So I got a speeding ticket on Mulholland back in Sept (Labor Day Ride). Wasn't a big one. Trouble is that I just did traffic school for one and I'm within my 18 month window.
I know there are a lot of experts in this neck of the woods who have had some success with fighting them.
It was a basic speed law violation.
Would LOVE to borrow from some of your successes. So far, I've 1) posponed 2) requested trial by written declaration
Burger at Ricks on me for the one I end up using.
joe blow is gonna be your winner... he's the pro at this. ;D
Pace or radar? What agency? What's the posted limit? What speed did you get written for?
Quote from: hbliam on December 14, 2009, 03:03:30 PM
Pace or radar? What agency? What's the posted limit? What speed did you get written for?
Pace. Sheriff. Posted 45. Written 55? I have to look at the details, but I think that's about right.
Quote from: madmatt on December 14, 2009, 03:40:34 PM
Pace. Sheriff. Posted 45. Written 55? I have to look at the details, but I think that's about right.
Basic speed law or 22350 deems your speed as "unsafe", this of course carries the caveat that the LEO should be able to articulate what is "unsafe" about your speed. Usually things like passing other traffic, multiple driveways and cross streets, pedestrians, etc. are factors. Weather/natural conditions also apply (fog, rain, darkness). Pace is harder to fight then radar as no street report, specific training, or visual estimation is required. The only thing you can go after is the speedo calibration of the unit (was it a motor or car?) but most agencies are pretty good about getting those checked annually.
So was your speed unsafe for the conditions?
Quote from: hbliam on December 14, 2009, 04:27:01 PM
Basic speed law or 22350 deems your speed as "unsafe", this of course carries the caveat that the LEO should be able to articulate what is "unsafe" about your speed. Usually things like passing other traffic, multiple driveways and cross streets, pedestrians, etc. are factors. Weather/natural conditions also apply (fog, rain, darkness). Pace is harder to fight then radar as no street report, specific training, or visual estimation is required. The only thing you can go after is the speedo calibration of the unit (was it a motor or car?) but most agencies are pretty good about getting those checked annually.
So was your speed unsafe for the conditions?
Was it unsafe...I'd have to say no. Seems difficult to win on that basis.
I have fought and won 2 for speeding through written trial. I have also lost one, but it was in conjunction with another violation (ahem) crossing the double yellow...certain death.
The first time I fought and won was less than 10 mph over on the Crest. I pulled out every stop in the book, I can send you this one. The second one was in the car. The officer never vocalized my speed, I received an addendum to the ticket weeks later saying it was 80 in a 65. Since he didn't tell me how he clocked me, I argued pacing and radar and the rest (safe and reasonable)...
hbliam, (if you will), doesn't the written trial have to do with filing (or not) of the report? We've gone over this before, but can you refresh our memory? From the citing LEO's standpoint?
The arguments that we have stated here in the past (pacing, basic speed law, radar calib. me thinks we went over this) are all arguable from the LEO's standpoint (naturally) so what will or does constitute the ticket being "won"? I have heard that the real thing to do is simply try to discredit the officer, to create reasonable doubt.
BTW~ Today was spent fighting 2 parking tickets, one mine, one the wifey's...are you ready for these?
**parking ticket jack**
Wife
Wife works in Yoga Building "A". Wife parks in parking garage "B". Points A and B are about one block from each other. Wife goes to car at point B, begins to drive off, forgets that she needs to return parking pass for point B to point A. She remembers, drives to return the parking pass, passes (no kidding) a Parking Officer who is writing someone up, parks legally in front of point A. One hour parking zone, no meters. She parks, she runs in, makes the return, Officer X is writing Wife a ticket upon her return, 2 minutes later.
Wife "What the heck?" Officer "I'm citing you for blah blah, OVER TIME LIMIT. Wife "gasp, I just ran into return the parking pass, I just passed you as you were ticketing that car (points)." Officer "Your hood is cold, indicating that you have parked here over the time limit" <---Seriously it's like 50 make the beast with two backsing degrees out, and she just moved the car an entire half block from the garage...Wife explains...Officer not having it (enter printing ticket sound from little machine that makes MILLIONS of dollars a day). ???
