Fighting a ticket - what to expect??

[Snitty]

Sparky, Twisted is correct. And please know that I am only speaking from my local experiences. The manner may be completely different elsewhere.

When I say "victimless", I actually mean "harmless". I totally understand the point you are making, and agree with you for the most part. There is a major difference between running a stop sign and a brief "inadequate" stop. Both would be ticketed the same. There is a major difference between going 10 mph over the speed limit in a busy city and going 10 mph over the limit on an empty highway. Both would be ticketed the same. There is a major difference between having no working tail lights and having a single marker light out. Both would be ticketed the same. There is a major difference between a person swerving back and forth in heavy traffic without a turn signal and a person changing lanes on an empty highway. Both could be ticketed the same. My point is that there are inconsiderate officers out there (and please don't think that I believe they all are) who will take any and every chance to ruin someone's day for doing something that is completely harmless and innocent.

Another type of example I can give would be misdirected tickets. My brother no longer has his license because he was pulled over while driving a company vehicle. He didn't know that the vehicle's inspection was expired, he had no idea. It was a busy work day, his boss had him take the company van to run across town. He was pulled over for it, ticketed, and could not afford to pay the ticket. He was sentenced to pay $325 within 60 days or he would be suspended. He simply could not afford it in time. When he was pulled over, the officer (very same officer I spoke of earlier, who gets all the overtime) wouldn't consider my brother's explaination of being unaware. He could not reasonably have been expected to be aware.

Another... One of my friends was driving another friend's car at night in the summer. This was at night, and around here, anyone driving at night is seemingly automatically under the influence of alcohol (generally, again, doesn't apply to all). He was pulled over then asked for probable cause and handed his license over. The officer asked him to roll the window up. The officer took out a device and measured the transmittance of the window. My friend was ticketed for operating with illegal window tint. The officer had no way to see that at the time of the stop, but possibly could have seen it at an earlier day. However, had no way of knowing that the tint was still there, my friend was not operating WITH the tint, AND he also did not know that the windows were tinted when he took the vehicle in the first place.

In many cases, I know that an officer will give a warning or simply advise the motorist that he/she should be more careful or inform them of something wrong. That is a very appreciable thing to do. Last month, I was pulled over by a cop who had a headlight out. He informed me that one of my headlights was flickering, something I had not previously noticed. I thanked him for bringing that to my attention. He laughed when he turned back toward his car to see he had a light out. I appreciated that he took his time to inform me of a potential hazard. It would be ridiculously ignorant to ticket me for something like that. I took care of it the next day, nobody was hurt, nobody was ticketed, nobody was unhappy.

I do agree about the potentially harmful situations such as cell phones and other distractions, but only when they are honestly potentially harmful. Many people to take caution. I also agree about the seatbelts. I was in a car wreck in 2000 that involved my truck rolling for 1/8 mile. I lost my best friend in the accident and I was lost on the table 3 times. My seatbelt was on, his was not. My seatbelt failed (according to reconstruction of the accident) approx 2/3 the way through the roll. If I had not been wearing it, I would most likely have died earlier on. Because it released, I was thrown from the vehicle before it came to rest. I suffered injury to every major internal organ. They estimated that it would likely have been reduced to only minor liver injury if the seatbelt had stayed intact. The rest is a story for another time. Either way, I owe a lot of the fact that I'm alive today to wearing a seatbelt that day. I take it very insulting when I am accused of not wearing one from that day forth. That is one reason I was so relentless in my recent traffic court case. I was pulled over for allegedly not wearing a seatbelt, and ended up being accused also of driving with a suspended licence so that they could find reasons to search the car I was driving. Their intention was obvious to me when they repeatedly asked "Where are the drugs?" It was Mardi Gras weekend, and the Cadillac (I will admit did look somewhat suspicious in that area) looked like a good target. I made sure that the court knew of my stance on the situation. Though, in no part of the moment from the stop even to now was I ever disrespectful or disobedient.

