Proof of speeding violation

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ggops @ Mar 23 2007, 12:34 AM) [snapback]410757[/snapback]</div>

$36? Pay the fine and go on with your life. The same ticket here in California would be much more. They really tack it on here.

Your quote of the Indiana web site matches my understanding of the law here in California. If you have two people testifying, and their testimony is the only evidence, which one do you believe? On the one hand you have an officer who has nothing to gain by stating the case either way. On the other, you have the driver who has a lot to gain by stating the case only one way. So if you and the officer agree, then the decision is easy. If you say you are innocent and shouldn't pay the fine, but the officer says you are guilty, the court will almost always side with the officer. And it makes sense; if you don't know who is lying, it is probably the one who has the most to gain from the judgment.

And if you admit any guilt, you will still pay the fine. Plus you've wasted your time. There is no "10 to 14 mph" grace added on ... if you are one mile over the limit, you can be cited.

Once during a jury trial selection process, I was surprised to hear my fellow prospective jurors say they didn't think a police officer's testimony was any more likely to be truthful than anyone else's ... when asked the question, I said "of course it is". The defense attorney frowned and said "how can you say that?" I repeated the rationale above ... that the officer is a trained observer, writes a report the same evening with his observations, and has nothing at stake in the outcome, unlike the defendant or, for that matter, the defendant's attorney or the prosecutor (who is judged by the number of convictions). All of the witnesses for either side are also biased, otherwise they wouldn't be there. So besides the judge, only the officer has nothing at stake in the case. They can be wrong, but they most likely are not lying.

I was kicked off the panel by the Defense, which suited me fine at the time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]411575[/snapback]</div>

Why would a guy want to waste his valuable time and fight a $36 ticket if he was guilty?

I've fought a few tickets and have won. I've seen a judge throw out numerous tickets (along with mine) of different people before me because the officers didn't write up their notes on the back of the tickets.

My ticket and a neighbor's ticket who went before me got dismissed because the judge didn't find it plausible we could both (at different times of the day) have been exceeded the 25 mph speed limit by 30 mph on a winding mountain road and been in control of the vehicles. Both were laser tickets.

I've seen people admit quilt and be fined for the same violation as someone who said not guilty but because the posted signs had not been authorized correctly his case was immediately dismissed.

Sometimes the cops don't show up.

The police officer might be given the benefit of the doubt as far as to who is telling the truth but judges seem to like to see all the i's dotted etc., and if they aren't will usually side with the defendant especially for a minor offense or if you have had a clean record for a long period of time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 12:37 PM) [snapback]411575[/snapback]</div>

The officer certainly has something to gain: his career, possible promotions, are based on how his superiors judge his performance. A cop whose tickets are thrown out of court will not get good job ratings. And in jurisdictions where traffic fines are considered an important source of revenue, a cop who brings in more revenue will get better job evaluations. And that means winning those cases that go to court.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 12:37 PM) [snapback]411575[/snapback]</div>

You were kicked off the panel (and rightly so) for admitting to being biased against the defendant before hearing any of the evidence. (But I applaud your honesty in admitting to your bias.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]411575[/snapback]</div>

If you don't know who is telling the truth, it sounds like a case of reasonable doubt to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]411599[/snapback]</div>

That isn't the case here in California; there is no "tracking system" to show how many tickets an officer writes that are upheld or thrown out, and that isn't a factor in their job performance reviews. I am in a major metro area, and I recognize it might be different in rural areas.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]411599[/snapback]</div>

No, that's not the case, in my view. If I had a bias that was recognizable, the judge would have excused me without making the defense use a pre-emptive challenge (they are limited to a certain number per side in California now, and the judge did excuse several prospective jurors for conflicts prior to this). I don't many details about the case, other than it was a Grand Theft Auto case. The question posed to me was if I thought a police officer was any more reliable as a witness than the defendant, and I answered the way I did because it is a logical answer. The defense probably thought that meant I favor police always, which wouldn't be the case (but I'm still not sure how that fits in with a stolen car, and if the defendant took the car). The policeman could certainly be mistaken, and all the evidence would have to be heard to determine the likelihood of that.

The defense probably didn't like the fact that I belonged to the NRA and Consumer's Union either, since the case had something to do with used auto paperwork and the failure of the buyer to fulfill some part of his paperwork obligation. The NRA membership indicates a "law and order" personality, as does my profession, age, gender and race, and the Consumer's Union membership indicated I knew how easy it was to buy a car (as did my economic status). The last thing they want on juries are informed people, so they usually weed out anyone with knowledge about a field that is involved in the case.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 24 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]411610[/snapback]</div>

And, as we've stated, "reasonable doubt" is not the standard in civil cases like traffic tickets.

 

For $36, I wouldn't fight it, either. In Virginia, court costs are more than that.

Also, in Virginia at least, your record may have some weight in the judge deciding the matter. If you've never had a ticket, the judge may show leniency and let you walk. Again, you still pay court costs.

And personally, based on your tale, the guy was acting jerky--threatening you with another ticket for merely looking at a radar is ridiculous. In Virginia, though, I was told that I could NOT get out of the car unless indicated by the officer. Don't know if that is SOP, but there it was.

