|
I was ticketed for speeding 55mph on a street with 35mph limit.
I'm thinking about contesting the ticket. First off, that was
a major street with 40mph signs everywhere. I'm hoping to get
an official doc. (presumably from gov.). But where should I do
the search?
Coming back to the ticket. 55mph is more like highway speed.
I'd honest know that if I was travelling that fast. Even if
I was a little above, that was close to midnight on a 3 lane street
with dry pavement (well lited) - that's street traffic was light and it
was safe. I spotted the police car turning
into the same street earlier. Then shortly after, he stopped me.
Could he possibly have enough time to pace my speed? Could he
have mixed his own acceleration (to catch up the distance) with
my speed?
This's my first ticket out of 10 years of driving. Any tips?
Thanks,
Raymond
|
| |
| |
Yeah, don't do 55 in urban settings, especially in 35 or even 40 mph
zones.
Harry K
|
| |
| |
Harry, You missed my point completely! I didn't do it.
|
| |
| |
ryeung@earthlink.net wrote:
I was ticketed for speeding 55mph on a street with 35mph limit.
I'm thinking about contesting the ticket. First off, that was
a major street with 40mph signs everywhere. I'm hoping to get
an official doc. (presumably from gov.). But where should I do
the search?
Coming back to the ticket. 55mph is more like highway speed.
I'd honest know that if I was travelling that fast. Even if
I was a little above, that was close to midnight on a 3 lane street
with dry pavement (well lited) - that's street traffic was light and it
was safe. I spotted the police car turning
into the same street earlier. Then shortly after, he stopped me.
Could he possibly have enough time to pace my speed? Could he
have mixed his own acceleration (to catch up the distance) with
my speed?
This's my first ticket out of 10 years of driving. Any tips?
Thanks,
Raymond
I once rode with a deputy sheriff who had a "clock" to check speed with.
We followed behind a motorcyle who reached 53mph in a 35mph zone.
I've seen a state trooper, no less, do close to 55 in a marked 40 zone.
Unless the officer captured your speed with a handheld radar unit, I doubt
seriously if you would win the case.
In a word against word case, the judge would side with the officer.
|
| |
| |
ryeung@earthlink.net a crit :
I was ticketed for speeding 55mph on a street with 35mph limit.
I'm thinking about contesting the ticket. First off, that was
a major street with 40mph signs everywhere. I'm hoping to get
an official doc. (presumably from gov.). But where should I do
the search?
Coming back to the ticket. 55mph is more like highway speed.
I'd honest know that if I was travelling that fast. Even if
I was a little above, that was close to midnight on a 3 lane street
with dry pavement (well lited) - that's street traffic was light and it
was safe. I spotted the police car turning
into the same street earlier. Then shortly after, he stopped me.
Could he possibly have enough time to pace my speed? Could he
have mixed his own acceleration (to catch up the distance) with
my speed?
This's my first ticket out of 10 years of driving. Any tips?
Thanks,
Raymond
First, take photos of the area you were stopped, the signage saying "40
mi/h" and the rest.
Hopefully ticket is dismissed on that, but most likely it becomes "55 in
a 40".
Now, were you travelling 55mi/h or more? Perhaps 45mi/h? It's pointless
unless you were travelling 40mi/h...
Was there any other traffic? At all? Any traffic travelling faster than
you, at perhaps 55mi/h?
Any signals from your radar detector?
I would think that a radar gun in a moving car takes the "fastest speed"
that it sees and reports it, so if he was going 55mi/h then it's
possible that he got his speed not yours. In this case, the officer is
either an idiot or a genuine disgrace to the badge IMO...
--
----------------------
http://www.saab-900.tk
The Saab Tech Resource
----------------------
|
| |
| |
go to www.motorists.com and read up. what you were doing is irrelevant,
the way to beat a ticket is to subpoena lots of evidence and put the cop
on the stand and ask him questions in an appropriate way so as to introduce
enough doubt in the judges mind to find you not guilty. this is an art and
while
the ticket isn't much $$, the insurance surcharges over the next many years
might cost you more than an attorney skilled in this art.
I was ticketed for speeding 55mph on a street with 35mph limit.
I'm thinking about contesting the ticket. First off, that was
a major street with 40mph signs everywhere. I'm hoping to get
an official doc. (presumably from gov.). But where should I do
the search?
Coming back to the ticket. 55mph is more like highway speed.
