Thread: ok i got 2 tickets i need help

best way to avoid tickets is just to be more careful. go the speed limit and stop at stop signs.
1 ticket was enough for me.

in the last 2 years I have recieved at least 3-4 tickets and EVERY SINGLE one of them had been reduced at court.

Most of the time the act of simply showing up in court dressed in a suit gives the police sufficient reason to believe you might have a plausible defense - so do that. Just dont plead guilty - at least it will be a learning experience.

contrary to what was mentioned up there - I do believe the cop requires a proper method of determining your speed. 'training' doesnt mean jack ****.
I was tagged with a VASCAR doing 65 on a 45 and was also found to have a arrest warrant out on my name for not paying a previous ticket(go figure). (his computer showed the reason for the warrant - so he let me go). I clearly asked him if I showed up to court would he cut me a deal (lol) he informed me that I have recieved tickets before and that there was no such chance this time.

I still I showed up in court dressed all nice - little do you know - the cop pulls me aside in a room and asks what I would like to do: 1. go to court and fight it out in which case I could lose my license or 2. take his offer to have one of the tickets reduced.

I chose option 1. because I believed my arrest warrant was not valid. I showed him my defense and he acknowledged that it was indeed DMV's fault. He automatically dismissed that ticket and asked if I wanted to do anything with the other one (speeding). This i was a little baffled with because I really was doing 65 on a 45! I was rummaging through a bunch of papers i had from researching on VASCAR but before I could say anything he goes 'oh ok tell you what - I will reduce this one to 55 on a 45 instead of a 65 also'. I just kept my mouth shut cause I knew I really couldnt fight this one.

I still had to face the judge to plead guilty to the new charges (55 instead of a 65). The Judge goes

Judge: Do you accept these changes Mr. Iqbal?
Me: yes your honor I do.
Judge: 'Mr. Iqbal I see you attend Lehigh University? is that correct'
Me: Yes your honor I do.
Judge: 'when do you graduate?'
Me: I just did your honor, this past may'
Judge:' congralatulations, that settles it I guess. With a Lehigh education Mr. Iqbal can actually afford these previous charges'
Me: excuse me your honor? (****ting my pants)
Judge:' excuse the humor son, you have yourself a good day'

I walked in with a 400 ticket walked out paying about 100 and no points because PA points never make it over to CA(where my license is from) so my insurance never found out. hehe. Just thought id share a small story to inspire your ***.

I actually got off by doing the wrong thing...

First off, i got a speeding ticket and along with that, i had an expired insurance card(the up-to-date one was sitting on my desk at home). Anyways, i had to go to court because not having insurance is a misdemenor (sp?).

I was 10 minutes late to court, my last name starts with B, so they skipped over me.

6 hours later after watching each person sitting in the court go up to the judge, a 1/2 hour break along with a 1.5 hour lunch break, i am the only one in the seats in the court room, judge asks what my deal is, i tell her my name....at this point she just wants to go home, i showed her proof of insurance and she said, "Ok, keep the speed down, have a nice day".

...funny follow-up, i got a parking ticket because i did not expect to be sitting in court for 6 hours and the meter ran out...

Originally Posted by jeffreyd_tx

Um, was there advise in there?

It will not be often that find a judge that is clueless so I would expect him to be pretty saavy to the tricks and methods of those trying to scam out of a ticket. I spoke with a ADA on the subject and she said that without physical evidence that refutes that officer's claims, the judge will not rule in your favor in most cases. You can try to schedule a pre-trial hearing with the ADA and see if they can reduce the offense.

No there wasn't. I wasn't giving any. ANd really, the ADA said that there is no way, or little chance of beating a ticket. She said that. I wonder why. Maybe because she is the prosecuter, and she wants everyone to believe that there is little chance of beating the ticket. Pre Trial hearings aren't needed.

Here is some advice. It is mostly tailored to California, since that is the Jurisdiction I operate in, but most of these "tricks" will work anywhere, to various degrees.

