OK, you got a speeding ticket. You didn’t ignore it (right answer). You didn’t pay it and take the hit to you insurance premium (also the right answer). You decided to go to court. If you were offered lowered points and fine by the court, you turned it down (potentially the wrong answer). In the penultimate part of our guide, I’m going to show you how a speeder who defends himself has a fool for a client.
The officer who wrote you up will state his name and be sworn in. The policeman will say he was working a certain shift in a given marked/unmarked patrol car. The car was equipped with a fully-functional [insert gadget name here] designed to time vehicular speed. At 10 am on Rt. 66 he saw a purple Porsche on a two-lane road, with a yellow divider. He visually estimated the speed to be 100 mph, plus or minus X mph.
[NB: a police officer’s visual speed estimate is legally admissible evidence. In The Empire State, the cop’s guesstimate/word is sufficient to uphold conviction. Most courts want a gadget reading for confirmation, purely as a practical matter.]
The officer will tell the court that he activated his speed timing device, which gave him a reading of 97 mph. Without losing sight of the vehicle, he then pulled out and pursued the perp (you). He pulled the car over at a certain location. He identified the driver by his State Photo ID. The officer will then relay whatever you said during the stop (the “do you know why I stopped you” question).
He will then state the location of the signs posting the legal speed limit, unless you have violated a state maximum (55mph in my New York patch). He will state his training, and reveal when it was last refreshed.
The cop will also tell the court how he set up his radar or laser, or produce a certificate of calibration for a speedometer (if paced). He’ll testify about tuning forks (radar) or internal self-tests (laser). Then, testifying that he was “satisfied that device X was performing according to manufacturers’ specifications,” he will close his case.
And now, it’s time for your cross-examination.
Most pro se defendants don’t channel Perry Mason, or even Denny Crane from Boston Legal. Instead, they launch into their “story:” a narrative account interspersed with “radar/laser sucks” information gleaned from the internet. When the Judge corrects them– “questions only, please,” they’re left feeling frustrated, flapping on the deck like a dying cod.
After a few easily parried questions to the cop– “no sir, there were no other cars in my radar” and “yes, you were the only purple Porsche on the road”– they’re sunk.
Some defendants bring anti-radar/laser articles or papers to support their contention that the cop’s equipment and/or observations were inherently unreliable. These pieces of paper are routinely denied as not conforming to the “rules of evidence” (a full law school course), leaving the defendant flustered in their inability to land one of his or her cross examination “punches.”
In fact, the cop need only testify to the “direct case.” They will not give you the obvious leads you need to do a “wrong car” or “improperly setup radar” theory like you read on the internet. If the cop holds to the Direct Radar Case, for most straight speed cases, the result will be conviction. In New York City, for example, the Direct Radar Case is literally a “cookie cutter” dissertation which may or may not resemble your traffic stop.
The motorist is then convicted of the offense. I repeat, in the vast majority of speeding cases, motorists who defends themselves in court are convicted as a matter of course. It doesn’t matter how smart of savvy you are. You’re toast. Next case…
Many defendants feel extremely aggrieved by the process, and offended by the result. Unable to tell their side of the story, they conclude that the Judge was rude, insensitive and/or arrogant– even though the Judge was going by the Law, following the rules of evidence.
The motorist then pays the Clerk, complains to the Clerk about the Judge (usually her boss), and goes forth fuming– especially if he or she refused to plead to the “deal” offered two hours ago.
In the next and final installment of this series, I will make my case that anyone who wishes to fight a speeding ticket should hire a local attorney with a good track record and relevant experience. Yes, I know what you’re thinking: he would say that, wouldn’t he? If you choose to ignore a writer who’s seen literally thousands of speeding cases, that’s your prerogative.
But for now, my advice to [alleged] speeders is simple. Fight the ticket in every case. Take whatever deal you can get and/or hire an attorney. Period.
These days, I am rarely stopped by the police, but years ago, I routinely received (and fought) many tickets.