Nice one, right? [bang] [bang] [bang]
Quote from: joekarati on December 14, 2009, 05:54:02 PM
The first time I fought and won was less than 10 mph over on the Crest. I pulled out every stop in the book, I can send you this one. The second one was in the car. The officer never vocalized my speed, I received an addendum to the ticket weeks later saying it was 80 in a 65. Since he didn't tell me how he clocked me, I argued pacing and radar and the rest (safe and reasonable)...
Nothing says he has to vocalize anything. It should be written on the cite. Sounds like he forgot and filed a cite correction later. That one (assuming was one of the times you won) would be easy to argue against.
Quotehbliam, (if you will), doesn't the written trial have to do with filing (or not) of the report? We've gone over this before, but can you refresh our memory? From the citing LEO's standpoint?
To start off...I'm not a traffic court "expert" per say but have written about 1500 tickets in the last 6 plus years and have lost...wait for it........
one time...in traffic court. And I lost because the court dicked this guy around so much the judge felt sorry for him. I never even got to testify in that case.
Written declaration is "supposed" to be for people that don't have the time to go to court based on schedule or distance. It's now used by people trying to get out of a valid ticket. I guess your hope is that the officer doesn't get it turned in by the due date which is akin to not showing up for court. You win. On the other hand, when I have one to fill out it is an opportunity for me to, in my mind, perfectly convict you. I can take all the time I need, making sure I forget nothing. I usually have a traffic cop proof it before I turn it in just to make sure. Keep in mind I'm getting paid to sit inside and fill this out.
Quote
The arguments that we have stated here in the past (pacing, basic speed law, radar calib. me thinks we went over this) are all arguable from the LEO's standpoint (naturally) so what will or does constitute the ticket being "won"? I have heard that the real thing to do is simply try to discredit the officer, to create reasonable doubt.
I'm not a judge but from sitting in traffic court the ones that win have a valid reason why the messed up or made a mistake. They have to at least create a reasonable doubt for the judge to let them off. As far as the last part...discredit the officer? Attacking the Officer is the last thing you should do. Judges don't like that. You need to creat reasonable doubt based on the conditions, the placement of the Officer, other traffic, stuff like that.
Bottom line? If you have a valid defense you will win in either venue. It's simply a case of the odds that you are doing. First get extension, then trail by dec, if you lose that then go to court. Each time hoping the officer can't show up.
Better option? Make yourself not memorable. Then file extensions as long as you can. I have dismissed a couple that were about a year old and I honestly didn't even remember what the guy did, even after reading my notes.
OP: Check what the cited speed was. Also post up the route you think you were paced was...so I can look at it from a sat view. Also time, traffic conditions, ped conditions, weather, etc.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply not pull over when the leo-lights and siren get turned on? [evil]
Quote from: NorDog on December 15, 2009, 08:31:32 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to simply not pull over when the leo-lights and siren get turned on? [evil]
avoidance hasn't always worked for me in the past. As a matter of fact, a little "hiccup" from 13 years ago is haunting me.
Quote from: hbliam on December 14, 2009, 07:18:34 PM
Better option? Make yourself not memorable.
..matt, if this is about the incident you mentioned in SM, this option is not open to you.
;D
Quote from: gm2 on December 15, 2009, 12:56:46 PM
..matt, if this is about the incident you mentioned in SM, this option is not open to you.
;D
lol...I took my punishment with a spoonful of sugar on that one. This one is more standard, less Hawaii 5.0.
Quote from: hbliam on December 14, 2009, 07:18:34 PM
Nothing says he has to vocalize anything. It should be written on the cite. Sounds like he forgot and filed a cite correction later. That one (assuming was one of the times you won) would be easy to argue against.
To start off...I'm not a traffic court "expert" per say but have written about 1500 tickets in the last 6 plus years and have lost...wait for it........one time...in traffic court. And I lost because the court dicked this guy around so much the judge felt sorry for him. I never even got to testify in that case.