I'd honest know that if I was travelling that fast. Even if
I was a little above, that was close to midnight on a 3 lane street
with dry pavement (well lited) - that's street traffic was light and it
was safe. I spotted the police car turning
into the same street earlier. Then shortly after, he stopped me.
Could he possibly have enough time to pace my speed? Could he
have mixed his own acceleration (to catch up the distance) with
my speed?
This's my first ticket out of 10 years of driving. Any tips?
Thanks,
Raymond
|
| |
| |
Max wrote:
Now, were you travelling 55mi/h or more? Perhaps 45mi/h? It's
pointless
unless you were travelling 40mi/h...
I'm reading a handbook called "Fight Your Ticket in California". Yes,
I'm in California. According to the book, the law here is different
from
that in many other states. In California, it's still okay if I can
prove
that neither "my speed was greater than was reasonable or prudent", nor
"endangered the safety of persons or property". To be honest, I
wouldn't
know precisely that I'm always on or below 40mi/h, unless I was staring
at my speedometer the whole time. But I'm pretty sure I wasn't driving
at 55mi/h or anything close to that!
Any signals from your radar detector?
As I'm not a (chronic or otherwise) speeder, I've no radar detector
in my car...
|
| |
| |
Frankly I'd do the traffic "school" thing and be done with it rather than
trying to fight it, HOWEVER..
I do know in CA that there are two types of speed signs. One says "Maximum
Speed" and this is an absolute limit. One mph over it and you're guilty.
The other type of sign says "Speed Limit" and this is a soft limit. If you
can show that you could safely travel faster than it (albeit no more than a
few miles per hour) then you can get off.
HOWEVER again, if it was "close to midnight" I can guarantee that NO judge
will entertain the fact that it was safe for you to be going faster than the
speed limit, no matter what kind of sign it was.
--
Falky
San Diego, Calif.
----------------
Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional.
This post is not intended to be legal advice.
Max wrote:
pointless
I'm reading a handbook called "Fight Your Ticket in California". Yes,
I'm in California. According to the book, the law here is different
from
that in many other states. In California, it's still okay if I can
prove
that neither "my speed was greater than was reasonable or prudent", nor
"endangered the safety of persons or property". To be honest, I
wouldn't
know precisely that I'm always on or below 40mi/h, unless I was staring
at my speedometer the whole time. But I'm pretty sure I wasn't driving
at 55mi/h or anything close to that!
As I'm not a (chronic or otherwise) speeder, I've no radar detector
in my car...
|
| |
| |
You mention 1) you aren't sure how fast you were going....you say it's
doubtful you were going that fast, yet use midnight and lack of traffic
to defend even if so. Being unsure of your speed is going to make this
easily won by the police officer who even if unsure how fast you were
going is unlikely to mention that in court.
You also say it was on a 35mph street, and then say but there are 40mph
signs everywhere.
Just a lot of contradiction, perhaps warranted, but it's just sounding
like the whole thing is bogus.
Basically chances are you were speeding and failed to realize it. Now
if you said it was posted 40mph and you got a ticket for doing 40mph as
the officer insteaded it was a 35mph zone....or in this case even up to
45mph (since 'technically' most if not all places waive the first 5mph
over as non-fineable)...I would say you are right, that there is a
problem, but even if the limit was 40mph, doing 55mph is excessive.
I could see a fair judge giving you a 10mph basis for your penalty and
fine, that's about the best case I could see (I have tried to fight
quite a bit of tickets both just and unjust and found traffic school is
the easiest, cheapest and best choice).
|
| |
| |
alkemyst@shadow.net wrote:
You mention 1) you aren't sure how fast you were going....you say
it's
doubtful you were going that fast, yet use midnight and lack of
traffic
to defend even if so.
While it seems contradicting here, I didn't/hadn't admit that I was
speeding. This is an argument pattern proposed by the handbook,
written
by an attorney, as a possible defence in CA.
Being unsure of your speed is going to make this
easily won by the police officer who even if unsure how fast you were
going is unlikely to mention that in court.
I'm NOT gonna mention that to that effect in court. I'm bringing it up
here for a candid discussion. But my point was that
there's a great margin between 40mph, which is what I believe I was
on, and 55mph the officer accused me of. So even to give him a benefit
of a doubt, it won't be "that far off". Of course, in a real defence,
I'd insist that I'm on 40mph, and demand that the officer proved his
case. I'd give an argument that the distance for his pacing is too
short (1-2 blocks?), that he could have easily confused his own
acceleration with that of mine.