First, ALWAYS subpoena the officers record/notes of the inncident. Few people know that the officer writes down his notes, either on the actual ticket (usually, since it is easy to find the notes if the ticket is ever contested, since the ticket is actually produced in court). According to federal rules of Evidence (that means they apply everywhere, though of course, the State has to make them applicable in your state, but that is probably 99 percent of the time) if the officer doesn't provide them persuant to the subpoena (or informal discovery request. The Federal rules state the discovery should be accomplished with out court intervention, such as with a signed and executed subpaena) then the officer is BARRED from using his notes in court. This is important because, according the rules of Evidence, an officer must lay the proper foundation for the use of his notes while in court. The officer can not remember every ticket of person he pulls over, and HE WILL Not testify in court that he DOES remember. No judge would believe him. He therefore, and the reason why he made them in the first place, will use his notes to testify in court. In order for the officer to use the notes in court, he must set the proper foundation. That means, basically, that he has to make an initial showig to the court that, He made the notes near (the term used is contemperaneously) the time he gave the ticket or the event, he made the notes about the event, it was actually him (or her) that made the notes, and that he has NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION of the event, and therefore, he needs the notes to REFRESH his memory. So, since he HAS NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION, and he CAN'T USE HIS NOTES to testify, because they are excluded for failure to comply with the discovery request, he won't be able to testify about ANYTHING related to the ticket. Most officers WILL NOT respond to the informal discovery request, because they tend to ignore things that are not "Official" and Court Like, or just because they are lazy or don't think it matters, or whatever. If he can't remember, and can't use his notes in court, what can he testify about?

An added advantage to serving the officer with the informal discovery request, is that it shows the officer that you know what you are doing. That you are not rolling over and taking it where the sun don't shine like most people, and that you have educated yourself to the law, and that the case won't be easy for him to win. He thinks that he won't just walk into court to hear you spout some stupidity about your car can't go that fast, or something like that. Sometimes that keeps them from showing up to court, which is generally an automatic win. But, even if he does show, you can use the above to beat him. This doesn't really change much, even in a state where the ADA actually prosecutes the offense, though, in most states, infractions are prosecuted by the officer, with no help from the ADA or an attorney.

If he does respond to the request, well now at least you know what he is gonna say. You can then use that against him. Of course, I have no idea what the notes will say, but you do what you can. If the officers notes don't mention "visually estimated car traveling at X mph" he can't say in court "I estimated his speed", because he is limited to testifying ONLY ABOUT what is in his notes (assuming he can use them, remember, even if he produces them, he still has to lay the proper foundation for using the nots in court, and most officers HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DO THAT). He can't make stuff up, and he can't "remember" new things that are not in his notes. Also, how can an officer ESTIMATE a speed of 82 miles and hour. No one is that good. Also, if in his notes he states, I estimated a speed of 80mph, then you can question his ability to estimate speed. He must prove that he is good at it. Officers often times are trained by the department regarding this. You subpaena the records regarding this training. If he had tests, subpaena the tests. I doubt he got 100%. Use that in court. Perhaps he is wrong on this time, like he was wrong during class. Also, if he is stitting under and over pass, behind a pillar, he can only see your car pulling away from him. There is little chance he can estimate the speed of something from behind. As it passes you, sure, but from behind, or even head on, it is just not easily done. If he had the course during training, determine how he was tought, and required (sometimes there are requirements for a visual estimation, like he has to view the car for 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, etc) and make sure he complied.

In California, it is even easier. The law requires that the state perform a special test (called an Engineering and Traffic survey) on each street, to justify the speed limit that is posted. This is a complicated report, but quite easy to glean the information that is needed. This test MUST be done every 5 years. If it is not, then the posted speed limit is not justified, AND A SPEEDING TICKET IS INVALID ON THAT ROAD IF RADAR IS USED. That is the wording of the Statute, the law regarding the basic speed law. There is nothing ANY judge can do. The California legislature has made that the law. The California Appeals court (A very high court here in California) has determined that, even if the officer woud testify that he estimated the speed of the vehicle visually, IF HE USED RADAR AT ALL, the ticket is invalid. Doesn't matter how fast the person was going, doesn't matter what else he did wrong, if anything. The officer is barred from testifying about the speed of the car if the posted speed limit has not been justified.

