Like EH, I want to CLARIFY myself too. What I meant was NOT concerning a camera ticket as you say, but an arrest for a classified offense of a MM and above and method of payment on those charges.
Looking at the Ohio Traffic Rules, I do see such Uniform Traffic ticket is not mandatory for (C). I never read that before that I remember.
RULE 3. Complaint and Summons; Form; Use
(C) Use of ticket. The Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket shall be used in all moving traffic cases, but its use for parking and equipment violations is optional in each local jurisdiction.
Though it deals Primarily California Red Light Cameras the information can apply to other states as well. take the time to read through it.
I have helped several others beat their tickets with info gained here and elsewhere
on the web.
If your state has trial by declaration (mail) always take that route first. If you lose there you can still fight it in court in person.
BTW contrary to popular belief you will not increase your fine or sentence if you mount a solid defense (which means making the POPO PROVE everything they alledge beyond a reasonable doubt).
With cities and counties turning to minor infractions for money to cover their stupid spending habits you should protect your rights and your driving record by fighting every ticket, everytime whether you believe you may have actually committed an offence or not. Most laws have less to do with your safety than they do with getting at your wallet.
OK, fine, but the core question here is really about the meaning of the term “yield” in the context of traffic laws. I would have assumed that this only applies when both vehicles are actually in motion, approaching an intersection or common area, or at the least if it’s clearly indicated that the vehicle with ROW actually intends to approach the intersection. If this is incorrect, then whether I’m telling the truth or not is not relevant. This cop claimed that seeing an emergency vehicle triggers a requirement that you slow down and carefully assess the intentions of the emergency vehicle. My question is whether this claim is true.
Because if it is true, then there’s certainly no point of me showing up in court, because I’d be guilty under my own version of events. If it’s not true, then there’s at least some chance (depending on what the cop says etc.)
As you reported it, it actually sounds more like a different statute. Your actions while approaching an emergency vehicle are covered in that statute, the move over law. I can’t render an opinion on what actually happened.
If the emergency vehicle started to move into traffic with its emergency lights on and you just didn’t notice then you would have failed to yield to the emergency vehicle, 39:4-91. It is incorrect to assume that it only applies to intersections if that is what you are asking.
OK, but I actually did move over. I was in the right lane of a 2 lane (each direction) road, and I moved over into the left lane, as per the law (though I would have had to do this in any event, as the ambulance was partially blocking the right lane).
Actually the text of the law says that the ambulance also needs to have its siren on. I maintain that it did not, but I’m aware that you don’t know the facts etc. etc.
I’m not. I used intersection loosely as in “area where the paths of two vehicles would meet” (as opposed to a designated intersection).
My core question is if a person can be charged with failure to yield if there was no clear indication at the time that the emergency vehicle intended or needed to occupy that area.
Indication to whom? I’m assuming if the officer felt that way you wouldn’t get the ticket. He obviously has a different opinion than you.
You certainly have an argument. I think you have a chance to win. As to if your interpretation of events is correct I can not say. And I will not give you any odds. MV trials are not automatic wins for the cop in this state by any means.
As I said earlier, he seemed to be in a bad mood - he interupted me rather brusquely.
But more significantly, the cop was there with the ambulance and interacting with the situation. He was a lot more familiar with the ambulance’s intentions and likely course of action on that basis alone, and what may have seemed obvious to him was not necessarily obvious to someone happening onto the scene.
Lost the case. Cop claimed that while several cars were passing by, the last one was me and I was the only one who actually blocked the ER vehicle.
I disagree with this, but I suppose it’s theoretically possible that the cop saw it that way. But one thing he lied outright about was in claiming that I had told him that I never saw the ER vehicle and that’s why I passed it. That’s ridiculous, and I’m pretty sure he made it up.
While I’m not surprised that I lost the case - I thought going in that I had about a 20% chance - I do think it’s frightening that the judge could just declare that the state established its case “beyond reasonable doubt”. Could there really be no reasonable doubt as to whether one cop might be wrong about something? Is there no likelihood at all that such a thing could happen?
It’s like one of these show trials where the verdict is established in advance based on what the system needs in order to work. Fortunately the stakes are not all that high. But it’s the same phenomenon.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the standard for a criminal conviction, isn’t it? Yours wasn’t a criminal case, was it? I assume yours was a civil infraction, which is held to a “preponderance of evidence” standard, as far as I know, but I am not a lawyer.
The verdict is certainly not established in advance. Of course most traffic tickets are settled before going to trial. But I can assure you there is no judge in the state that has a 100% guilty rate. All the municipal court judges answer to the state assignment judge. Their proceedings are monitored. If they are seen to put a rubber stamp on the police cases they are out of a job. If anything I have seen it go more the other way such as with our old judge , Let em Leave Steve.
