and also less likely to be concerned about the system-wide ramifications.
OTOH, if you have an argument which is based on your case being a narrow exception of some sort, and you believe you have a valid argument, then you might be better off with a judge.
How that applies in your case is another matter.
I think you’re worrying way too much about this and are just upset you, out of all the other people that travel that road, got caught at that particular time. It’s common to take personal offense to a speeding ticket, seen it a lot of times. Not trying to be mean just being honest.
Suppose you win the case, if you drive through there again will you be going 77?
I am wondering out loud what kind of “proof” could possibly be found that would bolster his case. The fact that the OP drove 77 without wrecking his car is perhaps evidence that he was being safe. If he did so without startling, inconveniencing or hindering any other drivers, is that evidence he was being safe? If he can provide some sort of evidence showing a sizeable percentage of drivers regularly drive over the posted limit on this stretch of road without catastrophe, isn’t this evidence that he was being safe. If he asked the officer, “do you regularly see people driving faster than the speed limit on this stretch of road?”, and the answer is “yes”, does that tip the scales?
I am by no means suggesting that I think the OP has a good chance of winning, and I also have zero knowledge of TX traffic laws. The dismal fact is that traffic laws, traffic enforcement and traffic court are all stacked against the OP.
Very accurate assement really. I’m definitely mad they popped me and that was a significant contributor to my decision to proceed. It really does make me feel better just contesting it and there’s leeway in the law to allow it. Just enough, in fact, for me to convince myself I have a shot even if a small one.
If the conditions were the same I probably would. If I win I definitely would.
One thing would be the txdot speed and traffic surveys. If the speed limit is set at the 85th percentile then there’s gotta be 15%of drivers they knew would exceed the limit when they set it. Right?
Frankly it just sounds like a guy trying to rationalize his speeding ticket away. Frankly I’d give your plan about a one-in-a-million chance of success, and about a one-in-ten chance of severely backfiring in a way you didn’t anticipate.
So… What is there to anticipate? What does it matter that I’m rationalizing anything? I’m making an informed desision to challenge a speeding ticket.
Hell, given the nature of the law, I’ve already convinced myself that this is a legal version of schodengers cat. I’m opening the box myself.
I’m willing to pay it if and when I lose, I’m willing to negotiate it. Im just not willing to hand it over immediately without objection. I don’t really care what the odds actually are much less about made up ones.
That’s what the 85th Percentile rule means. So if only 15 percent are exceeding the limit, then the limit is arguably correct. If, on the other hand, 50% are exceeding the limit, then it stands to reason that the speed limit is too low. That’s why I was wondering if you can get speed data, either from TXDOT or the police officer’s sworn testimony that well above 15 percent exceed the limit. If the latter, that would be asking a question which you don’t know what the answer will be, which lawyers warn against.
I think you have a long shot to win at trial. I think you have a much better shot at reducing the charge prior to trial, either in advance or when you show up for trial. That would be the best outcome, I imagine.
Good luck, please let us know what happens. 
To the OP:
-
The best thing you can do is to go to traffic court a week or so before you are scheduled to appear, preferably before the same judge in your case if possible. Sit and watch what defenses work in court and which don’t. Watch what the results are in terms of fines, reduced fines, suspended fines, etc. Decide on your course of action after that. Last time I fought a ticket I was amused watching three previous people all try the same stupid defense, despite watching it not work for the guy who went before the judge minutes before. The stupid was thick that day.
-
How old are you? I’m going to guess 29 or younger. Not that it matters, just curious.
You were speeding. You got caught. Bummer for you…now just pay your fine and move on with your life…and let everybody else do the same.
The judge, and the officer, ad all the other people involved with the court system, probably have 47 different better things to do with their time than to waste it with you trying to get out of having to face the consequences of your actions.