Of course, one is allowed to question the engineering and traffic survey, even if it PURPORTS to justify the speed limit. The law in California requires that the Engineering survey JUSTIFY the speed limit. The speed limit has to be set a speed at which 85 percent of the people that drive that road, are not violating the law. So, if 85 percent of the people drive 50 or more on the road, the speed limit can't be set at lower then 50mph (there are other requirements, this is just the basics) unless the survey justifies a lower speed limit. The courts have determined that ONLY NON OBVIOUS ROAD HAZARDS (see, curves are obvious, hidden driveways are NOT obvious) and/or a high accident rate, can justify a reduced speed limit. One ticket I beat, the speed limit was set below the 85 percentile. I showed that to the court, and stated that there was no justification for the reduced speed limit, since there was no NON OBVIOUS road hazards, and there was no high accident rate at that intersection. The officer, quickly retorted that, there were 6 accidents at that intersection. I quickly showed him, and that the court that, the 6 accidents were in a 12 month period, and that, percentage wise, that was mostly likely an insignificant amount of accidents, and that additionally, the survey didn't justify the reduction in speed limit based on the accident rate, (or really, based on anything) and that if the survey didn't base the reduction on the accident rate, the officer and the court couldn't, and in fact, the survey didn't rely on the accident rate because it was, in fact, insignifant, as I stated.

I have beaten a ticket for my brother, because the Speed Limit sign was NOT THE PROPER SIZE.

I have used some of these techniques in all my court appearances (well, except for the illegal lane change ticket I got on the freeway, where the engineerig and traffic survey doesn't really help, though I did use the officers notes against him)

I am RARELY convicted, though I have never been convicted for speeding, EVER, and I have been cited at least 5 times, once for 75 in a 35, 55 in a 30 and several others that were not as bad.

People might look at me and say, Hey, you are breaking the law, and getting away with it. The truth is, however, that it is not breaking the law unless the they PROVE you have broken the law. The cops, the courts, and the State have a responsibility to comply with the law, all aspects of it. If they don't, and if they don't, it is my responsibility to prove they have not, and win my case.

Michael

Hope that is enough for you guys to chew on for a while.

Are you saying a copy of his notes(informal discovery) should be requested? or the originals?...

Also, are you stating that a police officer doesn't have the legal right to dismiss the request? or is it a "sure, i dont care, here you go" kind of thing?


Thanks a lot for the advice. I know a lot of people will use this in the future.

How should the proposel for the officers notes be requested?

Immediatly following the event of being pulled over? or in court?

and how said? "May I have a copy of your notes regarding the inncodent? just out of curiosity." ?? any recommendations?

Originally Posted by Escalade182

Are you saying a copy of his notes(informal discovery) should be requested? or the originals?...

Also, are you stating that a police officer doesn't have the legal right to dismiss the request? or is it a "sure, i dont care, here you go" kind of thing?


Thanks a lot for the advice. I know a lot of people will use this in the future.

Yes, a copy of his notes. You can never request originals.

There are only limited legal "defenses" to a subpaena of documents. They are based on privilage and work product (and some other, non relevant defenses). Since the officer is not an attorney, it is not work product. They are not privilaged because they do not fall with in a catagory of privilage. There are many catagories, but officers notes are not one of them, he therefore has no "legal" defense to producing them. Cure, he can refuse to, and that is why the "remedy" for failure to produce is so harsh, that the document is barred from being used or intriduced during trial. If the officer (or really) anyone doesn't give the document to the otherside, they themselves are not allowed to use it for anything. If one can't use it, neither can use.

Michael

Originally Posted by Escalade182

How should the proposel for the officers notes be requested?

Immediatly following the event of being pulled over? or in court?

and how said? "May I have a copy of your notes regarding the inncodent? just out of curiosity." ?? any recommendations?

That would depend on your state and the specific requirements there. However, you should be able to find, on the internet, something called an "informal discovery request" or even, a subpaena duces tecum for your state.

Follow the rules for that. The request MUST be "served", so you must follow the rules for "service" in your state. For the most part, the document must be serveed by someone OTHER than you, who is 18 y/o or older, and he must fill out something called a "proof of service" and swear to his actions on the form. He also might be called into court, though that is VERY rare.

I can not give legal advice to you since this is not the medium for that, and you are in a different state. This post is merely informational in nature, and not meant to be a guide to defend against a ticket or any legal proceeding. This is merely some suggestions and ideas on what you can do in a similar situation.

Michael

I've got a good idea! Don't break the law so you don't have to pay anything