Written declaration is "supposed" to be for people that don't have the time to go to court based on schedule or distance. It's now used by people trying to get out of a valid ticket. I guess your hope is that the officer doesn't get it turned in by the due date which is akin to not showing up for court. You win. On the other hand, when I have one to fill out it is an opportunity for me to, in my mind, perfectly convict you. I can take all the time I need, making sure I forget nothing. I usually have a traffic cop proof it before I turn it in just to make sure. Keep in mind I'm getting paid to sit inside and fill this out.
I'm not a judge but from sitting in traffic court the ones that win have a valid reason why the messed up or made a mistake. They have to at least create a reasonable doubt for the judge to let them off. As far as the last part...discredit the officer? Attacking the Officer is the last thing you should do. Judges don't like that. You need to creat reasonable doubt based on the conditions, the placement of the Officer, other traffic, stuff like that.
Bottom line? If you have a valid defense you will win in either venue. It's simply a case of the odds that you are doing. First get extension, then trail by dec, if you lose that then go to court. Each time hoping the officer can't show up.
Better option? Make yourself not memorable. Then file extensions as long as you can. I have dismissed a couple that were about a year old and I honestly didn't even remember what the guy did, even after reading my notes.
OP: Check what the cited speed was. Also post up the route you think you were paced was...so I can look at it from a sat view. Also time, traffic conditions, ped conditions, weather, etc.
Thank you for your candor. "attacking an officer" BAD..."reasonable doubt"...check.
Anywho, I think it's well worth the fighting of any ticket, at least to have your say (or try to), and at the very least, to hope for a fine reduction. I have fought all of my tickets, since I was in my 20's and only lost 1 (recent written trial Crest tix #2). I did not fight 1 ticket, in Orange County, because I knew I made a mistake...and for that, I paid a ton of money and did my traffic school. Fact of the matter is, for me to win 2 out of 3 cases written is enough for me to continue the process. It does save time, travel, fuel, nerves...only drag is posting up the $ before the hearing.
Break a leg, Matt, keep us posted.
Quote from: madmatt on December 15, 2009, 10:37:56 AM
avoidance hasn't always worked for me in the past. As a matter of fact, a little "hiccup" from 13 years ago is haunting me.
Yeah, well I was joking about not pulling over. In reality I'm rather a big law and order kinda guy, but I do ride my bike too fast sometimes. With a couple of exceptions from back in the early 80's, I don't fight my tickets unless I'm convinced I have done nothing wrong. I consider it a type of "you play, you pay".
Having said that, I've had very few tickets over the past 15 to 20 years, though I have been pulled over a number of times in the past 2 years for moving violations and not cited.
On one occasion I got on the throttle to beat a yellow light in what I think was a 25 mph zone. I entered the intersecton doing at least 45 mph. What I didn't realize was that there was ANOTHER INTERSECTION about 100 feet later. Some of the yellow lights I saw were for the second intersection. I sailed through the second intersection AFTER that light turned red. Only then did I notice a moto-leo with a radar gun in a drive way between the two intersections.
I pulled over before he even got behind me. As I was taking off my helmet while standing at the rear of my bike, the officer walked up looking at my S4RS and I heard him say, "Niiiiiice".
I got a verbal warning.
Then there was the time in the late 80's. Heading home from work in Coronado I was zipping through the residential area and golf course there. After pulling a rather aggressive rolling stop at a stop sign, then choosing a line that took me over into the oncoming lane (no traffic coming), and going way too fast, I got pulled over about 100 yards from the entrance ramp for the Coronado Bridge.
The cop asked me, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
I honestly said, "No." I had no idea where he came from or how much of my knuckleheaded moves he has seen.
He had seen it all, but couldn't understand why I stopped when I could have twisted the throttle and been on the bridge and out of the city limits in a heartbeat.
Besides the fact that I think he could still have pursued me, I couldn't imagine running from the law. I think this was evident on my face when I answered, "What? Really? I wouldn't do that."
Another verbal warning.