On the flipside, though, I was raised to respect authority. I was shocked when I found out that people give cops lip for pulling them over. I don't mean defending themselves--I mean actually delivering verbal tirades because the offender is pissed that he/she got caught. I'm not accusing you of that, btw, but I wonder if the cop may have a jaded point of view from putting up with people much worse than you and having to be verbally attacked. And because of that, may have a shorter fuse. Just a thought. Not an excuse, but a thought.

I've been pulled over at least 10 times in my life (most b/t the tender and stupid ages of 16-23), and only had one cop act like an nice person to me. I gritted my teeth and smiled at him. With each pull-over, I was utterly apologetic, respectful, and nice. Two cops let me off with a warning (one because he knew my mom), and I went to court for all but 2 of the others. I was too young not to try...the points on my license were ridiculous!

I do respect police officers, and thank them for the job they do...but of course they're human, with the same foibles as the rest of us. Bad cops are the minority.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]411680[/snapback]</div>

Logical, before you had heard the defendant? Isn't that the definition of prejudice? Coming to conclusions about people without knowing anything about them personally? I would expect, going into such a case, that the police officer would be more composed and articulate than the defendant, due to his training and experience. But I'd want to hear them both before deciding if one was more reliable as a witness than the other.

And even then, the whole system is stacked against the defendant: The court is a very intimidating place. Let me relate a true story:

My very first time in court, I had been arrested for trespass: I had walked up to the guard post at the main gate of the Grand Forks, ND Air Force Base, and politely informed the guard that I wished to present a "Notice of Confiscation" to the base commander. I had been ordered to leave, and I had refused.

I spent 5 days in jail before going to court, and the maximum sentence for the offense I was charged with was 30 days. The Grand Forks jail is a clean and well-run jail, and after 5 days I had no fear at all of doing another 25 days. It would have been an easy matter.

Yet when I was brought into court I began to shake uncontrollably. I do not know why. I was not the least bit afraid of the sentence. But the courtroom just felt so intimidating, so unfamiliar, so frightening in an undefined and nebulous sort of way, that I could not stop shaking.

Imagine a person who has been charged with a crime, and has no friends present, who feels he has a reason for what he did, or who is innocent. There is a high probability that he will be unable to present his case in an articulate manner. He will come across to a juror as disengenuous, just because of his nervousness. Now imagine the juror assumes from the start that the cop will be telling the truth and the defendant will be lying. Actual guilt or innocence becomes irrelevant. The defendant's nervousness and the juror's prejudice will convict him before the trial begins.

In my case, I pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served, all within about 60 seconds of my name being called. I never even got a chance to say that I had been protesting. I was taken back to the jail, given my things, and put out onto the street by a side door. I had go go back around to the front of the building and back inside to find a pay phone and call for someone to come and pick me up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 05:04 PM) [snapback]411680[/snapback]</div>

You are correct that the "Reasonable doubt" instruction is not the standard for civil cases. You are incorrect in stating that a traffic ticket is a civil case. Traffic offenses can be infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Regardless, they are all considered to be criminal matters and as such the "Reasonable doubt" standard applies.

The California Vehicle Code refers to convictions of infractions. Conviction is a criminal term, the equivalent civil term is liable. Here is but one example:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 05:04 PM) [snapback]411680[/snapback]</div>

That was a poorly phrased question. The proper way to probe this issue is to ask the prospective juror whether he or she will judge the credibility of a police officer by the same standards that they will use to evaluate the testimony of any other witness.

By the way, in California, each side in a criminal case receives ten peremptory challenges plus an additional five per side for each additional defendant if there are multiple defendants on trial. If the potential penalty is life imprisonment or the death penalty the number of peremptories goes up to twenty per side.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 06:25 PM) [snapback]411704[/snapback]</div>

So you wouldn't answer the question? It was a hypothetical question, and the framework I was given was simply that there are two statements, opposing, and one is from a Policeman. I would answer that question the same way every time, but would of course decide individual -- non hypothetical -- issues on their own merits.

Your bias is that you would disbelieve the cop; I understand that. It is logical to you because you have had bad experiences with the cops. So have I. But the logic remains that you have a trained observer with no stake in the matter verses someone with money or liberty at risk. Which could be expected to lie?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 24 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]411750[/snapback]</div>

You must have missed the cite in this particular case in post #6 above:

My understanding is that California law treated traffic violations the same way, but I admit I may be wrong on that point and will defer to your expertise on the matter.

I would warn our friend to use the law in his state, however.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 11:00 PM) [snapback]411782[/snapback]</div>

Of course I would answer the question! I would answer it in the negative: I would not automatically give the cop's testimony more credence than I give the defendant's. I would listen to both, and to all the other evidence, before making up my mind.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 11:00 PM) [snapback]411782[/snapback]</div>

You are mistaken. I would not automatically disbelieve the cop. But the cop would have to convince me. After all, the defendant has the presumption of innocence until he has been shown to be guilty.

You are also mistaken about my experience with cops: My personal experiences have been universally positive. I've always been well-treated by cops, and they've always been courteous with me, even while arresting me, as I have been with them. I like all the cops who have arrested me. Even the cops who gave me traffic tickets (three in my lifetime) have been courteous. However I know that it's very different in this country for people of color.