Unlike many pro per defendants, I actually know quite a bit about my state’s vehicle code, I am familiar with legal processes in general and I know how to conduct legal research. I went to court well-prepared and knowledgeable of the law. All of that would seem to provide an advantage.
But in practice, it is difficult for a non-attorney to cross-examine a cop in traffic court. It’s not that you can’t do it properly, but that the judge often won’t like or allow it, no matter what you do. Even if you conduct yourself in a professional, lawyerly fashion, they will dislike you for it, and it can make your situation worse. They treat these attempts at cross examination as crossing a line that you should not be cross, an attempt to join a club that would not have you as a member. It’s akin knowing the secret handshake when you aren’t supposed to — they not only don’t care for it, but they also take offense to it.
You can fight tickets without a lawyer, but generally it degrades into a he said-she said situation in which “she” (the cop) gets the benefit of the doubt and then some. Even if the cop’s case is weak and you clearly debunk it, the judge will mostly likely look for an excuse to find you guilty, regardless of the evidence. After all, he probably knows this cop on a personal basis and feels that he is in league with him, whereas if you know the judge, it probably won’t be for a good reason. They are brothers in arms, and you are The Enemy. Constitutional standards of due process do not apply.
I find my best way out involves the use of technicalities. I had my last moving violation dismissed pre-trial based upon a technical matter involving venue. You could tell that the judge absolutely hated tossing it out, but he had no choice — the procedural issue was clear and completely in my favor, so his hands were tied. I have no doubt, given his hostile, clearly pro-prosecutorial demeanor that had there been a standard trial that I would have lost, no matter what I had said or done.
I beat tickets on technicalities without shelling out money for an attorney. But the best thing is not to get one (cough – radar detector)in the first place.
Personally, the “drop the points and cut the ticket price by 75%” offer seems to be the cheapest in the long run. Just how much does the average lawyer charge for a traffic case?
In CA, you can do a trial by declaration first, this does not waive your right to an in person “hearing.” So if you are unhappy with that result (which is very likely) you can move on to your day in traffic court. It should br noted that traffic court in CA operates differently than most courts since often it is not a “judge” but a commissioner that sits. This seems to be a benefit because in my limited experience they are very very liberal with fine reductions.
Even if you don’t win and you have the added bonus of paying court costs, I think it’s still better to waste the court’s time. The courts couldn’t handle everyone fighting the tickets, so if everyone did then the traffic tickets wouldn’t be quite the revenue stream they are now.
GS650G wrote:
I beat tickets on technicalities without shelling out money for an attorney.
After reading the detailed article above that says you really can’t do that, I am very curious:
How the heck do you do it?
What if the cop already cut you a break by, say, reducing the ticket to careless driving when you were doing 90mph? Would it still make sense to fight the ticket? Could it be plea bargained down? And if the cop upgrade the complaint by charging you with what you were realling doing?
Personally, I think I would just pay the ticket and be done with it.
I guess I’m different than the majority of car enthusiasts. If I was speeding, I’ll take whatever deal I can get or pay the fine and go on my way. If it is close, then I might fight it.
For instance, if I am pulled over and my speedometer read 70 mph and the officer said I was doing 72, I might fight it. I don’t know anyone who ever got a ticket for one or two miles over the limit, but it could happen.
The only two times I was stopped for speeding I was doing 11 and 10 miles over the limit. I didn’t see any reason to argue the point; I was speeding. Period.
My wife got nailed last night in Indianapolis doing 45 mph in a 35 mph zone. The fine: $150. It’s not so much that I want to dispute her guilt, it’s that the fine seems completely unreasonable to me.
Wouldn’t I just break even (at best) paying an attorney?
I can confirm the truth of this. I defended myself in a district court, then appealed to circuit court. I got the cop to admit that he lied regarding the circumstances of the case in the first trial, had no independent memory of the stop, and had no operational knowledge of radar gun. Result? Guilty.
It’s a scam. In Virginia, the court rake from traffic tickets is $173 million per year — that’s all it’s about.
