Pleading down a speeding ticket

[ramonesfreak]

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.

[id10t]

My one and only ticket was 65 in a 50, written for 58 in a 50 (59 wouldve doubled the fine)

Had option of traffic scool and 0 points when I paid online via county tax office. Had spam for traffic school before I even finished paying but that is a different matter ...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by ramonesfreak

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.

Here in Washington, traffic infractions are "civil" offenses, wherein this "burden of proof" is only 51% of the available "evidence". "Preponderance of evidence" I believe is the legal term. No "beyond reasonable doubt" or "90%" as used in a criminal case. And, well guess what - if the cops says you did it, that meets this "51%" threshold.

Our traffic attorneys will never even attempt to cross examine an officer on the stand. They know if it goes that far they have already lost before the trial even begins. The deck is that heavily stacked. Attorneys have no chance - lay people are simply cannon fodder.

If a traffic attorney in this state sees that it is going to trial, because the officer actually waded through the paperwork successfully, they will plea bargain with the DA to a monetarily equivalent non-moving violation. Lay people that try to do this will never even get a meeting with the DA. They are not a dues paying member of "the club".

Again, and I stress - this is here in Washington. Other states vary. It pays to learn how your state operates.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

When I was in England, Waze notified me about speed cameras.

I am going to make some calls today.

The thing that bugs me most about this is if I don't act now with the good advice above, I could explain the circumstances as time of day and 30 leading to 40 during the zoom session and that I'd be happy to plead a non-moving violation and pay the $145, but there is a very real chance they could still just say screw you and find me guilty of the moving violation.

If that were to happen, and it could, I wonder how bad it would be for me if I asked them if they too have to get someone at Target to open a case to buy toothpaste and laundry detergent because of theft. Apparently expensive toothpaste is a big theft object. I don't know how you steal a gallon of Tide though.

[KFC911]

Good luck Shaun! Here .... they just want your $, and make it really easy (for most of us) to "go it alone" .... cops will even tell you how as they hand you the ticket ... btdt several times. Don't know how it is there .... but contacting a local atty who handles these types of cases might be "the best way" too...

I'm just glad I don't live where Higgins does ... when driving .

[ramonesfreak]

Dont wait for the zoom call, call the court and ask for the prosecutor's # and call him/ her. What I have done in NY as an attorney is here in NY so listen to Jeff as well. I dont know how your state works but first thing I would do is call that prosecutor TODAY and try to work it out. If you wait until the hearing, the cop is likely there and spent time preparing and is ready to go. Unless the copy knows his case is flawed, your gonna lose.

[Steve Carlton]

I have a PhD in Traffic Science from all the traffic school I attended. In the old days it was either a few week nights on an all day Saturday in a class. That hurt.

Once I got a speeding ticket in Mammoth Lakes after skiing when I lived in Westwood. Back then you could get tickets in different counties and they weren't centrally tracked by the state. I called the court clerk and asked if they had traffic school. She said yes, but I had to ask the judge. Up and back almost 200 miles each way and the judge said yes. To be safe, I took the all day Saturday class up there, so another nearly 400 mile day on top of class. Got another speeding ticket 20 minutes away from home on the way back.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Called district court, ended up calling and leaving a message with the ticketing town's police prosecutor. Cops no longer show up, they just have one guy that goes to these things and the magistrate decides guilt/innocence. So I expect to call again and talk with him this afternoon, explain the circumstances and ask for a non-moving violation deal.

[ramonesfreak]

No cops? Wow. Prosecutions only witness doesnt have to appear. Nice due process you got there. geez

[Jeff Higgins]

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.

[KFC911]

The "red light cameras" here (long removed) were a private company deciding and pocketing 90% of the "civil citation" .... I just told 'em ... I ain't paying jack .... just a pic of the back of my van going through a VERY short yellow light .... imagine that. No day in court, no recourse .... nothing .... just $$$.

Used to be a LEO had to witness an infraction .... not on I-95 south of Savannah.... one cop with a radar gun .... 30 LEOs writing tickets for something they never witnessed.

Whew .... did that brief pucker a few times .... just glad they didn't have 50 .

[Jeff Higgins]

Yeah, Traffic Solutions Inc. outa Arizona, I believe. We still have their cameras all over Washington. The difference here, though, is that as long as we enter the intersection under yellow we are legal. There has never been any incentive for them to shorten yellow light times, as they have in other states where one must clear the intersection before it turns red. If memory serves, they have lost a number of lawsuits over shortened yellow light intervals.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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

Mrs. Lee worked for them for almost 10 yrs. They're called Verra Mobility now. And she got a ticket with one of their cameras AND she had access to make it go away, but did not. Instead I did the online traffic school for her (while drunk too).

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

Well said Jeff. I could go on for hours about how have let this happen but the short answer is to watch Wall-E. We are a nation in lounge chairs.

If I can't get ahold of the police prosecutor on Monday I'll hire a lawyer. Left a message yesterday around lunchtime and said I'll call back to avoid phone tag. Called at 2:30ish and just got voicemail, didn't leave a message.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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.

Based on my (not extensive) knowledge of camera based tickets in the US, the ticket is usually not the same as a regular ticket given by a cop. I believe the cop-based tickets are often a "moving violation" like running a redlight/stop sign or speeding. But the tickets that are based on cameras are NOT considered moving violations. So there's no "court" to deal with or appeal to. They have photo/video evidence of your issue, and they charge a "safety fee". They usually can't confirm who was driving because there was no looking at a driver's license and they probably don't see your face well enough. You can't fight it, but then all it does is cost money (no points or violations, I think). It's just a money grab and deterrent.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

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

Potentially getting a ticket could cause your insurance rate to go up quite a bit more than the cost of a ticket. Having a clean record is huge for insurance rates.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by ramonesfreak

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

My V1 and whatever you call the new V1 (V1 ver 2 or V2 or whatever) has alerted me to laser several times and saved me. It's usually because I get a hit from under the car in front of me or maybe a little scatter/reflection from the road or a car next to me.

But yeah, a laser jammer would be nice to have. Fortunately, out in the country, I almost never see laser. I only see that in town where there's more traffic and they need something more precise.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

And I know that there were some VERY corrupt places in Louisiana where departments were able to keep the funds from anything that they confiscated, so they confiscated a lot of stuff based on false charges.

That's likely a bit worse than unethical speed traps.

[unclebilly]

I did it just this week.

You can do it online here. Both charges were withdrawn yesterday.

[pwd72s]

Coburg, Oregon...be careful driving I-5 near there...they annexed the land next to the Interstate in order to write tickets...