I understand that officers have 'standards', which are likely figured from statistical studies and are likely a good minimum 'expectation'. With these 'standards', many officers (around here at least) will try to fill that expectation as quickly as possible so they can get on with their day without having to worry about whether or not they will fulfill it or not. That is a bogus attitude. I also understand that an officer is "just doing their job" by writing tickets, and if the motorist then has an explaination that may reasonably object to the discretion of the officer, that then would be up to the judge to hear that explaination and make the decision on right/wrong. The part that itches me there is: It is too common today that a judge will not offer an ear for the defandant's statement and will honor the ticket as the unconditional, ultimate factor. If the officer happened to make an innocent mistake in his judgement call on the citation, it will too often be the almighty decision, regardless of the defendant's objection. I would have absolutely no problem with the writing of tickets if they did not have so much absolution in the court process. "Let the judge decide" doesn't have enough meaning much anymore (around here at least). That is one reason I will always exercise my right to trial and keep the honor in Justice.

These are just some examples of what I was talking about. Please don't take anything I say to be defiant or argumentive. I am only speaking from reason and stating how doing something "illegal" doesn't always mean doing something "wrong". Great discussion.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

You put up some good points, and I'll agree that there are cops who go over the edge when it comes to enforcement. However, every law on the books is there for a reason, and ultimately should be followed. I'll agree with you on having a single side marker light out at night to some extent. However, I had a friend in high school who hit a car from behind that had a taillight out. There was a line of motorcycles on the highway coming from the state fair, and the car was in the middle of that line, riding slightly across the centerline of a 4 lane highway. My friend was driving a little over the speed limit, admittedly, and overtaking the line of vehicles in the other lane. He didn't realize it was a car he was passing until it was too late. The car he hit spun out, and was hit by two motorcycles, killing one of the drivers. He also spun out and hit another motorcycle, paralyzing the passenger. Three examples of laws broken that could have prevented an accident. 1) The other driver should have been in his own lane; 2) The other driver should have made sure all of his lights are working; 3) My friend should have been driving the speed limit.

Driving 10 miles an hour over on the highway is also dangerous, even when it appears you are the only vehicle out on the road. Countless times we hear of someone being hit by a car at night because of dark clothing. Do you know that at nighttime, you are only supposed to drive at a speed in which you can stop in the distance illuminated by your headlights? It's called overdriving your headlights. Daytime? Ok, when you think you're on a deserted highway during the day, driving 10 mph over the limit, and there is suddenly an animal or object in the roadway. This example stretches the point, but the point is still there. How much longer does it take you to stop from 70 mph than it does from 60 mph?

An officer who witnesses a driver making an "inadequate stop" at a stop sign has reasonable suspicion to think that driver may be impaired. Back in the early '80s when I was in high school, I was in an advanced course block, which allowed me to step outside the normal high school curriculum to study other subjects which may further help me later in life. I took two semesters studying accident reconstruction, driving law, and highway accident statistics. One study I remember was from the Texas DOPS, in which they video taped impaired drivers (on a closed course) as they attempted several routine traffic encounters. Almost all of the impaired drivers "rolled through" the stop signs. At the end of the driving test, they were asked several questions about the test, and how they thought they did. Every one of the drivers that made an "inadequate stop" thought they had come to a complete stop, and even argued the point with the testers, until they were shown the video tapes. Same thing goes for making lane changes without your turn signal on a seemingly abandoned highway. Lane changes without the turn signal are a sign of a potentially impaired driver.

I drive a company vehicle everyday at work. It is part of my morning routine to do a full inspection of that vehicle to assure it is in proper operating condition, licensed, and legal. It is that way with any vehicle you get into. You, the driver, are ultimately responsible for making sure the vehicle you drive is safe and legal, whether it is yours or someone else's. That is the law. Sure, it's an inconvenience when you are called suddenly to take a different vehicle you are not familiar with, but again, ultimately, by law you are the person responsible for that vehicle's inspection for safety and legal driveability. You said your brother "could not have been reasonably aware" of it's condition, but yes, had he followed the law, he would have been aware. Sure, it's a PITA, but the law is there for a reason.

Cops enforce these laws for different reasons, agreed, but for the most part, it is to break a dangerous habit before it goes too far. Changing lanes on a deserted highway without the turn signal can soon become a habit of not signalling, and the driver may forget to do so on a busy street. Speeding is the big one. Ok, I'm late this morning, I'll speed to get to work on time, but just this once. Then, it happens again. And again. And again, until you've done it enough without getting caught that you get "tunnel vision" and what some experts refer to as "cop invisibility". You think that you're different from other drivers, because you can handle the increase in speed, and therefore feel immune to being pulled over. A cop has no idea of your ability to drive safely, no matter how good you are.