Jon Paul – In Indianapolis, if you have not had a ticket in a year (not sure on the time frame, may be longer), you can pay the fine and do “diversion”. The last time I got a ticket in Marion County, the diversion fee was the same as the ticket fee. In other counties (Hendricks is double the fine), the fees can vary.
Indiana recently passed a law which allows counties to fine you for the ticket, make you pay a diversion fee, but the ticket is never reported to the BMV. Blatant revenue enhancement, but no insurance penalty. The great thing is that the counties do not keep track of who is in diversion in other counties, so you could theoretically get 92 tickets in Indiana and never have them reported to the BMV. “Someone I know” is currently on diversion in two Indiana counties for another month.
“I beat tickets on technicalities without shelling out money for an attorney”…After reading the detailed article above that says you really can’t do that, I am very curious: How the heck do you do it?
You need to know your state and local laws. Things to consider can include adherence to appropriate timelines (too many delays by the prosecution can violate speedy trial statutes) and venue. The goal should be to find procedural errors that can lead the court to dismiss your case prior to trial.
For me it’s not so much the idea of the ticket that is the problem. It’s the fact that the insurance companies count the number of convictions against your insurance rating..even for a minor ticket.That’s a bigger racket than articifially keeping speed limits low to up the revenue generated by tickets.
One used to be able to beat the rap by coming to (County not local) court in Indiana the first time, asking for a continuence, calling before the court date and asking to change the date to another one and when you finally did show up the officer might not be there ( In a local city court the presiding official just ignored me when I asked for dismissal and set a new date). Then you can ask for dismissal ( Your accuser is not there). It aint easy but if it doesn’t work you still made them work for their money.
I have a slightly different problem–I was pulled over for allegedly passing in a no-passing zone. I went back in daylight and it is 100% apparent that I was in a designated passing zone, but the lines are a bit dusty so the cop probably just made a mistake at night. What can I possibly do about it?
I sent in as much documentation as I could get together (pictures, video footage, even a weather report indicating visibility that night). What other options do I have if I am summoned to court? It would be ridiculously unfair if I got hit with a $100 ticket plus points on my license for something I was absolutely innocent of, but from the article and comments it sounds like I’m screwed anyways.
coupdetat
like the man said, you will need a lawyer.
I have a couple strategies and I can see that my state is a bit different, or at least it was last time I got a ticket half a dozen years ago.
One, find out how what to do to get your ticket dismissed by taking defensive driving. Don’t just take the course, get all the instructions from the state in writing and follow them to the letter.
Two, just pay the fine. Unless you got a really big fine and/or get a lot of tickets this can make good sense because your time and peace of mind are valuable. Do the math. Is it worth the fight or better to just let it go.
Three, hire the lawyer. Go along with the lawyer. It doesn’t matter what really happened, or how big a liar the cop is. You will not be able to do anything about it because you got a ticket and a million of your peers have all claimed the cop is a lying pig even when he was not. If you really feel like this guy should lose his badge, only take actions approved by your attourney.
A little interesting tidbit: My attourney asked nothing about my last ticket. He didn’t care that the cop was doing everything wrong. He got me off by rescheduling my case to a date that the jerk couldn’t attend, and I was dismissed. The fact that I was not in the speed zone the cop claimed, that he put an incorrect date on the ticket so he could cover up for taking time off, or that he simply left the radar gun on his bike between pullovers without even pointing it at a car was besides the point. If I had only had a video camera on my phone back then!
I am waiting for my date with death. I received some parking violations. The reminders went to an old address (even though I had changed mine properly). I went so far as to the government offices and watch while the changed the address i the computer. As I received the notifications late, the fines were much steeper, so I decided to appeal. Guess what? The notices went to the old address …. again! I only got them because I ran into the new tenant on the subway. So, I typed a letter to the appropriate goverment official, not quite saying f*** yourselves, and stapled the tickets/notifications with the wrong address to the letter.
I have to renew my license soon. Could be interesting.