Anyway, I think having the right attitude and composure, not to mention a really "Niiiice" bike, goes along way to build good will with our law enforcement officers. Give it a try, it can never hurt and might help. Not to mention that attitude never worked for the Rotney Kings of the world.
Quote from: NorDog on December 16, 2009, 08:05:15 AM
He had seen it all, but couldn't understand why I stopped when I could have twisted the throttle and been on the bridge and out of the city limits in a heartbeat.
Besides the fact that I think he could still have pursued me,
Yep. All peace officers in CA have statewide jurisdiction.
Quote from: hbliam on December 16, 2009, 08:48:01 AM
Yep. All peace officers in CA have statewide jurisdiction.
Makes sense. Obviously his question wasn't based on the law, but the many bonehead moves by moto-maroons (i.e. squids) he must have seen on the job.
Quote from: hbliam on December 16, 2009, 08:48:01 AM
Yep. All peace officers in CA have statewide jurisdiction.
What? you mean it's not like Dukes of Hazzard where they come to a screeching halt at the county line?
kidding, kidding.
One of our local kids got a ticket for 100+ and despite our urging to lawyer up, he's going to show up for court and "pay the $500 fine and then take traffic school." I can't wait to hear how that turns out.
Quote from: Privateer on December 16, 2009, 08:54:34 PM
What? you mean it's not like Dukes of Hazzard where they come to a screeching halt at the county line?
kidding, kidding.
One of our local kids got a ticket for 100+ and despite our urging to lawyer up, he's going to show up for court and "pay the $500 fine and then take traffic school." I can't wait to hear how that turns out.
People actually think that. I stop people in an ajoining city all the time and get told I can't. :)
Paying thr fine and going to traffic school is probably the cheapest route. A lawyer can't get oyu out of everything. The lawyers I see "win" at traffic court? They charge $4-500 and I've never seen one go to trial. The officer has never been there so it's dismissed...exactly how it would have been if the guy showed up himself.
i think I have my argument pretty well sorted out.
hbliam - what are your thoughts on introducing speedo calibration in regards to pacing?
Quote from: madmatt on December 18, 2009, 09:39:59 AM
i think I have my argument pretty well sorted out.
hbliam - what are your thoughts on introducing speedo calibration in regards to pacing?
who's speedo? Yours or his? Ours are calibrated every six months (can't speak for your officer) and usually read a mph or two slow (meaning you are going even faster then my speedo reads). If it's yours ....Ducati speedos usually read faster then your speed.
Quote from: hbliam on December 18, 2009, 11:46:58 AM
who's speedo? Yours or his? Ours are calibrated every six months (can't speak for your officer) and usually read a mph or two slow (meaning you are going even faster then my speedo reads). If it's yours ....Ducati speedos usually read faster then your speed.
I am referring to the officers. Let's assume two scenarios: 1) his has been calibrated w/in past year 2) it has NOT been calibrated in past year
without knowing whether or not is has, do you think that it is a worthwhile mention in the case of pacing?
Why not? My first written trial was 2 pages long, it asked for every stupid knick-knack thing possible...looked like a PITA to respond to, IMO. Make 'em work for it, and according to hb, it's not that big a deal to provide, but wouldn't you rather "know" than assume?
Quote from: madmatt on December 18, 2009, 12:10:10 PM
I am referring to the officers. Let's assume two scenarios: 1) his has been calibrated w/in past year 2) it has NOT been calibrated in past year
without knowing whether or not is has, do you think that it is a worthwhile mention in the case of pacing?
You can find out if it had by filing a subpoena for the calibration record. I also include a copy of the calibration for the judge with my written declaration.
You would also need to research how ofter they have to be calibrated. I don't remember the required time. It may be longer then one year.
Worthwhile? Who knows? I've never lost a pacing case.
I'm in a completely different place than the rest of the [leo] on here, but...
1) Isn't a "SPEED LIMIT" 85% of the allowable speed on the road in ideal conditions (low traffic, dry, high visibility, no peds or intersections nearby? I figure that's at least true in LA county from what a co-worker (came from LASD) told me.
