On the other side of the coin, some jurisdictions have a means to log in and pay the fine online, and it’s half price if you pay within 3 days of getting the ticket.
In some cases this is the correct way to go. I think many jurisdictions let you pay the fine online without getting dragged into court at all. That’s what they want you to do - it’s just money, and even the hit to your insurance premiums is also just money, vs the humiliation of having to waste your time in court.
Moderator Warning
I missed this earlier. This is an official warning for inappropriate political commentary in GQ. Since you quoted a post that had already received a warning, you should have been aware that this was inappropriate as well.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
In most jurisdictions that would be ruled as hearsay. Unless you had someone who could testify that the machine that produced the receipt was calibrated to correct time, etc…
Around here people try stuff like that all the time and it always get’s immediately ruled inadmissible as hearsay.
I totally get that. But, I’d promised to tell the truth and I was, indeed, totally honest. Water over the dam. Or under the bridge. 
md2000:
They do this after radar as well. That’s what a cop testified against me on a speeding ticket just a few years ago, and I got found guilty.
But they don’t have to prove it with documentation that they took the course? Imagine the defendant trying to get away with that.
Your honor, I am certified in detecting bullshit and my response to the officer’s testimony is BWOOP BWOOP BWOOP.
At my hearing, he didn’t present any sort of certificate (unless he did so at a prior defendant’s hearing, I wasn’t the first case of the session), he just declared that he had taken the course in estimating speed and judged my speed to be excessive. I suppose I could have challenged that, but I’m no lawyer, and I didn’t spring for one, so I have no idea. I just pled Not Guilty in the hopes that the city would bargain down the charges, or the officer wouldn’t show up, or would have his testimony declared insufficient by the judge (all of which have happened to me in the past).
The traffic court judge works with these same policemen all the time. The levy of the fine can be dependent upon the cop’s notes to the judge. I was in traffic court years ago here in Charleston, SC, and listened to the different cases. In one case, the judge was going to be lenient on a pretty, young lady, but the arresting officer interrupted, saying that she was a smartass at the arrest. The judge then gave her the max. The officer who stopped me for speeding was, at first, very abrupt, even though the first words I said was, “Good morning, officer.” When he returned to my car after checking out the record on me, he apologized for being rude. He explained that most people he stops are rude and deny their guilt. He recommended that I go to court where my fine would be reduced. He also gave me a ticket for careless driving, which is a city offense – not a state offense – and would, therefore, not involve points to affect my insurance. To make a long story short – or is it too late for that – I was found not guilty.
As to the weight of the arresting officer’s testimony, I read years ago in an Illinois case, where a lawyer was cited and found guilty. He appealed, and one of his grounds was that he is an officer of the court and that the arresting officer’s testimony should not be given more weight than his. The AC found him not guilty – probably because the case was too trivial to be worth much time.
As to requesting a jury trial, sure you have that right, but you will have to pay for it.
YMMV depending on jurisdiction. But in many places when you plead not-guilty to a traffic offense you are given a separate trial date and in some places can have a jury (at your expense if you lose). During the trial it’s up to the defense to question qualifications. The prosecutor might bring it up for credibility reasons, but if they don’t the judge certainly isn’t going to ask. The defense can subpoena things like training records, maintenance records (of radar/laser/VASCAR units) operators manuals, etc. during discovery and hammer on any weaknesses they find.
*This is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer.
Isn’t it a general rule, in all court cases of any type, that any assertion made by any party, if not challenged, will be taken as truth at face value?
If an accident happens at 3:00 in the morning, and one party claims that the sun was shining brightly, and the other party doesn’t dispute that, will the court take as fact that the sun was shining brightly?
Usually but it’s up to the judge sometimes.
I as in court once awaiting for my cases to get called and saw one where an officer testified he was 500 yards away on a side street when he observed the defendants vehicle go through a red light. The judge interupted and asked the defandant if he wanted to ask questions on what the officer just said. It was obvious the officer meant to say 500 feet away. The defendant, representing herself, pounced and questioned the officer how he could have seen from that far away. The dope didn’t correct himself (which he could have) and insisted he could see the light color from the side @ 500 yards away. Judge didn’t buy it and dismissed the case. I don’t think the woman would have picked up on the error had the judge not done that.
But it’s rare that I’ve seen judges help a defendant like that.
In my case, the judge accepted that on the date in question and at the time that it was quite dark, he didn’t need to see an almanac. I had pictures showing no stop light at that intersection and no limit line - both crucial to my case. The judge accepted the evidence as proof but I wonder if I didn’t have proof whether the judge would have accepted my* word.
The pictures were to impeach the officer if he said the was a light and/or there was a limit line. The officer said “I don’t know.” when I asked if there were a light or limit line there.