A good friend who lives in Mr. Raskob’s state (NY) has always done as Mr. Raskob advises (get a local atty) and has always gotten off.
I went to traffic court several years ago with a local lawyer, who did a masterful job and got me off.
I think part of the value of getting rid of the ticket is that if you get stopped later, you are less likely to get a ticket if your record is clear. I’ve had several stops since, but no ticket. (I’m very good at Mr. Raskob’s suggestions about how to act when stopped)
Good luck, everyone!
A lot of posters are missing the point. Which is that at the typical small municipal court, everybody wants to go home and watch the NBA playoffs, or whatever. Nobody wants to sit in a miserable little courtroom/basement/town-hall appendage listening to jerks who have Googled “how to beat a speeding ticket.” If a justice of the peace can clear 100 cases in as many minutes by accepting whatever varieties of plea bargains the cops can work out, all the better.
A single amateur lawyer trying to beat a $300 ticket can be the logjam that stops 100 $100 tickets from flowing. Please understand that the basic principle of typical traffic courts is “Can we all cooperate and get this stuff done so we can go back to work?”
I went before 2 different judges in 2 different WA counties within a 12 month period. Both tickets were deferred but fines paid. HOWEVER, the first judge found out that I got the 2nd ticket before my year ‘probation’ was up. I had to beg and plead for another year to stay clean, but he did relent to that, and I did stay clean with help from my Valentine One (which I did not have with either of the 2 tickets).
Neither ticket ever went on my record. Hundreds of dollars saved on my insurance.
A single amateur lawyer trying to beat a $300 ticket can be the logjam that stops 100 $100 tickets from flowing. Please understand that the basic principle of typical traffic courts is “Can we all cooperate and get this stuff done so we can go back to work?”
My (all too considerable) experience with this does not support the system that you’ve described, at least not where I have had the pleasure of going to court.
Where I have been, here’s how it works — if you are cited, you receive a ticket that includes an appearance date. That date is not a trial date, but just for an arraignment. At arraignment, you are notified of the charges against you and you enter a plea. If you plea not guilty, you are assigned a date for trial that is set many weeks later. Your trial does not occur at the initial appearance date.
Most of the cases that come to the court on the arraignment date will never go to trial. Virtually everyone seems to plea “guilty with an explanation”, which is not really a plea at all — your only legal choices are “guilty”, “not guilty” or “no contest,” the latter of which is effectively the same as a guilty plea.
The “explanation” folks will offer some excuse, hoping to cut a deal. The judge often looks down his nose at these people, offers some reason that he thinks that their explanation sucks, and nails most of them for full sticker because he can — after all, you just finished pleading guilty, and he can do whatever he wants with that admission of guilt.
Those very few defendants who end up at trial will have no plea bargain opportunity. Where I am, there is no district attorney present at these trials, so there is nobody to bargain with. The judge will (reluctantly) give you your trial, probably already resentful that you burdened him and his staff with your demand for justice, and will not be there to bargain with you.
Since you are guilty until proven innocent, your best hope is that the cop doesn’t appear. Otherwise, you will most likely be convicted, with your fine varying depending upon how much you’ve managed to irritate the judge.
Sure, the judge wants to go home. But he will speed things up by cutting off your cross-exam and trying to get you to offer a succinct, brief statement for your side of the story, not by wheeling and dealing. Judges tend to be arrogant and highly protective of their turf (the courtroom), plus they know that they hold the cards, so their incentive to bargain with you is low.
If you bring an attorney, you have better odds because you have brought a member of the club with you. He may then offer you a deal more for the sake of fraternal courtesy than because of the merits of your case. Since you’ve paid the membership fee to your attorney, you get the benefit of the clubmember discount.
PCH, judging by that signature you live in California. Big mistake. Come to New York, be happy. Attornies? Judges?? DAs??? We have little municipal courts with “justices” and everybody goes home happy, exept for those who try to fork with the system.
Always worth going to court – even if you represent yourself, especially in the UK…
The combination of long waiting lists, police budgeting and police relocation means that there’s a good chance that the police officer who charged you may not be able to get to the court.
