Now this I don’t understand, and it happened to me in exactly the same way. I even challenged, in cross, the cop to walk over to the wall calendar and show me which day was Saturday the 2nd. The judge wouldn’t allow it.
Of course, this is the same judge who said that he didn’t care how radar worked, since if it was pointed at a stop sign and the radar said it was speeding, that stop sign “was going to be convicted.”
Certainly some flaws render the charge invalid. The prosecutor can’t just amend anything he wants to. But I don’t see how anyone can be convicted if the license number is not the one on your car, or the name is not yours, or the date doesn’t exist.
I have no idea what you mean. Having a minor typo does not invalidate the ticket. The defense “If he got that wrong how can they say the rest of the ticket is right” doesn’t work either. Otherwise the only officer that can write a valid ticket is the one proven to never make a typo. He doesn’t exist. As long as the prosecution can still prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the ticket was written in good faith you will be convicted. You are going with what I call the “Ah-ha!” defense. It usually goes something like this:
Defendant: Officer the ticket says you wrote it at 9:00am. Officer: Thats right. Defendant: Ah-ha! I have sworn notorized statements from ten of my coworkers saying I was at work at 8:00am! Officer: Oops I wrote a 9 instead of a 7. I have the correct time on my radar log. I have tickets written before and after yours at 6:45 and 7:15. I can produce the dispatcher records from the stop. (all discoverable evidence if you were competent and requested it) Judge: Is that all you got?
Defendant:
Most defendants I’ve seen who hinge their defense on a minor point don’t like the outcome. I have never seen a lawyer defend a case like that. On its face it is not a defense a competent person would count on. Its worth a shot but don’t be surprised when it doesn’t work. We had a judge we called “Let 'em Leave Steve” and even he wouldn’t dismiss a ticket for a minor defect.
You mentioned that if the officer doesn’t show, the ticket is dismissed (dependent on procedures, yadda yadda…). That makes me wonder what I should do. I was stopped not long ago for speeding (absolutely guilty, no question). Would it pay off for me to plead not guilty just to get to the trial to have the chance of the officer not showing?
If I were to plead not guilty and then the officer show up, do/can I have to change my plea?
And looking over my citation again… there are some factual errors (I have a 2d, not 4d – and it’s silver, not gold).
It should be part of my sig. If the officer does not show it is not an automatic dismissal. It works for some people in some jusrisdictions but it is not automatic. I just recently found out that my department is now forbidding us from going to court as a cost cutting measure. If you go to court in my town the officer will not be there. It will not be dismissed. If you can not reach a deal with the prosecutor you will be scheduled for a trail at some other date. The way this works out for you is that it will cost you at least two or three days of your time before you get to see the officer.
The color is often wrong. Or you would consider it wrong. Maybe it looked different under a street light or in the dark. I usually go with what is on the registration which does not always exactly match the color of the car. Sometimes DMV screws up. But that cuts down on the “Ah-ha! my registration says its a blue car” defenses.
What if it were a criminal case and the DA claimed that the defendents were seen leaving a store at 3:00pm when filing the charges. The defendent claims he was at work at the time and the DA says, “Oops, it was really 1:00pm. Sorry.” At what point will that sort of misinformation adversely affect the defendent’s chance to defend himself?
The police officer is not a prosecutor, even in California. The prosecutor is a lawyer who works for the government (Federal, state, county or city). The officer is typically a prosecution witness.
In our large city court, minor traffic offenses are routinely dismissed if the officer fails to appear (FTA). Higher-level misdemeanors will be continued on the city’s motion if the officer FTA, but usually only once. If the officer FTA a second time, the case will almost certainly be dismissed.
The mistake must be made in good faith. That is a specific legal term. In other words the intentions of the officer are not in question, he is acting within his scope as a police officer but made a minor error. Other than that it is up to the judge. The burden of proof is still beyond and reasonable doubt. If the error is enough to raise a reasonable doubt then there won’t be a conviction. But really this is something a non lawyer will cling to. This thread is about minor errors on paperwork, not major holes in a prosecution’s case. If the time is wrong on one report it is probably going to be correct on multiple other pieces of evidence, reports and logs. A lawyer will see that and maybe use it to attack the officer’s credibility as a witness but it is not a get out of jail free card. We can what if it to death.
