Fighting tickets n' stuff - HELP

[madmatt]

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.

[derby]

joe blow is gonna be your winner... he's the pro at this. 

[hbliam]

Pace or radar? What agency? What's the posted limit? What speed did you get written for?

[madmatt]

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.

[hbliam]

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?

[madmatt]

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.

[joekarati]

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?

[joekarati]

**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?   

[hbliam]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[NorDog]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply not pull over when the leo-lights and siren get turned on?   

[madmatt]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply not pull over when the leo-lights and siren get turned on?   

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.

[gm2]

Better option? Make yourself not memorable.

..matt, if this is about the incident you mentioned in SM, this option is not open to you.

[madmatt]

..matt, if this is about the incident you mentioned in SM, this option is not open to you.

lol...I took my punishment with a spoonful of sugar on that one. This one is more standard, less Hawaii 5.0.

[joekarati]

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.

[NorDog]

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.