You also say it was on a 35mph street, and then say but there are
40mph
signs everywhere.
I never said that it was a 35mph street. I'd
been insisting it was 40mph, but the officer quoted 35mph on the
ticket.
Of course, I'd need to prove my claim; hence the title for this thread.
Just a lot of contradiction, perhaps warranted, but it's just
sounding
like the whole thing is bogus.
So, no I didn't make the whole thing up, if that's what you meant by
bogus.
Basically chances are you were speeding and failed to realize it.
Now
if you said it was posted 40mph and you got a ticket for doing 40mph
as
the officer insteaded it was a 35mph zone....or in this case even up
to
45mph (since 'technically' most if not all places waive the first
5mph
over as non-fineable)...I would say you are right, that there is a
problem, but even if the limit was 40mph, doing 55mph is excessive.
Here comes the major argument! Police claimed I did 55mph. But I
didn't realize it?? Usually, whether I'm on freeway or in the city,
my speed is around the speed limit, and lots of cars pass mine left
and right.
I could see a fair judge giving you a 10mph basis for your penalty
and
fine, that's about the best case I could see (I have tried to fight
quite a bit of tickets both just and unjust and found traffic school
is
the easiest, cheapest and best choice).
I'd be very interested to know if you won any of those fights and under
what conditions/arguments? Incidentally, how do you prove to the judge
that the case is an "unjust" one, if he/she always sides with the
police?
In other words, what prevents a cop from citing you just for the fun of
it, or for revenue/quota purpose?
|
| |
| |
Harry, You missed my point completely! I didn't do it.
And you missed HIS point completely....DON'T SPEED....
As for the "I didn't do it" stuff.....yea, that's what they all
say..........
|
| |
| |
I would think that a radar gun in a moving car takes the "fastest speed"
that it sees and reports it, so if he was going 55mi/h then it's
possible that he got his speed not yours. In this case, the officer is
either an idiot or a genuine disgrace to the badge IMO...
ROTFLMAO....another "radar expert"......I don't think anyone questions who
is the "idiot" here......
|
| |
| |
truckinsp wrote:
Harry, You missed my point completely! I didn't do it.
And you missed HIS point completely....DON'T SPEED....
As for the "I didn't do it" stuff.....yea, that's what they all
say..........
Does it ever occur to you that there're unjust cases? Some
cops could play this game that most people won't bother to
fight their tickets that they can give out tickets as they
please.
Yeah, while we're on this topic, what is there for them to lose?
It's real easy for them to write/file one. IF the "victim" wasn't
convicted, no big deal to the cop???
So if you don't have anything positive to contribute, you could
always exercise your right to remain silent!
|
| |
| |
Does it ever occur to you that there're unjust cases? Some
cops could play this game that most people won't bother to
fight their tickets that they can give out tickets as they
please.
Yea......all them cops just looking for you.....aren't YOU special........
Yeah, while we're on this topic, what is there for them to lose?
It's real easy for them to write/file one. IF the "victim" wasn't
convicted, no big deal to the cop???
If you weren't on such a poor pitiful me trip, you'd see just how ludicrous
that statement is......
So if you don't have anything positive to contribute, you could
always exercise your right to remain silent!
Oh, my, aren't we just a bit sactimonius for someone who is trying to prove
to everybody how "innocent" he his and how those mean bad ole cops are just
always picking on him.........
YAWWWNNNN.....don't you ever read this NG.....your story is SOOOO OLD and
OVERUSED.......i.e., the cop was picking on me.....i.e., I really wasn't
going that fast, i.e., poor poor pitiful me.......
Get over yourself and face reality.......you were speeding, the cop DOESN'T
have it in for you.....and if you can't control your car and you can't
figure out fast YOU were going, maybe you should be taking the bus?????
|
| |
| |
FYI, I'm NOT trying to prove to you or anyone here that I'm innocent.
This's pointless. If I were to prove anything at all, it'd be in the
court
room.
If you think I'm just like anyone else that you know (speed and doesn't
admit it), by all means, skip this thread and move on. You really
don't need to linger around.
|
| |
| |
If you think I'm just like anyone else that you know (speed and doesn't
admit it), by all means, skip this thread and move on. You really
don't need to linger around.
LOLOL....as usual, don't bore this poster with the truth....just stroke his
shallow ego....
|
| |
| |
truckinsp wrote:
Does it ever occur to you that there're unjust cases? Some
cops could play this game that most people won't bother to
fight their tickets that they can give out tickets as they
please.