I did say that it happens. There is plenty of anecodotal evidence from this board. But people say it like it is gospel. If the officer is not there it is not an automatic dismissal. It depends on the jurisdiction. Like I said, at this point to cut down on overtime, I am not allowed to go to court. It is not an option. If someone wants to go to trial it will mean they will have to make at least two court appearances before they see me.
I’ve decided to bump this thread instead of beginning a new one with similar content. I just received my first ticket today while driving through North Carolina (about 30 miles north of Charlotte). I live a few hours away and I am debating on whether to contest the ticket in court. Where I’m from, officers don’t generally show up in court and the fines/fees are automatically dismissed, but this obviously differs based on the jurisdiction. Is anyone familiar with the procedures in this location specifically? I’d prefer not to get points against my license even if it means paying the fees, so I’d rather take my chances in court than pay the ticket outright.
Are you guilty? If so why not just take your lumps?
This sort of thing should not be done on a “can I get away with it” basis.
That’s not to say that I don’t speed, and am always straight up and honest…if I can speed and get away with it I will, but once a ticket is written - you should take your punishment. After all, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
I’m a cop and I say that is ridiculous. If you can go in and get it reduced just by going to court why not do it? In my town it is pretty automatic that you can get no points if you go to court and plead to a lesser charge. The prosecutor is happy because it moves things along quicker. In New Jersey you have to balance it out though. The state has imposed a large surcharge on no point plea bargains. So you can either get no points and pay a larger ammount or points and less money up front. The surcharge is something that is out of hands of the police and the courts. It is strictly a money maker for the state.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Torture?
Pleading guilty to a lesser charge is not sidestepping responsibilty or getting over. It is the defendant and the prosecutor reaching a mutally agreeable conclusion. The state gets their money, the prosecutor gets a conviction while moving the docket along quickly, the defendant gets no points so their insurance premiums don’t go up. The defendant has to get up in open court and pled guilty. I have no idea how that can be seen as sidestepping responsibility. Just the opposite.
I had my XKE parked on the street in front of my house . It was winter and there were huge ruts in the street so I did not drive it. It would have torn up the exhaust.
A cop gave me a warning ticket for an abandoned vehicle because I did not move it for 48 hours. On the ticket he called it a Corvette. Then it was license plate time and I changed the plates . Yhe vcop came back and wrote the ticket.
I went to court and told the judge about the misidentification. I also mentioned the absurdity of abandoning my XKE in front of the house. I explained that the ruts would have destroyed my undercarriage. I told him the car was misidentified.
The judge said he did not care about any of that. The car had not been moved in 48 hours and I had to pay a 65 dollar fine. Pricks.
In Canada, police officers can be the prosecutor for minor traffic offences. If the officer is a witness, that officer can’t also prosecute the offence, but another member of the same police service can act as the prosecutor.
So, the law in your town says that you can’t leave a car on the street for more than 48 hours without moving it, you got a warning ticket from the cop, which wouldn’t have resulted in any fines, you ignored the warning ticket, the cop came back, found you’d not moved the car, and ticketed you. The court convicted on that evidence.
I fail to see how the cop or the judge are pricks in that scenario. You didn’t follow the law, in spite of a warning, and got convicted.
According to the trooper I was driving 79 mph (in the far left lane) on a highway with a speed limit of 65. While literally above the speed limit, I don’t think this was extreme considering the flow of traffic at the time. I’ve been driving for many years and make an effort to be a safe driver and be mindful of the speed limit. States are desperate for revenue and are scraping for it anyway they can. I think the trooper may have seen my out-of-state license plate and assumed I would not be able or willing to make the court date. This is my first ticket against an otherwise emaculate driving record and if it’s regular procedure for these types of offenses to be dismissed or the consequences lessened it would be stupid not take advantage of that.
Well, I’ve learned my lesson. I’ll now be that driver everyone is scrambling to get around because I’m actually driving the speed limit. :o
Wow. I can’t imagine that happening here. If the judge or magistrate even allowed it - which I highly doubt - the officer acting as prosecutor could be brought before the local bar disciplinary committee for practicing law without a license.