As to cell phones and other distractions, there are too many statistics that show a conversation on a cell phone is more distracting than a conversation with someone else in the vehicle. Sure, there are people who are very cautious when they use their cell phones, but how does the cop know that? You may be able to drive with one knee, smoke a cigarette with one hand, eat a burger with the other, and cradle a cell phone between your shoulder and your ear, all at 100 mph while completing a slalom course on a wet road without wrecking, but does the cop know you're that good of a driver? No. Hence, the ticket. Even if the cop does know you're that good, he is obligated to treat each person with the same amount of respect and justice, and cannot show favoritism or inconsistent policing when issuing tickets.

We all know there are crooked cops, prosecutors, and judges out there, and sometimes they cannot be avoided, no matter what we do. However, your chances of encountering a cop "who will take any and every chance to ruin someone's day for doing something that is completely harmless and innocent" will decrease significantly if you obey the law. I, too, have no problem with fighting those tickets you feel deserve an explanation. Keep fighting them, and perhaps eventually you will get a decent judge who will hear your side of the story. There are good judges out there, and good prosecutors, as well as good police departments that will take measures to ensure that a bad cop writing "bogus" tickets is reprimanded and his actions corrected. Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but I've seen it here, and heard countless stories from across the country of it happening.

 

[Snitty]

One study I remember was from the Texas DOPS, in which they video taped impaired drivers (on a closed course) as they attempted several routine traffic encounters. Almost all of the impaired drivers "rolled through" the stop signs.

I completely agree that there is a correlation between impairment and bad driving. I also agree that pulling over motorists who makes those small driving mistakes will often come out to be a worthwhile stop because the motorist will sometimes be impaired. Like I said previously, I get pulled over twice a month, minimum. More often than not, it is an unreasonable stop, but there still are many times I did something minor that I was unaware of. If an officer suspects me of being impaired (I don't drink, so chances are slim), I hope he pulls me over, its the right thing to do. But if an officer pulls someone over with impairment suspicion because of something small and/or unaware to the driver, if he finds that the driver is not impaired, anything more than bringing the mistake to the motorist's attention is undeniably downright ignorant... especially if it is at night and the officer is fishing for drunks, pulling people over at every minor chance.

As for the company vehicle... Yes, you are right that it is the driver's responsability. I realize that some people will actually stand outside in -20 degree weather for 10 minutes, making sure that everything on their vehicle is 100% legal. Heaven forbid someone goes outside after work, inspects their car and has a license plate light out and can't get to the parts store to fix it because they can't legally drive their car. Gotta call home, tell the wife that they'll be a bit late because they have to have their vehicle towed to the shop so they can get their license plate light replaced. I realize these examples are a little extreme and possibly far fetched... but so is expecting every person to do a full inspection on their vehicle, every time they go to drive it, in every circumstance. Perhaps you do, and perhaps there are people who check every detail of a vehicle, under hood, front, behind, in and out, that you get into, and that is great, I wish I had the discipline and time to do it. However, it is absurd, even though it is a 'legal responsability', to expect everyone (or most of anyone) to do that. This, again is a case where pulling someone over is fine, but under the circumstances, it is ignorant to give anything but a warning. My brother did not know what was wrong, he just knew that he was told to take someone else's vehicle somewhere. He figured that a big, established business would have had everything taken care of on the vehicle as far as legal stuff. Nobody goes toward a vehicle and thinks "I wonder if everything on this vehicle is 100% legal and ready for me to take on this trip". Of course it would be nice if everyone did, but the truth is the opposite.

I know that ignorance is no excuse for breaking 'the law'... but as well, 'the law' is no excuse for being ignorant.

I could go on more and more on the moral issue of frivolous ticketing, but I think we both (and all) see the points we are making without having to toss the ball back and forth. Though I certainly don't mind it, this is a good discussion.


Back on the topic of the thread... Jason4x4, you mentioned that the cop said he knows it is Bull****. Cops are humans with feelings, with the exception to a few hot heads. Even though I wouldn't allow my job to make me do something I thought was Bull****, we have to realize that their job is their job, and most of us can't relate to their circumstances. Being that it is only his job, and that he may not like having to do certain things, call him. Call the department, ask for him, and have a talk with him. Police are not the almighty fearful demons that many people think they are. They are people who have morals and respect for other people. If you talk to him, perhaps there is something he can do for you to help you with the ticket. Perhaps he can give you advice on where to go for help with the ticket. Many officers appreciate being approached like a normal civilian. They like when you ask for help, and will often give you that help. It helps them feel appreciated, which is very rare, being that most cops are seen by the public to be just a harrassment agency. Even if he has no way to offer any help, still thank him for his time. Your respect may play a strong role if he happens to talk to the members of the court in relation to your case.