No the burden of proof for traffic tickets is beyond a reasonable doubt.
I asked the judge this and he explicitly said the standard was beyond reasonable doubt. And then, when announcing his verdict, he said “I find beyond reasonable doubt …”.
I don’t know if that’s true. I imagine in cases where there is some out-of-the-ordinary reason to believe that the cop might be mistaken or lying the citizen might get a fair shake. But where it’s just straight up citizen versus cop, I think the cop probably gets 100% or close to it.
FTR, I think it’s likely that the cops are probably correct the vast majority of the time. But that doesn’t mean that in any individual case it’s beyond reasonable doubt that the cop is correct.
As a practical matter, that’s how the system has to work. If there was truly a standard of beyond reasonable doubt then the vast majority of tickets would be dismissed, because they generally involve the citizen’s word against the cop’s. So the only way for it to work is if the cop is always believed, even though this does not meet the ostensible standard in any objective sense.
[I only thought I had a better shot than the ordinary because I had some doubts as to what the cop would say. If it was an ordinary dispute over whether I beat the red or the like I would never have attempted it.]
Before the court went into session I was talking to some of the lawyers who were awaiting the beginning of the procedings, and they felt - without hearing the details - that I had no chance and that I should just pay the fine if still possible. They said whatever I was saying the cop was going to say something else, and the court would take his word. But I was already there and figured that having gotten to that point I would give it a shot.
Some judges certainly develop reputations - rightly or wrongly - for favoring one side or the other, but their ethical duty is always, of course, to fairly and impartially do justice. When I hear from defendants that they assume they’ll lose no matter what, I always assure them that I have convicted defendants, and I have acquitted defendants; I have believed police officers, and I have disbelieved police officers. You will get a fair trial in my courtroom, come what may.
Hate those cameras. As I’ve said before, I feel the signs of red light cameras make me a less safe driver, because instead of concentrating on progressing through the intersection safely, my focus is on trying to predict and avoid what could possibly set me up for a ticket.
Sunday night I came to an intersection with a camera. My light was red. As I pulled up to the white line, I saw the light go off. Seemed to be to my left, so I hope it was aimed at the cross traffic, not me. Didn’t have a sense that anyone on the cross street going through the intersection had done anything obviously wrong. I’m wondering if I am going to find a citation in my mailbox. Hate that this system has me feeling this unease, when I know I did nothing wrong.
If I get a citation, it will be interesting to see what any photos/film shows. I know I stopped short of the white line, and remained there until my light turned green, even tho I did not see any “No Turn On Red” signs and there was no traffic in the direction I was turning. Wasn’t going to chance it.
That’s been my experience as well. And if the judge decides the officer is not believable it will reflect on every other case he has in front of that judge. Which in municipal court is usually all of them.
If it makes you feel any better, 99% of cops hate those cameras too.
The cameras are taking continuous video. If you approach the light at a certain speed it will flash. If you stop it will not save or send you a summons. If you don’t stop it will. So if you really did stop in time there should be no problem despite the fact that there was a flash.
That’s probably another reason that judges are usually inclined to accept the word of the cops. If a judge has no reason to think either the cop or the defendent are anything other than decent basically honest people, it’s a lot easier to impugn the credibility of a guy you’re probably never going to see again, and is not a quasi-colleague, than to do the same to an officer.
Doesn’t make it right, but it’s probably a factor.
In your experience, what does “stop in time” mean?
At this intersection, my road dead-ended into a T. For folk wanting to turn R (like me), the turn lane was a curve - almost a mini on-ramp. There was a white line partway along the curve, well short of the cross street. I’m pretty sure I stopped short of the white line, but couldn’t guarantee my front bumper wasn’t across it. I was still at least a car length short of the cross street’s lane - probably more. And wherever I stopped, I sat there for a good long while - 10 sec? 20? 30? - before the light changed.
While I sat there, all of the cross traffic was from my right. I could have safely proceeded on my way many times, but didn’t want to risk robo-law. Some guy pulled behind me as I sat. I figured he was pissed at me for not going, but I didn’t care.
Pisses the hell out of me to know I did nothing unsafe in the manner in which I proceeded through this intersection, but nevertheless be worried that I might have to defend myself against this technological revenue enhancement. Really crappy comment on our society to make conscientious, law-abiding citizens fear being penalized for wrongdoing in this manner.
That’s funny. I can assure you I have never met a judge that feels that police officers are colleagues, quasi or otherwise. Far from it.
I have no idea where you are. But in my state it is required for a sworn police officer to review each reported infraction and approve it before a ticket is issued. The way you describe it I see no way for a ticket to be issued even if the machine says there was an infraction. Of course mistakes can be made. It is mind-numbingly boring to review the video. Sometimes they might zone out while doing it. That’s why you are provided the video and have the opportunity to plead not guilty.