Yea......all them cops just looking for you.....aren't YOU
special........
He got caught DWW - Driving While White. Why can't you just admit it,
cops hate white people.
If you weren't on such a poor pitiful me trip, you'd see just how
ludicrous
that statement is......
Oh, my, aren't we just a bit sactimonius for someone who is trying to
prove
to everybody how "innocent" he his and how those mean bad ole cops
are just
always picking on him.........
YAWWWNNNN.....don't you ever read this NG.....your story is SOOOO OLD
and
OVERUSED.......i.e., the cop was picking on me.....i.e., I really
wasn't
going that fast, i.e., poor poor pitiful me.......
Get over yourself and face reality.......you were speeding, the cop
DOESN'T
have it in for you.....and if you can't control your car and you
can't
figure out fast YOU were going, maybe you should be taking the
bus?????
You would never ask these questions of a black motorist.
|
| |
| |
ryeung@earthlink.net wrote:
I was ticketed for speeding 55mph on a street with 35mph limit.
I'm thinking about contesting the ticket. First off, that was
a major street with 40mph signs everywhere. I'm hoping to get
an official doc. (presumably from gov.). But where should I do
the search?
It depends on who has the authority to set the speed limit on that that
(city, county, or state). If it's the state, then try the state
department of transportation. You could try using the Freedom of
Information Act if they're not forthcoming. I'm not sure if you'll be
able to submit any documentation you receive as evidence during the
trial though.
Could he possibly have enough time to pace my speed?
That depends on state laws regarding pacing. You might want to consider
how much time he could have paced you, where he started, and where he
pulled you over. If the distance between the two locations is less than
what you could have traversed at 55 mph, then you might have something
there.
This's my first ticket out of 10 years of driving. Any tips?
As others have posted, try the National Motorists Association
(http://www.motorists.org). They have a lot of information online and
you'll be able to rent a legal defense kit if you join. You might also
consider obtaining a copy of "Beating the Radar Rap" 2nd Ed. It has a
lot of information pertaining to CA, but I'm not sure how out of date it
would be given that it was written sometime in the late '80s or early '90s.
|
| |
| |
If you think I'm just like anyone else that you know (speed and doesn't
admit it), by all means, skip this thread and move on. You really
don't need to linger around.
LOLOL....as usual, don't bore this poster with the truth....just stroke
his
shallow ego....
since when does truth have anything to do with the justice system???
you have nothing to lose by fighting the ticket and everything to gain,
whether you were speeding or not is irrelevant.
|
| |
| |
California speeding ticket
"you have nothing to lose by fighting the ticket and everything to
gain"
Not necessarily true. In California you lose the right to take traffic
school if you contest the speeding ticket. Rob is correct that the
truth often has nothing to do with the justice system. Fight the ticket
and you will likely lose, regardless of what your little book says.
Most California courts accept online traffic school. You still have to
pay the fine but your record stays clean and your insurance stays down.
Take the school, here is a link for more information
http://www.trafficschoolonline.com/?lcode=4013
|
| |
| |
If you think I'm just like anyone else that you know (speed and doesn't
admit it), by all means, skip this thread and move on. You really
don't need to linger around.
LOLOL....as usual, don't bore this poster with the truth....just stroke
his
shallow ego....
I could care less if you speed or not. Extracted from a file I downloaded
somewhere on the internet::
PROCEDURES AT THE TRIAL
Below you'll see a listing of typical events in the order that they will
happen during your trial:
The Bailiff calls the case.
The defense, that's you, and the Prosecution both reply with "Ready your
Honor."
The Prosecution will give their opening statement.
The Defense will give their opening statement.
The Prosecution will present their case, they will have the police officers
testimony.
There will be cross examination by the Defense.
There will be a re-direct by the Prosecution.
Any physical evidence that happens to be available will be brought to light
at this time.
Any diagrams, citations, that sort of thing, then the Prosecution will rest.
If you have the grounds, you will make your motion to dismiss, on
non-applicable grounds at this point in time.
The defense case will include your witness, either you or your passengers.
Cross Examination by the prosecution.
Re-Direct by the defense, and you as the defense, will rest.
Next will follow the rebuttal of the witness by the prosecution.
The closing arguments by the prosecution, by the defense, and then the
Prosecution gets another chance to make a follow up and respond to the
Defense closing. The verdict will be issued shortly thereafter, and then you
will get sentenced if guilty.
THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION
The Prosecution's job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt through the use
of testimony and evidence that all the vehicle code sections that you're
accused of violating, had in fact been violated. Typically, the Prosecutor
will attempt to prove that the ticketing officer made a visual estimate of
your speed and then verified that speed with his laser detector or, by
following you with his vehicle. Make a note of the fact that the Prosecution
has a case law which supports their side of the story and that would be the
State of Kentucky versus Honeycutt which ruled that an officer does not need
to be an expert in radar operation, he only has to be competent in the use
of radar.
The purpose of your objections during the trial procedure and the
prosecutions presentation do have two purposes. First of all, you want to
break up the pace that the Prosecutor and the arresting officer or the
ticketing officer are accustomed to. Primarily you can do that through
objections. Anything that appears to be subject should be objected to. Take
a look at what follows, for some of the typical objections that you have
available to you. Even if you are overruled, the police and the Prosecution
have to break up their rhythm in order to wait for the Judge to make a
ruling.
While the Prosecution is presenting their case you should be making notes as
to what was said. Make comments concerning your upcoming cross examination
so that you are prepared before you get up to talk. Keep a tally, a running
record of the various points of the vehicle code in question. As the
Prosecution proves that point of your case, check it off. This will be able
to give you a record as to whether or not he has covered all of the points
in the case law. If all of the code issues are not checked off and you know
that they have not been covered by the Prosecuting attorney, you have reason
to make a motion for dismissal. Keep in mind that the Prosecutor must prove
all the points in the code beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now lets take a look at some of the typical objections that are used in a
traffic ticket trial.
TYPICAL OBJECTIONS
The entire purpose of the objections is to keep the evidence limited to
specific testimony which is specifically relevant and admissible to the
case. The only one who has authority over this is the Judge. He can say
nothing about evidence that is produced in the case unless it is objected
to. There is a fine line between how many times you can object and not be
reprimanded by the Judge and also how few times you can successfully defend
your case without being run over by the Prosecuting attorney.
Here are some of the objections that you may come across in a typical trial.
OBJECTION, INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION When the officer begins his testimony,
more than likely he's going to read from the copy of his citation. You
should immediately object to this since the officer is required to testify
from independent recollection. You should also ask to see what the officer
is referring to even though you have received a copy of the citation through
subpoena. More than likely the Judge will allow the officer to use his notes
to refresh his memory, if the officer indicates to the court that he
requires the notes to testify properly. This starts everything for dismissal
because the sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees you the right to
be confronted with the witnesses against you. In this case, the officer and
his testimony, not the citation, are the witnesses against you. If the
officer can not recollect the circumstances of your ticket, he may be
consider incompetent to testify. You have to prove that the officer is
unable to testify without his notes to make him an incompetent witness. If
the back of the citation and the officer's notes signifies SB 124, then all
he can testify to is SB 124, not Southbound on highway 124. As you'll soon
see the notes on the back on the officers citation can hurt the officers'
testimony and help you greatly.
OBJECTION, FOUNDATION A situation arises when any witness testifies to
something that has not been previously established as evidence. For example,
the officer states that the speedometer on his police vehicle read 70 miles
per hour. It is inadmissible in court unless the calibration for the
speedometer had been entered prior to that point in time.
OBJECTION, SPECULATION This type of objection occurs when a question is
asked of a witness and they introduce evidence that they could not possibly
know. For example, they introduce the fact that you could clearly see a
street sign or a speed limit sign and there's no way that they could know
that. Only you could be aware of that fact.
OBJECTION, CONCLUSION In this case the Prosecution would ask the officer to
draw a conclusion based on an insufficient amount of facts. For example, the
officer volunteered that you saw a stop sign and chose to ignore it. He
cannot make that decision because he does not have the facts.
OBJECTION, NARRATIVE The officer is allowed to testify in the form of a
story rather than a question and answer procedure. He has given a narrative.
You have a right to decide if a particular question would have an
objectionable response. If he tells the events without questioning, you have
no opportunity to object.
OBJECTION, NOT QUALIFIED It's similar to the previous objection, but in this
instance the witness testifies to something that they have no expertise in.
If the officer were to testify that your muf
|
| |
| |
Dane,
Thanks for the detail info.
At the time, I was alone (i.e. no witness), how much is this gonna
hurt?
Also, how do I know if the officer used any radar unit? What would the
defense be if, say, he used pacing instead?
Would photos be something usable (problem is how to link speed limit
signs
with street name or location, as they don't normally show up close
together).
Raymond
|
| |
| |
|