If the police cannot attend the courts will often find in your favour – if you ask!
Municipal courts in the state of New Jersey are almost all run like something in a banana republic. I know of almost no one who has acted pro se in a municipal court in New Jersey and prevailed. The primary function of municipal courts is tax farming and lawyer enrichment. I won’t give the nasty details about my experiences in NJ municipal courts, because it would run for pages, and I don’t have the time. To sum up, if I had not hired lawyers, I would have ended up in jail and paid huge fines instead of paying moderate fines and huge lawyer bills. The second you inform the judge that you intend to proceed as your own council, you are fighting an uphill battle. The judges looks at a pro se litigants as lower than whale shit, since they beat one of their brethren(other lawyer) out of a fee. You’re kidding yourself if you think there is anything like justice in this country. It’s all about how much money you have to spend.
I agree that, if you were actually speeding, just bite the bullet – my first ticket, I had no trouble paying for what I did.
My second ticket, OTOH, said that I was going 52 in a 40. The problem – the light 5 cars in front of me was red, and there were 4 cars in front of me…. very busy 4-lane city street, at night, on the weekend. I hadn’t even been able to hit 35 while driving that night, yet I’m told I was going 52. I asked to see the radar and was told that I would be arrested for exiting the vehicle. I asked her to bring it to me, and it was apparrently “attached to the vehicle.” After 5 minutes of B.S., and being told again that I would be arrested for arguing or some crap, she drove off. I tried to fight it, but in my “consultation” I was informed that the court will take the officer’s side no matter what I say, due to the law.
The part that really pissed me off was the location – it was on that “teen” street that every larger city has, where the “teens” drive like complete idiots, race like morons, and hang out at every gas station to compare honda civic engines. While I might have fit part of the profile, I was on the way to a job interview – an oddly time’d one at that, but a job interview nonetheless. I was pulled over at the most busy parking lot basically, IMO, to set an example. The car was a “new” undercover, at that.. if you can call a car that conspicuous “undercover.”
Long story short – The TX system is not fair for those of us who didn’t break the law. ::end soapbox::
Offroadinfrontier, seeing your in Texas, shot in the dark. This wouldn’t have happened to have been North Beach Street in Ft. Worth, would it?
After reading the detailed article above that says you really can’t do that, I am very curious:
How the heck do you do it?
John law claimed he clocked me from behind going 65 in a 45. He wrote me the usual ticket with ” I wrote you up for 56 in a 45″ line but in court I asked him how fast I was going and he hesitated and said 65, but that he cut me a break. He thought that would wi him favor from an approving judge.
The problem is in our state you need to follow someone for 1 mile to establish their speed accurately. the road in question was not long enough for him to catch up to me and hover behind to clock me. It would have taken him 1/8th mile just to bridge the gap and the road is less than 3/4 mile anyway. He gave me the idea by his “I’ll cut you a break” crap. I was doing about 55 max because it is a short road.
The reality is he was pissed I turned in front of him when he was trying to get around people.
Judge thought for a minute or two and dismissed it because there was insufficient time spent behind me before the stop.
I had a map, pictures of the stopped location (taken with my cell phone when he was writing the ticket) and a calm smile.
I didn’t need a lawyer because I knew I was getting hosed on the ticket. And the judge really had no choice, the facts were clear.
Interestingly, I once received a speeding ticket that was quite similar to GS650G’s situation. Except I was convicted.
I was driving 25 mph in a 25 mph zone. I was cited for 40 mph. I first entered this 25 mph zone just as I was crossing through an intersection that had an officer stopped in his massive SUV patrol vehicle at a stop sign — in other words, you would have to been blind to have missed him, and he was traveling at 0 mph, which is important in this case.
In court, I had the rare opportunity to cross-examine him without bullying from the judge. Under oath, the cop testified that he had determined my speed by pacing me with the use of his speedometer.