2) Instead of getting on about the calibration of the speedo, why not bring up the training the officer received on it originally and recently? Have they been trained on this piece of equipment and do they have certification? Not sure how it works, but it's something to consider. As far as I know, state/county/city PD training isn't regulated as strictly as it is within the federal realm of law enforcement.
3) Tickets/citations are discretionary unless a felony is committed (right?). If you are lucky and have a friend of a friend or whatever, maybe you can have them talk to that officer and find out what made him decide to give you a ticket instead of let you off with a warning. Sometimes you get a high-speed kind of LEO or a young guy who wants nothing but to make the world a safer place by giving out tickets for everyone going 5mph over the limit.
I've only been pulled over once in CA for running a red light (Pioneer just north of South St. in Artesia -- the lights are literally about 100ft apart) and I was parked along the side of the road before the deputy could even hit the lights on his car. He was stuck quite a ways back in traffic, too, so he probably let me off with a warning because he knew I could have turned at the next light and driven away. On the other hand, I got a ticket from a total asshole in Scottsdale, AZ (confirmed by my co-worker at the time, who had just quit the department a month prior and went to academy with the guy) for barely going over the limit. I had flashed my lights at and passed (only 8mph above the speed limit!) an unmarked vehicle because the lights were off and he kept drifting into my lane (probably on the phone or texting). Originally, I had assumed it was a drunk driver. Went to traffic school instead of fighting it because (a) it only costs about $100 over there and (b) it was a great excuse to get out of shopping with my wife on the weekend.
Quote from: Wang on December 19, 2009, 09:50:20 PM
I'm in a completely different place than the rest of the [leo] on here, but...
1) Isn't a "SPEED LIMIT" 85% of the allowable speed on the road in ideal conditions (low traffic, dry, high visibility, no peds or intersections nearby? I figure that's at least true in LA county from what a co-worker (came from LASD) told me.
You are mixing up your data. Loosely....Speed limits are set by doing a survey. When you see the two cables stretched across the street to a box on the curb that's what's going on. They then take the speed that 85% of the measured traffic is traveling and that becomes the limit.
Quote2) Instead of getting on about the calibration of the speedo, why not bring up the training the officer received on it originally and recently? Have they been trained on this piece of equipment and do they have certification? Not sure how it works, but it's something to consider. As far as I know, state/county/city PD training isn't regulated as strictly as it is within the federal realm of law enforcement.
Training he received on what? Using a speedometer? [laugh] There is no training or certification on pacing. Anyone can perform pacing. I guarantee you that State/County/City PD training
on the west coast is regulated at or more likely beyond the realm of fed law enforcement.
Quote
Training he received on what? Using a speedometer? There is no training or certification on pacing. Anyone can perform pacing. I guarantee you that State/County/City PD training on the west coast is regulated at or more likely beyond the realm of fed law enforcement.
And that's where you're wrong. In my agency, we have to get trained and certified on EVERYTHING. However, much of the training is computer-based, so if you take the 747 course you'd better be ready to fly one the next day... [roll]
the plot thickens.
...and that just about wraps up the Snoo-zer.
Quote from: Wang on December 19, 2009, 10:32:59 PM
And that's where you're wrong. In my agency, we have to get trained and certified on EVERYTHING. However, much of the training is computer-based, so if you take the 747 course you'd better be ready to fly one the next day... [roll]
Trained and certified on looking at a speedo? [roll]
ok......] That sounds like L.A City training [thumbsup]
Just pay the thing.
Quote from: NorDog on December 21, 2009, 06:54:55 AM
Just pay the thing.
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
[popcorn]
State Patrols Collect Billions From Speeding Tickets
Speeding ticket revenue amounts to as much as $2.3 billion for 40 state highway patrol agencies, with a list of the top ten ticket states.
Forty state highway patrols issued over 8.1 million citations for speeding in 2003, generating as much as $2.3 billion in revenue, according to an analysis of data found in the Governors Highway Safety Association "Survey of the States: Speeding" report. The number reflects the maximum base ticket amount for a first offense, not including common surcharges such as court costs and driver responsibility programs. Ten states reported that they do not collect data on the number of speeding citations issued.