Finally, I have already stated that I disagree with your assertion that cops are disinterested. Cops have a strong incentive to help the prosecutor get a conviction. And if the individual happens to be dishonest, this can result in his telling lies in court. I only offer in support of this that a certain retired cop we all know and like has waxed emotional about his intense desire to see people he regards as "criminals" sent to jail. He has even said he would lie to achieve this. And he is in other respects one of the honest ones. An emotional investment in your job is a great incentive to break the rules if you feel you can get away with it. A cop who honestly believes that driving 5 mph over the limit endangers lives, and who has an emotional reaction about fatal accidents caused by speeding, has an enormous incentive to lie, in order to increase the penalty on a speeder. And this can carry over to any type of case. In the case you were excused from, the cop might potentially have had a strong emotional feeling about commercial misdeeds, and if he felt the defendant was at fault, but that there was insufficient evidence, he'd have an incentive to lie. Emotion is a far stronger motivator than mere material concerns.

There are no disinterested parties in the courtroom, and a consciencious juror will reserve judgement until after s/he has heard everyone speak, and not go into it with a bias in favor of one side over the other, except insofar as, in a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until shown to be guilty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 10:00 PM) [snapback]411782[/snapback]</div>

You are correct that I overlooked the message in which the OP wrote that in the state where he was cited traffic tickets are treated as civil matters.

In California, however, ordinary traffic violations are treated as infractions (more serious traffic violations can be prosecuted as misdemeanors and/or felonies). I have earlier cited most, if not all, the relevant California Code Sections that specify that all procedures that apply to misdemeanor prosecutions, including the "Beyond a reasonable doubt'" burden of proof, apply to infractions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ggops @ Mar 23 2007, 12:41 AM) [snapback]410676[/snapback]</div>

Go to this address and buy the E book. I have it and it comes with a warehouse of info about beating traffic tickets. It comes with a 60 day money back guarantee if not satisfied. I learned many things I previously did not know about how to beat a speeding ticket. The guy who wrote the book is a former cop who worked in the traffic division. Good luck on beating yout ticket. It's just a money making machine for towns, cities, and the State.

www.fight-the-speeding-ticket.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Walker1 @ Mar 25 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]412111[/snapback]</div>

Why don't you just pay the ticket like you deserve? How about you NOT speed so you don't have to buy a freaking book on how to beat the system. It's dishonest, if you were speeding and got caught - you pay the fine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 26 2007, 04:05 PM) [snapback]412646[/snapback]</div>

Have you ever looked down at you speedometer and noticed you were a few miles over the limit? Have you ever crossed outside a crosswalk? Did you turn yourself in or find a cop that would issue you a ticket? Do you have to be caught in order to be guilty? Or are you guilty when a judge finds you guilty?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(koa @ Mar 27 2007, 02:38 AM) [snapback]412795[/snapback]</div>

EVERYBODY speeds. At one point, everyone speeds - whether it be from NOT PAYING ATTENTION (ie. your example) or from disregard of the law.

Yes, I have crossed outside of the crosswalk.

In any of those instances, if I were caught and ticketed, I would PAY THE FINE. I wouldn't try to come up with some pathetic childish excuse as to why I don't deserve the ticket. I was caught. I pay the ticket, take defensive driving, whatever I gotta do.

Guilt has nothing to do with being caught. If you get caught, suffer the consequences. Don't try to make an excuse.

Either way, you can contest the ticket or pay the fine. If you were wrongly given the ticket, you contest it. IF YOU WERE GUILTY, YOU PAY THE FINE. Stop clogging the court systems more than they already are with your little whiney liberal antics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 27 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]413145[/snapback]</div>

Come on now, Desynch! You don't really think only liberals bring unjustified cases to court, do you?

I agree: If you break the law and are caught, take your medicine. But there's no political distinction between people who try to get out of traffic tickets and people who pay their fines and move on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 27 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]413236[/snapback]</div>

Maybe he's on to something. Look how much time, effort, and money we can save if we abolish municipal court. Right there on the shoulder of the highway the cop pulls someone over, tells the driver the fine for speeding, and collects the cash or swipes a credit card. No money? Impound the car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Mar 27 2007, 08:18 PM) [snapback]413262[/snapback]</div>

I was thinking more along the lines of a GPS and a fingerprint reader in every car. That way, your position and speed could be tracked, and if you violated any laws, there would be definite proof that you were operating the vehicle. They'd also have a credit card on file (this or a deposit would be a requirement for getting a license)...presto--another 'revenue source' (ie, speeder) pads the state's coffers...electronically!

Bah; I'm going to get in my '73 Pinto (please, no one DARE suggest crushing her!), return to my aged bungalow, and listen to an LP.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 26 2007, 10:05 PM) [snapback]412646[/snapback]</div>

I didn't get the ticket, but i do know it's nothing more than a big money making scheme overall to fleece drivers of their money. I agree if a person is endangering the public with EXCESSIVE speed they should get ticketed. But, I worked in law enforcement and know the system pretty good.