I used a map that made it clear that given the distances involved and the officer beginning his “pursuit” from a dead stop that it was literally impossible for him to have paced me for any distance, as he would have needed to have driven faster than I was in order to have pulled me over where he did. He also failed to show proof that his speedometer had been calibrated, so the accuracy of the speedo could not be established.
Furthermore, I had a witness (a friend of mine driving another vehicle) who had been driving behind the cop. He was able to verify the facts that I had presented. So this was a rare instance in which it was two against one, not just he-said/she-said.
The judge didn’t fine me, but he convicted me. His reasoning — the officer was apparently an “expert witness” on speed. This despite the fact that his expertise had never been introduced into evidence, and that he stated under oath that he had used his speedometer to determine my speed.
In other words, it was a kangaroo court. In a real criminal trial or with an attorney, a judge could not have made this leap in judgment, but in traffic court when you are a non-lawyer acting pro se, anything is fair game.
The judge liked me enough not to fine me, but he surely didn’t want me to win, either. Of course, I wasted hours of effort and had my insurance increase, thanks to the officer’s willingness to “testi-lie” under oath. Their attitude — even if you didn’t do this, surely you’ve done something else, so you deserve whatever you get.
The problem with the “get a lawyer” argument is that, in most cases, the lawyer will charge you as much as the ticket would cost.
As for increases in insurance, at least where I live in California, if you go to traffic school it doesn’t go on your record-and you can go to traffic school on-line these days. Now, I think if you get two tickets in six months or something you can’t go to traffic school on the second one, but a single ticket shouldn’t cause your insurance to go up too much.
Sadly, one of the consequences of 25 years of knee jerk anti-tax mania is that municipalities now use ridiculous fines for speeding, parking and other traffic related offences to fund themselves.
@ VI:
No, not in Ft. Worth. I hear the speed patrol there is about as bad as it gets, though (one of those cities whose main source of income seems to be ticketing travellers who don’t have the time or money to fight a ticket hours away from their home).
shiney:
Maybe it’s NOT “the consequences of 25 years of knee jerk anti-tax mania that municipalities now use ridiculous fines for speeding, parking and other traffic related offences to fund themselves.”
Maybe it’s the massive bloated spending.
Maybe if governments only spent money on projects related to items that government is for, and didn’t arrest/detain/restrain/imprison citizens, as well as confiscate their property, for innocent activities, for non-criminal behaviors, we’d again enjoy our freedom AND low taxes.
It drives me insane to see so many people get pulled over for speeding, yet someone takes a swipe at you by merging into your lane in the middle of a turn and nothing happens. What’s worse is when someone stops an entire car length over the white line, effectively blocking off a full lane of traffic, and the cops drive right on by. Or when a cop is right in the front lines with you and 3-7 cars run their red turn arrow right in front of you, effectively blocking your Green-lit lane from moving, and nobody gets a ticket.
—For the record, I’ve written to my local gov.t about the lane-merging issue; it happens at least 3 times a week, and that’s no lie. For some reason, the BIG FAT SOLID WHITE LINE splitting the two lanes aren’t clear enough, and I guess the big turn arrows in both lanes just add to the confusion. Fortunately, the city added a sign to fully illustrate the functions of the two lanes, but unfortunately it seems that 90% of people don’t know how to interperate white signs with black arrows…
Or maybe the problem is the local enforcement… I know it must be hard to fit looking for improper drivers into their busy speeding-ticket schedules, but it would be nice every once-in-a-while to see someone get pulled over for driving like a moron instead of the driver going 63 in a 60.
I rarely get tickets, but always use lawyers to fight them. I have yet to lose money on paying for a lawyer, which generally costs $50-$100 per ticket. Every time they have gotten the fine reduced or gotten me off completely. The least reduction they got me was $200 off and 6 point to 2 points. More than worth the $75 fee for that ticket. And all the lawyers have told me that if they win, it’s usually on a technicality, like pch101 mentioned.
@ Geotpf: I don’t know where you live, but on the east coast I don’t think there is a single moving violation that has a below $100 fine.