The number of tickets issued by state patrols is only a fraction of the number of speeding tickets issued statewide by local police forces. In Florida, for example, state police issued 396,252 tickets worth up to $99 million in revenue. City and county police in Florida issued an additional 394,752 tickets worth up to $98.5 million. Insurance companies also generate revenue by increasing the annual insurance rates for speeding ticket recipients, which often exceeds the cost of the citation.
Although not a state, the District of Columbia has a population greater than Wyoming, the state issuing the second highest number of tickets per capita. Residents of Washington, D.C. are twelve times more likely to be issued a speeding ticket than residents of the neighboring state of Maryland. District police pulled over only 10,391 motorists, but speed cameras issued 423,910 tickets.
Quote from: lawbreaker on December 21, 2009, 06:13:23 AM
Trained and certified on looking at a speedo? [roll]
ok......] That sounds like L.A City training [thumbsup]
I think he works for ICE. Last time I talked to an ICE agent on the phone it went like this (no offense to our board member):
Cliff notes. This convo took three phone calls and about 30 minutes.
Me: Hi, I just ran a guy and got a hit saying he is a recently deported felon and to call you guys (ICE).
Ice: You sure it's him?
Me: He has ID with all four names on it.
Ice: That doesn't mean anything.
Me: He has three seperate valid ID's with all four names on it.
Ice: Can you send me a photo of him?
Me: I'm in a parking lot. Does your info show any tattoos?
Ice: Yes, he should have tattoo A, B, and C.
Me: What do you know. He has tattoo A, B, and C exactly where you said he should have them.
Ice: I'm still not comfortable placing a hold on this guy. He may not be the right guy.
Me: He just told me, "I'm a recently deported felon." Is that good enough?
Quote from: hbliam on December 21, 2009, 08:34:09 AM
I think he works for ICE. Last time I talked to an ICE agent on the phone it went like this (no offense to our board member):
Cliff notes. This convo took three phone calls and about 30 minutes.
Me: Hi, I just ran a guy and got a hit saying he is a recently deported felon and to call you guys (ICE).
Ice: You sure it's him?
Me: He has ID with all four names on it.
Ice: That doesn't mean anything.
Me: He has three seperate valid ID's with all four names on it.
Ice: Can you send me a photo of him?
Me: I'm in a parking lot. Does your info show any tattoos?
Ice: Yes, he should have tattoo A, B, and C.
Me: What do you know. He has tattoo A, B, and C exactly where you said he should have them.
Ice: I'm still not comfortable placing a hold on this guy. He may not be the right guy.
Me: He just told me, "I'm a recently deported felon." Is that good enough?
Lol...I wish that the fuzz that I've dealt with (in the past) would have been so non-chalant. Life would have been much easier for me.
Quote from: hbliam on December 21, 2009, 08:34:09 AM
I think he works for ICE. Last time I talked to an ICE agent on the phone it went like this (no offense to our board member):
Cliff notes. This convo took three phone calls and about 30 minutes.
Me: Hi, I just ran a guy and got a hit saying he is a recently deported felon and to call you guys (ICE).
Ice: You sure it's him?
Me: He has ID with all four names on it.
Ice: That doesn't mean anything.
Me: He has three seperate valid ID's with all four names on it.
Ice: Can you send me a photo of him?
Me: I'm in a parking lot. Does your info show any tattoos?
Ice: Yes, he should have tattoo A, B, and C.
Me: What do you know. He has tattoo A, B, and C exactly where you said he should have them.
Ice: I'm still not comfortable placing a hold on this guy. He may not be the right guy.
Me: He just told me, "I'm a recently deported felon." Is that good enough?
Sounds familiar...from a few different agencies no less!
where are these guys when I need em?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-red-light24-2009dec24,0,2706485.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+|+Local+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-red-light24-2009dec24,0,2706485.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+%7C+Local+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)
More Good News.
quick question, on my citation the officer wrote a note BP) in the "safe" box on the ticket. Anyone know what this means?