You’re fighting your speeding ticket in court. Take a lawyer. Yes, I know: a good local attorney will cost more than the fine. But the whole point of fighting is winning. As I explained in the last installment, the average citizen doesn’t have a hope in Hell of winning in traffic court without a lawyer. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present my case…
A lawyer knows the “system:” the rules AND the players. The defense counsel may be the “enemy,” but he’s the devil they know. The Clerk, Judge and cop can all relax; knowing the game will be played without rancor. For example, if you were a real jerk on the side of the road, the officer will tell me about it. But he won’t get mad at you again. He knows there won’t be any personal confrontation.
[Many states allow an attorney to appear for the client without the client present. So you can out-source the problem without lost time or wages.]
As Harold Hill pronounced in the Music Man, you gotta know the territory. And the Judge IS the territory. It may be a piercing glimpse into the obvious, but they are the one who will decide your fate.
Traffic court judges will vary from an ex-SCCA racer to the “little old lady with the crochet stuff on the back deck who blocks the left lane.” (True stories.) Most Judges are successful, goal-oriented people with substantial life experience. Respect is the currency of the courtroom. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Well, your lawyer can, ‘cause that’s what he does for a living.
A good local attorney will know many things you don’t– like which Judge or Prosecutor may be more sympathetic to your case. (And yes, a case can be “steered” towards a particular judge.) Or when the cop who wrote your ticket is off for their annual, month-long training. Most importantly, a lawyer knows what you are up against.
Most courts treat 70mph+ tickets as tax tickets, 80mph+ as “hey there boy,” and 90mph+ as “you are a road hazard, boy.” Triple digits earn you special treatment in every Court I attend. I have one Judge who will suspend your license for six months and impose a maximum fine.
A good traffic attorney will know what can be done with your offense. Most people hear from friends and relatives that your ticket will either “turn into a parking ticket” or “they will crucify you,” with little in between. When all the smoke settles, the short answer is that an attorney will get you the best deal in the House. It’s kind of like taking a big kid to a schoolyard fight– the fight will probably never happen and if it does, you won’t get hammered. Or hammered as badly.
If you retain an attorney specifically to go to trial, he or she will listen closely to your case. The attorney will know what a “direct case” sounds like. He will know if the officer missed something or lacks written proof. Technicalities R Us.
After the officer is done testifying, the attorney will cross examine the cop. If the attorney is prepared, experienced and knowledgeable, the process can take quite some time.
[If you think about it, five attorneys in a courtroom of 100 scheduled cases could take up an awful lot of time. In light of this fact, attorneys receive more consideration in ticket reductions. Courts are aware that retaining counsel costs money (and pretty much know who charges what in a given area). They respect that, though not officially.]
Your case depends almost entirely on this cross-examination. If the officer testifies perfectly, chances are the Judge (usually no jury) will sustain the charge. And you may be left wondering why you bothered hiring a lawyer in the first place. BUT…
Most cops do not enjoy this part of the job– for good reason. They know the stakes as much as you do. And they don’t like admitting (revealing?) their own incompetence. But police officers are not lawyers.
While they MAY know the exact legal requirements for a valid speeding ticket, they may not. No disrespect to the police, but given the huge number of tickets they write, they probably forgot something somewhere along the line. An experienced attorney has a far greater chance of making hay than a pro se litigant. An attorney will know what the police supposed to say, and when they miss it.
Again, this is where you win or lose. And if you’re going to fight, give yourself a fighting chance. Hire a lawyer. Fight the system yourself and you’ll be outmatched and outmaneuvered.
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
Get a lawyer that likes to win. In my youth I had a lawyer that went on and on about how well all the local attorneys got along, going out to lunch, etc. The result was that he wouldn’t stand up to the other party’s lawyer. Later I heard that he went out of business. Wonder why.
Excellent advice. I am enjoying this series.
Up here in the Great White North (and man is it white this year!!) we have ex-cops that are for hire to help you “fix” tickets. I’m not sure if the same type of service is available in the States. So I don’t know if you have a frame of reference. That being said, the ex-cops are usually cheaper than lawyers. Are they an acceptable alternative to an attorney or is this an example of you get what you pay for?
This has been a wonderful series. Thank you.
I’d like one on finding a good traffic lawyer locally. Mostly to spot a Perry Mason from a Lionel Hutz, before paying the fee and watching them behave in court.
I say this because the one time I was a traffic court juror I had no problem siding with the Law, partially because of my negative impression of the jerkwad lawyer hired by the plaintiff.
Great editorials, very enjoyable read. I realize that the message seems to be, “Don’t ignore the ticket, fight it in court.”