Also as the writer emphasizes, it’s very important to get a “local” lawyer. This is because they know the judge, they know the cop, they all work together and that’s going to work in your favor.
Occasionally some semblance of logic/justice can prevail.
Travelling through Michigan from Canada last year. It was about midnight, 1 inch of snow on the ground and not much traffic. I got a painful leg cramp and pulled over onto the shoulder of an entry ramp (so I was more than a lane width away from the main travelled portion of the Interstate). I walked the cramp off then got back into my car.
A patrol car pulled up behind me and the officer asked for my paperwork etc. “we’ll have you on your way in no time”. He came back with a ticket for parking on the roadway. His explanation – my rear tire was on the white line. I got out to look and had to kick the snow away to see the white line; there was about 3 inches of tire on the line. It was clear that the guy saw an easy, no-contest ticket (Canadian plates) so I didn’t try to debate the issue, he wasn’t going to reverse it anyway.
On the advice of a friend I wrote a letter to the local court explaining the situation and noting that I had acted in the interests of safety, did not pose a hazard and the infraction was a matter of inches on a snow-covered highway. I asked the court to use its best judgement in assessing the merits of the ticket.
I guess that the judge had got lucky the previous night or didn’t like the officer but the ticket was dismissed. To say I was surprised is an understatement.
I got a ticket in my Prius back in 2004.
He got me, fair and square. I was going 72 in a 55 zone. Even though I had no other run-ins, I didn’t want the points. So I took the course. The cost was probably $40 or $50 more than it would have been had I just paid the ticket.
But no incidents since then. It’s been 3.5 years. But this article has me confused. Please tell me why not fighting that ticket was the wrong thing to do?
offroadinfrontier :
February 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
It drives me insane to see so many people get pulled over for speeding, yet someone takes a swipe at you by merging into your lane in the middle of a turn and nothing happens. What’s worse is when someone stops an entire car length over the white line, effectively blocking off a full lane of traffic, and the cops drive right on by. Or when a cop is right in the front lines with you and 3-7 cars run their red turn arrow right in front of you, effectively blocking your Green-lit lane from moving, and nobody gets a ticket.
I see this all the time. And yes, the cops drive right on by.
Or maybe the problem is the local enforcement… I know it must be hard to fit looking for improper drivers into their busy speeding-ticket schedules, but it would be nice every once-in-a-while to see someone get pulled over for driving like a moron instead of the driver going 63 in a 60.
No sir (or maam, whichever is appropriate). The problem is that we, the electorate, don’t care to demand that this be changed via the ballot box. We’re basically getting what we want.
When polled, the great majority of drivers will say that they are “better than average.” Mathematically, this cannot hold true.
If really and truly, everybody is “better than average,” then we should have absolutely no problem with eliminating the 5% or 10% worst drivers from the road, through tougher testing, a road test, or a simple vision-test, yes?
Then why do we not have to retake our driving test but once every ten years or so, if even then?
I suspect, in this lawyered-up society–just see what all the comments following this article are suggesting–the problem for the cops is knowing they’ll be wasting their time (and not getting paid for it) trying to make a charge of “The guy did a dumb thing” stick. Speeding is a good arrest because you have a piece of machinery that can prove it. DUI is a good arrest because you have another piece of machinery to prove it.
Talking on a cellphone is not a good stop because the lawyer will claim the woman simply had her hand to her ear tightening her earring, and how can you prove she was holding a cellphone? No machine there to do it for you. Turning on a red isn’t a good stop because the guy will claim it was still yellow, etc. etc.
My wife was damn near killed and her Boxster totaled awhile ago when a guy in an Expedition rear-ended her at 40 or 50 while trying to deal with his kids in the back seat. He didn’t get a ticket, even though all the evidence was spread out on the roadway in front of the cop, who arrived along with the ambulance. Why? The cop didn’t see the accident, and his ticket would have been easily defeated. Maybe _he_ was stopped and my wife backed into him at 50, say…
Cops aren’t dumb. They hate the dumb driving as much as you do, but they’re not going to waste their time trying to fight it in court.
