Originally Posted by ramonesfreak (Post 12123989)

If your fighting it pro se, you have little chance because while the state has the burden of proof, you still need to know how to cross examine the cop properly. It’s not easy, especially when you have no idea what you are doing and the judge is hurrying you along because the courtroom is packed and he has to get to all the cases before lunch. I’ve handled a lot of these cases for friends and co-workers and getting in touch with the prosecutor to make a deal is always step number 1. If they don’t want to deal, get a lawyer.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins (Post 12124546)

Yeah, Traffic Solutions Inc. outa Arizona, I believe.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins (Post 12124509)

Whatever happened to the right to meet one's accuser in court? As bad as things have gotten here in Washington, at least that is still a requirement.

Kind of a tangent here, but relative to the steady de-evolution of our justice system, in this context with regards to traffic enforcement. The accusing officer doesn't even have to show up in your state. The accusing officer in my state need provide no evidence whatsoever, just his statement that you were speeding. In neither state (I assume in yours, I know for sure in mine) are we afforded a jury trial. How, why, have we allowed this to happen?

One of the very bedrock cornerstones of our Republic is the notion that if any agent of the government, at any level, accuses a citizen of wrongdoing, at any level, that agent must then prove guilt not to government agents, but before a jury of our peers. Not theirs. Somewhere along the way, at least insofar as traffic citations, we have given that up. I, for one, believe we should endeavor to regain that right of citizenship. Jury trial or no trial for any and all instances wherein the government is the accuser. "Beyond reasonable doubt" in all cases wherein the citizen stands accused by the government.

But, alas, I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness. So many seem so willing to give up the fight. *Sigh*

Sorry for the hijack, Shaun.

Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 12123940)

And now the governor has signed off on speed cameras. Cops can't be doing much traffic stops with all the crime that is happening. Enter the camera to do the cop's work. It's gonna be mayhem. I hope the courts have funding to quadruple their staff. Otherwise It might get real easy to work this system.

I predict that speeding tickets will go up 5000% in the number of citations. If I drive the speed limit anywhere, streets to freeway, I'm holding up cars.

Meanwhile, the Long Beach City Council just voted to reduce the speed limits on 1/3rd of our streets. I think the timing of all of this is really gonna hit the courts hard.

I'm so happy to be 78 and getting set to just die. I want no part in what's going on. If I don't die I will definitely not be owning any cars within 2 years. People who consider a car to be some sort of freedom are going to be sorely disappointed and SOL real soon.

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr (Post 12123952)

I may not be understanding something... Why not just pay the $145 ticket and move on?

Originally Posted by ramonesfreak (Post 12123957)

Get a radar detector. Mine detects speed cameras. Been using radar detectors since 88 and have never gotten a ticket. Use Waze too. Of course without an expensive laser jammer you’re still vulnerable but there is no reason to fear speed cams. Geez Paul and now you always glad you’ll be dead soon doesn’t give me hope…my goal is to make it to 100…just me a Kieth Richard’s hanging buy the pool

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins (Post 12123978)

Lots of advice being given here, of course, but none of it seems to apply to your particular jurisdiction. All states are different, that much has already been mentioned. In light of that, I think it might be important to get to know and understand the "landscape" in your particular jurisdiction.

About the only way to do that is to consult some traffic attorneys practicing in your jurisdiction. Many will provide free consultations, no obligation. From these consultations you should be able to glean what, if any, chance you may have in court, prior to court with the DA, or any other options.

Here in Washington, for example, you would be left with the impression that you, as an individual representing yourself, have essentially no chance whatsoever of prevailing. Not in any sort of a pre-trial bargain with the DA, and certainly not in court. You would be left with the impression that our system, in this state, is so horribly corrupt and revenue driven that your only chance will be to hire a lawyer. And you would be right.

I recently did just that. I got a b.s. ticket much like yours, except mine was 20 miles from the nearest town or, for that matter, intersection, out on a very lonely country road. 10:00 am on a weekday. Literally not another soul went by in the fifteen minutes it took for the officer to write me. Not a one. Not a structure in sight. Nothing but barbed wire and cows. Wrote me for 51 in a 35. Hell, I periodically follow the school bus on that road at 60 mph. Just no reason for it to be marked at 35 mph, other than to collect revenue.

One would think one could "reasonably" argue such a thing in court. Not a chance. My traffic attorney will not even attempt that approach. The only thing she does is look for some manner in which the officer failed to "cross all of their 't's' or dot all of their 'i's'". That is her only hope - paperwork or procedural errors, and she makes that very clear. Arguing the actual merits of the case is fruitless. Never win. Fortunately, the paperwork is so onerous that she can always find something. I cannot. I don't even know where to look. She does, so it's worth it to me to pay her to do so.

Hopefully your state is not nearly as corrupt as mine when it comes to traffic law and enforcement. If it is, however, your only chance will be someone who knows the game. You should find out if that's the case.