But what if say, you have a just-expired NJ driver’s license, live in Michigan, and get a speeding ticket in PA. Couldn’t you simply ignore the ticket as they won’t have any way to track you after you get your Michigan license?
Isn’t that a situation where simply ignoring the fine is a good idea? Just curious.
Again, great stuff.
Get a lawyer that likes to win.
That’s excellent advice. Not all lawyers are created equal. You absolutely want to have someone who has a competitive streak, otherwise you may lose just the same. There are all too many litigators who don’t have the passion or talent for it, and those will not serve you well.
Something else to note is that traffic attorneys can be fairly thin on the ground. Particularly if you live in a state in which traffic school is the norm and fines are moderate to low, good luck finding someone who actually practices this area of law. (A DUI lawyer may be the closest thing you’ll get.) You may have little choice but to represent yourself.
Just so I understand the purpose of this series, I have a question. Are you saying you should fight the ticket in ALL cases, even when you are guilty, or are you saying to fight only when you are wrongly accused.
If it is the latter, good. If it is the former, I still don’t understand. I would assume that you would be upset if a serious criminal (murderer, abuser, etc..) got off because of a good lawyer or a technicality (O.J., I’m looking at you). If that’s the case, why should someone who is guilty of speeding get off?
There is a sure fire way to get out of a ticket – don’t get one in the first place.
Any suggestions for a (cheaper) traffic lawyer in Boston? I’ve got a ticket for running a red (that had just turned red from yellow, or was possibly still yellow as I entered the intersection), but the only lawyers I can find want $1500, and I don’t care how many points go on my license, I’m not paying $1500 for a lawyer to fight a minor ticket that he may not even win
I got a speeding ticket awhile ago on which the NYS Trooper wrote–or maybe it involved a code numeral, don’t remember–that my bright-yellow 911 was “red.” I asked a lawyer friend if this technicality would get me out of the ticket if I pointed it out to the justice. He laughed and said no way. I went to court and “beat” the ticket anyway by the old NY device of showing up and having the Trooper immediately offer me a far lesser charge (taillight out) to save time.
Another time, I went to court to try the same technique because I’d gotten a ticket for no license or registration. (It was an old pickup truck that I used solely to plow our long driveway and once a year take stuff to the county dump, which is where I got caught.)
Wonder of wonders, the deputy sheriff didn’t show up in court, and I figured I was in luck. Nope. I told the JP that “I’d forgotten I had the license plate in the glove compartment” or something lame like that. He said oh baloney and fined me anyway.
Don’t know what the moral is other than that a real lawyer probably could have used the “red” car and the failure of the deputy to appear to totally beat both tickets, had that been necessary.
If it is the latter, good. If it is the former, I still don’t understand.
Everyone has the right to his day in court, guilty or not. If the system wants you to hang, then it’s up to them to prepare the noose and slip your neck into it.
The Founders weren’t too hip on self-incrimination, either. They disliked it so much, they scorned it right in the middle of the Bill of Rights. (That would be the Fifth Amendment, of course.)
For those of you looking for a referral to a local lawyer that actually wants to win cases, join the National Motorists Association (NMA) at motorists.org. They lobby for logical speed limits and traffic laws, and they have a good referral program. They’ll even pay your ticket if you fight it and loose!
Direct referral site at http://attorney.motorists.org/
[Many states allow an attorney to appear for the client without the client present. So you can out-source the problem without lost time or wages.]
In many NY State jurisdictions, if you value your free evenings, the above time savings MORE than compensates for having an attorney. In town courts, waits of 4 hours are not uncommon – often preceded by a dozen+ drunk and wife beater cases (all of whom have public defenders and go to the front of the docket).
Even if you have to appear, your representation allows you to go to the (near) front of the line and avoid the unwashed.
As a state trooper, I can say that Raskob’s advice is sound. He’s clearly no stranger to the intricacies of traffic court.
With that said, you’re still taking your chances in court… with or without representation.
Sadly (for the defendant), I’ve been in court and watched many a defense attorney provide little more than a warm body and shoulder to cry on. Others have been much more formidable. At times I’ve asked myself, “For the love of God, why are we even here.” Other times, I become bored and drift, wondering how much in attorney fees, fine(s), court costs, and lost wages this is going to cost the defendant over a $83 speeding ticket. I have to keep telling myself, “We live in a litigious society and it’s a person’s prerogative to have counsel.”
I’ve got it, but Sheesh!!
DT
I’ve always got some points on my driving record. Tickets are inevitable. I get some every so often. I’m not bothered by them.
Gee, this series is starting to rival the “GM Death Watch” in length.
Gee, this series is starting to rival the “GM Death Watch” in length.