A former landlord of mine is a non-practicing graduate of law school with connections to city hall. He loves to drive fast and every time he gets a speeding ticket he gets somebody at city hall to “fix it” so that he does not have to show up since his case never even gets called up.
He is very proud of his insider status and loves to brag about it. He is actually fun to listen to, except when he gets way of topic and starts bible thumping. (He knows the bible inside-out.)
Stephan Wilkinson :
Cops aren’t dumb. They hate the dumb driving as much as you do, but they’re not going to waste their time trying to fight it in court.
allen5h :
A former landlord of mine is a non-practicing graduate of law school with connections to city hall. He loves to drive fast and every time he gets a speeding ticket he gets somebody at city hall to “fix it” so that he does not have to show up since his case never even gets called up.
Both of these are further proof to me that we are getting exactly what we want. We (as a population) are willing to tolerate this. If it bothered us, we would change it. But we don’t.
We’re just content to shake our heads and go all “tsk tsk” when we hear of the woman being rear-ended and the accident-causer not paying for it.
We listen to our self-righteous, hypocritical friends and aquaintences yak it up how they get their tickets fixed, but we don’t do anything to bring this to the light of day.
Someday, that man might just kill somebody, and then we’ll go back to the aforementioned head-shaking and “tsk-tsk’ing.” But we won’t actually DO anything about it.
We’re getting exactly what we want. Tolerance of incompetence. So we deserve it.
Here’s my question – how much does it cost to hire a lawyer to defend yourself end to end on average? If it’s in the 1000s of $$$, why not just paid the $150 ticket?
# Jon Paul :
February 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
My wife got nailed last night in Indianapolis doing 45 mph in a 35 mph zone. The fine: $150. It’s not so much that I want to dispute her guilt, it’s that the fine seems completely unreasonable to me.
Wouldn’t I just break even (at best) paying an attorney?
Not only that, but your auto insurance rate is going up right?
Usually the lawyer price-value equations work out.
Take the traffic fines and surcharges, no matter what the name. Add to this about 15% bump on your fleet of cars. One Camcord is less of course than the guy with two kids in school and four cars, one of which is a “luxo”. That is for 39 months in NY. Add to this the fact that a basic six point speed here in NY is a $500.00 nut, and even if the attorney costs that much (high estimate) you still get less points and the fleet insurance bill does not go up.
If you are clean, get one small ticket, and don’t usually get tickets, then it MIGHT be worth it to pay the small ticket. Any speed over 15 mph will normally ding your insurance, etc, and most cops give at least 15 mph….most tickets I see are 20 or more over limit. This still does not save you if you get another ticket shortly thereafter, and as no one “plans” tickets, this does happen. I often see folks “on the edge” and the abstract shows a ticket in a “good” court, but they didn’t fight it because “I don’t get tickets.” Well…..
Pch101, thank you for your comments in this thread. Your experiences with “revenue enforcement” mirror my own.
In Georgia, the law is clear that a police officer is both an expert judge of speed and irrefutable, and no further “gadget” reading is even necessary. In fact, they can testify that you were traveling 150 mph across a parking lot, and they saw it all from a bathroom stall in a nearby restaurant, and it will be acceptable testimony sufficient to convict. Further, the officer need never appear in court, and you can still be found guilty based on the “testimony” provided to the court on the ticket itself (it is considered a legal deposition….actually happened after my attorney moved to dismiss based on inability to cross examine the non-present officer). Clearly a kangaroo system of predisposed guilt not meant for the layman to challenge.
One final note for those comparing attorney fees vs. ticket and higher insurance costs. For most folks, every day you miss work trying to fight the ticket in court costs money, as well. It actually cost me more in lost wages than the ticket I was contesting (and we still lost). Remember to factor that in with the court/attorney costs.
Best advice is to avoid ever getting a ticket in the first place (hint: situational awareness and a good detector).
A traffic attorney is a great way to defend yourself in court if you receive a speeding ticket