 

[dropseys]

Being respectful goes a long way in court too.

 

[B192734]

Being respectful generally goes a long way anywhere. Not just in court. Be kind, be courteous, and people will remeber you.

Unless they're really a big bully, then you'll just get beat up...

 

[Snitty]

That is very true. Even if you are being disrespected in a case, as long as you know your rights, somewhere along the line, your respect will be appreciated and rewarded.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

I could go on more and more on the moral issue of frivolous ticketing, but I think we both (and all) see the points we are making without having to toss the ball back and forth. Though I certainly don't mind it, this is a good discussion.

Yes, it has been a good discussion, thank you.8) I could go on and on, also, but I have nothing new to add, except a minor clarification. As far as inspecting my company vehicle, if it weren't for the KHP Motor Inspection Units around Wichita, I probably wouldn't do more than make sure the tires have air and there is gas in the tank. However, the regular patrol officers have been instructed to call for a MIU any time they pull over a commercial vehicle for a traffic infraction, and the MIU is to do a full inspection of the vehicle. I believe this was a state-mandated order, having to do with too many violations statewide, and the state was in danger of losing federal highway money. In other words, politics. :roll: Our company has been nailed so many times for so many violations that the MIU has red-flagged us, meaning that they can pull us over at any time for inspection, whether we have committed an offense or not. That is due mostly to the fact that the owner of the company would rather pay fines than pay a mechanic with commercial vehicle knowledge to inspect and make legal a fleet of 85-90 vehicles ranging from small pickups to large bucket trucks. Instead, he relies on the drivers to perform the inspections and make whatever repairs are necessary, unless those repairs are major, and then they are to red-tag the vehicle until the worthless mechanic we have can fix them. That is the only reason I do such a thorough check on my work van. One of our guys got stopped this spring after an empty mulch bag blew out of the back of his trailer. He was written 28 citations for violations related to commercial vehicles, plus a $118 fine for no seatbelt and a $250 fine for the unsecured load (empty plastic bag). Of course, the company pays all of the associated costs pertaining to the commercial vehicle violations, but they still go against the driver's record. The driver had to pay the $368 for the seatbelt and unsecured load. So, as for commercial vehicles, there are no "warnings" issued. As far as your personal vehicle, most cops will let you off with a warning for a burned out headlight or brake light or tag light. Occasionally, they will ticket you, but reduce the fine once you show proof the defective part has been repaired.

 

[dropseys]

In MD we can write tickets for lights out etc, but instead we hav ERO (fix it tickets) no fines or anything just gives you 30 days to fix it take it to a local PD showing it's fixed, and they sign off on it. If its not fixed and inspected within 30 days the tags are suspended.

 

[Snitty]

Yeah I have no problem with fix-it tickets. I think its a very good idea

 

[Bounty__Hunter]

When I say "victimless", I actually mean "harmless".

:lol: Is there a difference?

I do take offense to your generalizations. And I take offense to your statements asserting that ticket writing 'solely to generate revenue' occurs in the 'majority' of the jurisdictions.

You have some strong opinions on the subject.

Why don't you list the reasons (all of them) you've been pulled over for in the past 12 months (should be at least 24, right?).

 

[Snitty]

I clearly stated that what I said was not meant to be offensive, so there is no offense to be taken. Nowhere did I say that there were no exceptions. And you cannot, nor can anyone, including judges, deny that ticket writing is not a widely used tool in generating revenue. The very existence of surcharges proves that. If any certain locality doesn't have surcharges, only fines, then i'm very glad for that. If your force does not put officers on duty ONLY to write tickets, or if your force does not have a (which ever word might be used) "quota", then great. Otherwise, it is used for revenue, and not just for the safety of the public.

The only REAL generalization I made about all officers, without referring to my local area, was that police are human beings with feelings. I certainly hope you are not objecting to that.

Difference between "victimless" and "harmless"? Most certainly. "Victimless" means there are/were no victims. "Harmless" means there will be no victims. When I said "victimless act", I specifically did not say "victimless crime". Breaking legal policy (not Law) is not always a crime. Breaking legal policy can be a victimless act if it turns out no victims. Most real criminal action turns out a victim, someone loses something along the way.