I thought it was quite helpful. If it gets to “Part 47 — Shawshank Revisited: Digging Your Way Out of Your Cell Using Only a Plastic Spoon and a Sock,” then maybe it would be pushing things a bit.
About fifteen years ago I received a moving violation in one of the Carolinas. (I was living in Illinois at the time.) I hired a local guy to represent me, and I did not have to show up to court.
As long as the court is getting their money then they don’t really care, so the offense was reduced to something like “equipment malfunction” or something like that, with payment of the full fine. I did not have to be in attendance.
Was it worth it? Yeah it was, kept me from getting points on a clean driving record.
I think the real problem in finding a good attorney is that most attorneys wouldn’t handle traffic matters. For obvious reasons, there’s a limit to how much a lawyer can charge to defend a traffic citation, and if you’re good at trial work you can charge LOTS more money handling other types of cases – criminal or civil. That leaves the field to relatively inexperienced attorneys, or maybe those who aren’t fully committed to litigating.
thanks for this series, it was great.
Good advice and a great series of articles.
@Pch101
Everyone has the right to his day in court, guilty or not. If the system wants you to hang, then it’s up to them to prepare the noose and slip your neck into it.
The Founders weren’t too hip on self-incrimination, either. They disliked it so much, they scorned it right in the middle of the Bill of Rights. (That would be the Fifth Amendment, of course.)
I agree that everyone has the right to “his day in court”. I also understand the Fifth Amendment. I guess my question is on what grounds do you contest a speeding ticket if you are guilty? Do you claim that the law is unjust in some way? Do you claim ‘temporary insanity’?
I’m just trying to figure this out…
I guess my question is on what grounds do you contest a speeding ticket if you are guilty? Do you claim that the law is unjust in some way? Do you claim ‘temporary insanity’?
An attorney would attempt to create doubt about elements of the prosecution’s case, and would attempt to use technicalities in the law in order to exclude evidence or secure a dismissal. Using a lawyer also increases the likelihood of negotiating a better plea bargain.
I’ve been to court on my own behalf a number of times, perhaps 10. My only legal training is a year of law school but I’ve seldom won a case on “legal” grounds. I’ve won when the cop didn’t show up or the court saw a non-legal basis for reducing or voiding the fine and/or points.
It’s absolutely true that hiring an attorney can produce acquittals. I once hired an acquaintance who was a criminal lawyer (who specialist in Homicides!). He got so many continuances the cop didn’t show when the case was finally heard. Best of all he charged me very little since he knew me.
If I had to win with a license suspension or revocation hanging over me I’d definitely hire a pro again but based on the fact that I’ve come out on my own with some kind of win 50% of the time
(reduced penalty or dismissal) I see no reason not to adhere to my philosophy of FIGHT EVERY TICKET
even if I have to do it myself.
It’s become sort of a hobby for me. The courtroom is a fascinating laboratory of human behavior. I’ve even managed to get parking tickets dismissed.
An attorney would attempt to create doubt about elements of the prosecution’s case, and would attempt to use technicalities in the law in order to exclude evidence or secure a dismissal. Using a lawyer also increases the likelihood of negotiating a better plea bargain.
I asked upon what grounds do you contest a speeding ticket for which you are guilty. I still haven’t heard any legitimate grounds for such a case. Do you use the “unjust law” argument or do you argue that the law is applied unfairly? Or is there some other grounds you would use other than just saying it’s a “technicality”?
To me, you should have a good reason for fighting a speeding ticket you got for actually speeding…
Are you saying you should fight the ticket in ALL cases, even when you are guilty, or are you saying to fight only when you are wrongly accused.
Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it unless you believe that speed limits are reasonable rather than arbitrary. In my case it has less to do with fines levied by the state and more to do with avoiding whacking big surcharges imposed by the insurance companies.
FIGHT EVERY TICKET!
Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it unless you believe that speed limits are reasonable rather than arbitrary. In my case it has less to do with fines levied by the state and more to do with avoiding whacking big surcharges imposed by the insurance companies.
So you fight tickets on the grounds that the law is unjust.
I agree that some speed limits are arbitrary but, for the most part, they seem reasonable for most people. I don’t agree with every speed limit I see, but I do follow the law. In fact, there are many places in my county where the limit should be lowered.
If I do get stopped for speeding, I will take defensive driving or a “deal” to lower the penalty, but I do pay the penalty because I did commit the offense.
I just have a problem with the ethics of fighting a ticket when I am guilty of the offense, barring some extraordinary reason (rushing to hospital).
Everyone has their own code of ethics. I have willingly paid the assessed fine whenever I’ve been duly convicted of a traffic offense but I see nothing wrong with legally contesting the prosecution’s assertions of legal guilt.
