In the UK most (nearly all) driving offences are dealt with by post. When that brown envelope drops on your mat with a NIP (Notice of Intending Prosecution) in it, you can elect to have your day (more likely ten minutes) in court, but you have to weigh up the consequences.
The penalty is, in most cases, a £100 fine and 3 points (12 points = obligatory appearance in court and a likely ban). If you elect to take your chance with a magistrate and lose (which is highly likely unless you have a really hot-shot lawyer) you will get the same fine and points plus costs. You will also have to take a day off work. Most people pay up, even if they think that they were not guilty.
In general, for a civil proceeding like this, the defendant is indeed considered innocent until proven guilty – or, as a lawyer would put it, the burden of proof is on the state. If there’s no evidence at all (e.g. cop doesn’t show up in court), no fine. BUT, the state doesn’t need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, they just need to have the preponderance of evidence on their side – as a non-lawyer would but it, the state only needs to show that it’s more likely than not that the defendant did it. Now in practice, a traffic court judge probably wants a little better than a 51% chance, but they’re never going to want the same level of proof that a murder conviction would need.
It will vary by state. Here in RI a number of ticketable offenses require the state to prove their case by a standard of *clear and convincing *evidence, something between a *preponderance *of evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Political” isn’t the same as “partisan.” I’ve explained to you before at considerable length that we don’t want to see inflammatory remarks in General Questions, since they tend to derail threads. If you want to discuss what you perceive to be the failings of the justice system, take it Great Debates.
You have an unfortunate habit of jumping into almost any thread relating to the police or legal procedures with rants about the justice system that are better suited to GD than GQ. I am instructing you to refrain from this in the future. Failure to comply with this could bring your continued posting privileges under discussion.
If you have further complaints about moderation, take it to ATMB.
My experience is the exact opposite.
If radar is mentioned at all, it is only to establish probable cause to believe you were speeding. The evidence of speed given will be the officer testifying that he matched speed with your vehicle and read the speed off his speedometer.
And then he will produce written proof that his speedometer was calibrated right before his shift.
I heard decades ago (before I lived in Virginia) that the Virginia Supreme Court had rule that radar was not sufficiently accurate at measuring speed to be admissible in court, but I cannot confirm that.
I pled not guilty to a VASCAR speeding ticket. My evidence consisted of a time-stamped mini-mart receipt I got minutes before the ticket and my testimony that I repeatedly attempted leaving the mini-mart parking lot and reaching the speed the officer said I was doing without being able to in my old Toyota Tercel.
The magistrate lectured me about speeding through his town, called me a liar, and found me guilty.
After the trial the cop approached me and apologized. She suspected some sort of calibration error and believed my testimony. She even said if I wanted to pursue the issue further she would not show up for trial so I would be assured a win. But I couldn’t afford another day off of work, so I paid the ticket.
In the olden days, before the higher tech, I read that constables in British forces would hide in the bushes at one end of a stretch of road with others positioned along the way and later they’d compare their stop-watch times. Probably not along the M1.
American state laws of the vintage car era were even more hysterical.
The magistrate asked her what happened on that date. She stated the specifics (I was in my unit at 4562 Blah Blvd operating VASCAR unit 543c etc). Magistrate looked at me and asked why he shouldn’t believe the officer. I told my version. He reprimanded me, found me guilty, and said “Next!”.
I have since heard that since Magistrates are elected, they find natives innocent and out of towners guilty when they can.
tangential aside:
I represented myself in a civil suit and immediately recognized the magistrate when I walked into court. I am good friends with his ex-wife and consider him a friend as well. I assumed he’d recuse himself, based on our relationship, but he did not. I won the case (would have anyway) but I really wondered about it
Yes, the system is hopelessly corrupt. Judges and prosecutors elected by appealing to people’s baser instincts. If the cops pull you over, they can legally seize any assets you may have if they claim that they are somehow connected to criminal action. They can keep this money even though you are never convicted of a crime or even charged with a crime. It is hell to try to get it back.
Canadians are warned not to bring significant amounts of cash to the US.
Allowing for the vast array of local variations in the US, the story is broadly the same here. You *can *fight it, but the deck is stacked against you versus the value of what you might gain and what you will *certainly *give up.
Most of us, at least once we’ve grown up a bit, just accept our occasional citation as a cost of doing business as a driver. Even if I wasn’t guilty of exactly what they wrote up, I was guilty of something similar this week. Much less last week and the week before. So most of us grumble then mail in a check. I’m far from alone in calling it my “fast driving tax.”
To be sure there are corrupt jurisdictions and if you happen to live in or near one the balance shifts. The solution there is not to fight individual tickets, but to tackle the systemic corruption through the media and higher levels of government.
Although in the last *voire dire *I sat the prosecution asked this question of every potential juror: “Do you agree that police testimony is more reliable than that of the defendant?”
It’s pretty damn obvious what the prosecution thought was the right answer. I was rather surprised the judge allowed such a blatantly leading (and loaded) question.
In the end the case turned out to be a wrongful prosecution & we walked the defendant. The prosecution did not cover itself in either righteousness nor in glory that day.
The post in question made it sound like it was official policy to give more weight to police officers. It isn’t. I would agree, however, most judges and jurors would tend to do so.
Another point of data to answer the OP question. In NJ you are not allowed to ask for a jury trial for a traffic infraction. To answer the OP they are often treated differently than criminal matters. How different they are treated varies from state to state.
Here are some suggestions based on personal experience (They are not really worth it - unless the stakes are very high or you have a lot of time and money on hand and I am not a lawyer) :
1> Always request a jury trial (if allowed): It is more likely that the prosecutor will drop the charges or propose a lesser fine than go through the costs and hassle of a jury trial.
2> Subpoena the Officer’s personnel records (if permitted) : Since its you versus the officer, you should try and look if the officer has complaints of profiling people based on age , race , etc. - basically you examine the officer’s credibility.
3> Appeal the judgement of the court : Its a time buying tactic : You should do this if you are going to lose your licence based on certain points in year. Depending on your jurisdiction it may go to a appellate court - which invariably will agree with the ruling but it will buy you time and probably put you in the next year with the points not accumulating. In some jurisdictions, the appeals goes to a different court which is usually so overwhelmed that they will dismiss the case.