Everything harmless is also victimless.. But not everything victimless is also harmless. A 20 year old male, two weeks from being 21, drinks a beer at his friend's house. Victimless? Certainly, nobody got hurt. Harmless? Unless he's getting a spanking, its totally harmless. Illegal? Sure is, but only because someone decided it should be illegal. In two weeks, it wouldn't be, and the factor of victimless/harmless doesn't change.

Change the scenario to him drinking 5 beers and driving home after. Victimless act? It could be, if he doesn't cause an accident. Harmless act? Certainly not, it is a stupid thing to do. Illegal? Yes, and with good reason.

Same guy, no beer, walks out of his house and decides to walk to his friend's house across town with his eyes closed. Victimless? Don't know, as I'm sure you will agree, "victimless" is only victimless until someone gets hurt. Harmless? No, not harmless at all. To be a harmless act it would require that it is always harmless, and nobody will get hurt. Illegal? Not anywhere that I know of, but only becuase "lawmakers" haven't written it down. Though I do realize it could be covered under general policies such as disorderly conduct or similar.

Those were just three scenarios I pulled out of nowhere to show what I mean by the two terms and their relation to legal policy.

Back on the generalizations, once again, taking offense is not available here, unless you are one of the officers who really do take part in the ridiculous acts I mentioned. And knowing you on here for a number of years, I would not believe it, for the value of my life, that you are that way. I do know the difference between a good man and a bad man. A badge is not a factor there, a good man is a good man, badge or not. I made no attacks in an all-inclusive manner, keeping in mind that there are good people here who happen to be in law enforcement. With total honesty, it was personally you, Bounty, being that I believe you are an officer who has been here the longest, who I had in mind when trying to be respectful in the matter.

I believe the main point I am getting to on everything is that legal policies, such as V&T, are mostly colorable. Many hold conditions. A person can break a 'law', but should he/she be punished in EVERY situation? Perhaps some people think so. And I feel bad that the 'laws of man' have usurped the Laws of God (For those who do not believe in God, then substitute Morality in there). Most legal policies were created to prevent a certain outcome. If a negative outcome is not relevant to a particular 'violation', then the act is harmless. Example? Inadequate stop. If a motorist makes a complete stop, but not a predetermined legal 3 seconds, or even a very slow roll, long enough to undeniably safely monitor the conditions of the traffic, and moves forth in a safe manner, he could be pulled over for an inadequate stop. Did the motorist 'break the law'? Sure, according to the books. Did the motorist do something harmful? Not at all. Should he be ticketed? No, the law here is colorable and is so for a reason. They are subjective to the situations.

Why have I been pulled over? Mainly because I drive a lot at night. I know they are pulling me over, fishing for DWIs. They've told me. When I ask for probable cause, what are the reasons? Usually it is a seatbelt, which I get "Oh, sorry, didn't look like you had it on from back there" a lot. One was for taking a picture of a building at night. One was for driving in a white car when there was a warrant out for a guy in a white car. One was for briefly stopping at my brother's house, who happens to live next to a drug dealer. Once for a flickering headlight. Once for a headlight out. Once was for an air freshener hanging. A couple were "Sorry to bother you, have a good night."

For the most part, I have no problem being pulled over, and understand why. I am appreciative that there officers there to stop bad things from happening. I agree that it looks suspicious to have the same car drive back and forth for hours at night (I don't drink alcohol, I have regular people who I take care of at night). I end most stops with "Thanks for lookin out officer, have a nice night." In the past year, I've been pulled over 30 or more times. How many tickets? None. All the heavy ticket writers are on duty when I'm working in the day, the nighttime officers aren't looking so much to get the money, they are looking for more important things. (again, when I make generalizations like that, I'm talking about here, not everywhere) If I am pulled over for something, I'm glad they are doing their job making sure we are safe. But I have no bad intentions, and I'm out helping people at night. If I am ticketed for something harmless, especially in the specific situations, I won't be shy in court.

Again, and I can't stress enough... I did not intend at all to offend anyone, in fact, completely stated that I didn't. . I made no statements on a full scale. You are very correct that I have some strong opinions on the subject and I'm glad that you take the time to read them. I am somewhat Libertarian and I'm a strong advocate of CommonLaw Justice. I strongly believe that the courts and law system work FOR the people. I whole heartedly thank every officer who works in favor of REAL Justice, protects the people, and doesn't just work for a boss. Please keep in mind, this is a discussion, not an argument. Thank you for participating.