It is my constitutional right and a believe my moral right. Moreover the best way to thwart the revenue driven enforcement of our often unreasonable speed limits (to the exclusion of most other offenses) is for everyone to fight every ticket.
There is certainly no Constitutional or moral right to be found innocent of an offense for which you are guilty.
I’ll just obey the speed limits and I won’t have anything to worry about. It’s a very simple solution that doesn’t require breaking the law.
I just can’t see where a speed limit that is set too low (according to ????) is a violation of any of my rights.
If you live in California, you do NOT need an attorney. You can do a “Trial by Written Declaration”, which I have done five times and won every single time. If you are unhappy with the result, you can request a normal trial in front of a judge (then your probably would want a lawyer).
The real task is to do your research, and fight the ticket on technicalities (such as being written up for a non-existent street or the wrong section of the traffic code). There is also a great traffic devices manual (called the MUCTD, published by the Federal DOT with state specific addendum’s) which is very useful as it defines how signs, lights, lane markings, etc. need to be arranged.
Bottom line, hiring a lawyer may be wise outside of California, but here, it is a waste of money unless you either do something really serious (like DUI or a felony violation) that can’t be fought by written declaration, or you loose your written declaration trial.
Oh, and don’t listen to lawyers from other states, they rarely understand how laws work in other jurisdictions…. ;-)
Chris.
One other thing that’s important to remember is that less than 3% of all traffic tickets are actually fought, so your chances are fairly high if you do fight it.
As far as the comments about the ethics of fighting speeding tickets, there is actually a law on the books here in California that states that is is illegal to set a speed limit that is less than what 85% of the traffic’s speed, so there is such a thing as an illegal speed limit. In some areas like parts of I5, the 85th percentile is around 80mph, but the speed limit is only 65mph….
there is actually a law on the books here in California that states that is is illegal to set a speed limit that is less than what 85% of the traffic’s speed, so there is such a thing as an illegal speed limit
The 85th percentile rule is recognized by traffic engineers as the most realistic way to set speed limits. Anyone who drives a lot can tell you that traffic flows in accordance with physical laws similar to those that govern fluid dynamics.
When I asked a traffic engineer w a PhD about this she confirmed to me that was essentially true.
Interestingly if the 85th %ile rule were applied to I-93 in New England the speed limit would be raised from 65 to 70 but the limit on I-10 in Arizona would be lowered from 75 to 65 (it’s nearly impossible to maintain 75 due to the limited number of lanes and the many trucks and motorhomes using the road.)
Speed limits that do not take into account the natural flow of traffic are meaningless and arbitrary.
My lawyer who beat a ticket for me fit Mr. Raskob’s description pretty well. He clearly knew the judge, was very friendly with the cop, and played the court like theater, clearly relishing his role. In fact, after he won the case, he sort of brushed me off, to make friendly with the cop. I realize now from what Mr. Raskob has written that he was being very businesslike. If anyone in Mass needs a referral, just email me at motorlegends@aol.com.
I agree with someone above that most speed limits are pretty arbitrary. I also think that 95% of traffic enforcement is about raising revenue rather than keeping the roads safe. I suspect that the problem has to do with the metric of performance rather than a real effort to make the roads safer: that the police are rewarded for the number of tickets they write. If it were the latter, they’d be keeping slow drivers out of the passing lane to prevent road rage.
I have lots of cop friends from my EMS work and from simply having lived in the same small town all my adult life. They just roll their eyes when I start to talk about traffic enforcement, and one–chief in the next town over and my scuba instructor–says, “Steve, you don’t understand. That’s what we do. You write articles, we write tickets. Don’t take is so seriously, it’s just how our jobs are configured.”
And the reason they give speeding tickets rather than failure-to-keep-right or talking-on-a-cellphone tickets is the hassle involved in having to make and defend an essentially unquantifiable charge. There is a machine–it’s called radar–that does the job for speeding. There are no such machines for tailgating, weaving dangerously, road rage, etc. etc.
80 percent of the work of EMS personnel is paperwork–filling out PCRs (Prehospital Care Reports). And by god if those triple-carbon PCRs aren’t filled out perfectly, you’ll hear about it and have to do it again. And again. Same goes for the cops; the amount of paperwork they have to do is staggering, and once you understand that, you understand why they’ll turn a blind eye not to the drunk driver but to the guy who isn’t wearing a seatbelt or is tailgating too closely. It’s not worth the hassle.
David, you’d be keeping slow drivers out of the passing lane for a month or two…and then you’d become just another cynical, overworked cop, believe me.