Good luck with that. In my case* I don’t think the cop was lying per se - I just didn’t think he was observant and popped me for rolling through a stop sign because he thought I did more than saw me.** My tack was to impeach the cops observation skills, he didn’t know what traffic controls were at the intersection, what shade color my truck was and how I showed my proof of insurance***. His answer to all three was “I don’t remember.” but he was absolutely sure I ran the sign (though he couldn’t estimate the speed) and so I was convicted on “He wouldn’t have given you the ticket if you weren’t guilty.” (Actual quote from the judge).
*Not the inspiration for this thread.
** I did not roll through.
*** It was on my phone. Actually he never asked for my insurance but just try to prove that considering he “didn’t remember” if he asked for my insurance.
In a country where we are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, no.
I once had an opposite experience. I had another speeding ticket and the judge was a personal acquaintance–he lived in my neighborhood and I was good friends with his sons. He stated at the beginning of the court session that he knew me and would have a conflict of interest and I would go next door to a different judge.
Th citing cop didn’t show up for court (and this is probably the most common reason people beat tickets). The first defendant was some foreign woman who barely spoke English. When he asked for her plea, the judge said that the County had no evidence against her without the cop’s testimony and if she said “Not Guilty”, he would agree there was no evidence and she could go.
She said “Guilty”.
The judge explained to her that might be true, but the prosecutor had no evidence and if she plead “Not Guilty”, he would dismiss the charge. How do you plead?
“Guilty”
“Again, Ma’am, say ‘Not Guilty’, and you can leave now with a not guilty verdict.”
Third time was the charm as she timidly said “Not Guilty”, and was told the charge was dismissed.
The next 10 defendants, including me, all walked up and said “Not Guilty”.
Charges dismissed, although in my case, he made the comment I was getting the same treatment as every other defendant cited by this cop. Probably so it was on the record that I received no favoritism.
Probably should have said “State” instead of “County”. Doesn’t really change the story, though.
[quote=“jerry_smissingfinger, post:38, topic:744896”]
But you see- traffic infractions aren’t crimes. At least here in CA. In any case, there’s a eyewitness that you committed the crime- the cop.
You are biased, the cop supposedly is not.
Yes! It’s called a body cam, and it’s kinda a big fucking deal right now.
The second we started all carrying a camera on us, we started finding cases of cops doing shitty things that couldn’t be proven before. So, obviously, going by their word simply isn’t enough.
You know what I expect in the OP? A fucking dash cam on the cop car. There’s no reason for them not to exist. And I also expect that a cop can actually tell what color a light is at the time when he begins the stop, or else he shouldn’t be doing the job at all.
With greater authority comes less tolerance for mistakes. Every time someone is convicted for something they didn’t do, that’s a tragedy. It’s something we should be trying to eliminate.
Maybe back in the past we had to trust cops. But now we don’t. Why do we? Why do we let them even try to argue that recording them is bad? Why trust in such a contentious situation when we have alternatives?
I want cops to be giving evidence like the radar gun and the camera and everything else, not just saying “I caught him doing something” and it taking more than proving a reasonable doubt to dissuade.
As with body cams they are limited in scope. In general they will start recording everything after the overhead lights are activated and only record what is in front of the police car. Very rarely are they in a position to record the actual infraction.
And in my court and many others you would be told your next court date will be sent in the mail. The officer not being there is not a reason to dismiss and certainly isn’t automatic. To cut down on overtime we are prohibited from being there on your first appearance.
I believe you but that makes it a shitty dash cam for it’s job. My dash cam costs $120, turns on when the engine does, and will record 30 hours straight of HD video. You can download the video files to a computer or swap out the SD card for a new one at shift change. It will also record the voices in the car and data like speed, and will map the entire course of the drive via a GPS link.
It should be, and it is in CA (in general). Look, the defendant also has to take time off. If the Prosecution has no witness they have no case.
Seconded. If the state summonses you to answer a criminal charge and you turn up as summonsed and the state presents no evidence to support the charge, the change has to be dismissed. No question. If the state wants or needs an adjournment they can seek that in advance.
Traffic violations are not criminal charges in California. The court procedure I’m familiar with starts with a “first appearance”, although I’m required to attend I’m not allowed to introduce evidence or testimony. The judge simply asks the defendant what their defense is and the judge rules on whether it’s allowed under law. If so, then a hearing is scheduled where we do the whole Perry Mason thing. If not, then I win simply by being there and in the state of being “clinically alive”.
That’s great if you have the option to discard the recording after 30 hours are up. We can’t. Every recording is saved and stored. It’s hard enough to store every incident when the lights are turned on. Every minute of a ten hour shift for every single car because you hope that it shows you went through a yellow? Besides it in no way shows everything my eyeball sees. It only sees in front of the car.
There is nothing in the law that says your ticket has to be handled in one appearance. In my court you can take care of the ticket in your first appearance with a plea deal. If you want to go to trial you have to come back. It’s hard to justify the overtime for the officer to stand there for 10 minutes while you talk to the prosecutor. I certainly don’t mind, I like free money.
So, it would seem that, at least in some jurisdictions, the police would have incentive to write lots of tickets just so they can collect the overtime–hey, I know the light was yellow, but I’m getting paid!
It’s not like there is a shortage of actual violations. Police officers don’t need to make stuff up, they can just wait 15 seconds.
I usually didn’t pull anyone over doing less than 15 over. If I wanted more tickets I could just lower that to 10. My hand would hurt from all the writing. No lying necessary. I was never a big ticket writer.
I’m sure this is true in populous jurisdictions, where citing offenders can be like shooting fish in a barrel. But, what about low population areas in the fly-over states or small “speed trap towns” where a sizable proportion of municipal income may come from traffic citations?
In other words, the real reason a driver can’t fight their ticket is that they have to take two days off work. I don’t know about you, but I don’t get paid unless I show up to work. So the ticket has to be something over $500 to make it worthwhile to fight if I have to take two days off work, even if it would be open and shut that I could beat the ticket. Nice.
Do you not see how terrible this is? I’m actually a bit angry about it. It’s bad enough that your court sees fit to waste citizens’ time, but to actually have a POLICY of not showing up to guarantee a waste of time is flatly disgusting.
Anyway, my story of lament comes from the perspective of someone sitting in the jury box (not traffic-related, obviously). I wound up being an alternate, which only added to the frustration. After the trial when the jurors asked me what I (and the other alt) thought and we plainly said not guilty, there was a bit of groaning (They returned a guilty verdict). But one guy jumped in and emphatically said “Why would a cop lie? If she didn’t do it why would he say she did? What’s his motive?” On the first day the judge explicitly told us that we were not to take police testimony as more or less likely to be true simply because they are police. Groan.
So, you have to take two days off work to defend a ticket and lose pay, but the cop gets overtime pay for the same deal to show up in court. Yes, no incentive for the cop 
, but incentive is for you to just pay the ticket. Nice racket.