# To Protect, Serve and Collect Revenue.



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 8, 2011)

As a few folks know, I got a speeding ticket on my way out of Texas, courtesy of a Winfield TX cop.  Unlike all the others who complain, I'll admit it. I was over the posted limit.  The posted limit was 70mph. According to my dash board (digital) I was doing 75. According to my GPS, 73.  But according to the nice officer with the fancy radar unit that I'm sure is 'calibrated and tested each morning', it said I was doing 80.

Funny how there were 5 cars around me passing me.  
Funny how by the time the cop whipped out of the turn around, most of those cars were at least 1-2 miles ahead of me.

Cop had his traffic stop down to a science, well experienced.
I don't think he was there 5 minutes.

Mind you, he was very polite, very professional about it all.

But is sure felt shady.   I was driving with traffic, hell I was being passed.
But I had NY plates, driving a Prius.  

I could fight it, but that means going back, which would cost me 3 days minimal, plus 20+ hrs each way driving and at least 1 hotel stay.  About $300 to fight it, and lose anyway. $200 to pay it off. Because a lying cop is an revenue collector rather than an honest law enforcement agent.

Stacked deck, well oiled machine, town that gets more than half it's revenue from traffic stops.

So, Officer, I'll send in your money. You try and stay safe whipping out like a crazed madman and keep doing that duty as an income stream for your town. Sure beats honest police work, like stopping crime.  Might want to suggest to your payment folks they enter the 21st century and accept online payments. It's more efficient.
I get the last laugh though...NY doesn't recognize your points so all you did was sour me a little bit to ever moving to your area. Thffft!

And if anyone drives in Texas, keep it under the limit by at least 10 mph. 
Especially on I30.

http://www.speedtrap.org/state/45/Texas


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Sure beats honest police work, like stopping crime.



I was sort of with you up to that little ditty Bob. Writing for 5 over is a tad petty IMO, but did you actually use the "why don't you go out and fight REAL crime" cannard???

Many of those coppers are assigned speed enforcement duty. And like it or not, traffic enforcement is part of our job. If all we did was "fight REAL CRIME" than people would be complaining about why we are not doing something about people speeding on Main St. or blowing the stop sign at 1st and Elm St.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

I've been tagged in New Mexico on I-25 headed for Colorado.  It was a local town cop where the town jurisdiction covered a couple miles of the interstate; he got me for 78 in a 75 (yes, we have 75 MPH limits in some parts of the West).  Three miles over the limit?  And it was a $200+ ticket.  Outrageous!

I went back a few weeks later and drove around the 'town'.  It consisted of about half-a-dozen houses.  The police station / town hall was a double-wide trailer, and the police car was parked in front of a single-wide trailer, which is where I assumed the 'Chief of Police' lived.

Speed trap?  You bet.  Unfair?  Well, in a general sense, yes.

*However...*

I was speeding; even if only by a little bit and only if 'everybody does it' (by the way, I try NOT to speed, but I will drive with the flow of traffic to avoid being a menace on the road.  In this case I was alone, so my bad).

And looked at another way, this tiny little 'town' had a cop, which I seriously doubt they could afford if they didn't use the section of the interstate that they had annexed as revenue generation.  He may be mostly busy writing tickets for speeding and not 'stopping crime', but then again, I doubt they have a huge crime problem there.  But if something bad happens, or a traffic accident or natural disaster or who knows, at least they have a cop in the area.  We're talking about a large state, mostly rural outside of Albuquerque and Santa Fe, which has like 12 state patrol officers on the road at any given time - for the entire state.  I can imagine why the citizens of this dusty town want their own full time cop handy. 

Then think about this.  Most major cities have HUGE taxes on hotels and motels.  Yeah.  Like 10%, 15%, even more.  It's nothing but revenue generation for the city from out of town people (mostly).

But that's how it goes.

Consider this a tax.  One that you can voluntarily avoid paying - by not speeding.

Yes, it still sucks.  But it is what it is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 8, 2011)

An honest cop writes up the ticket honestly.
He's not just looking for easy pickings.

I had my cruise control on, constant speed. I constantly monitor my GPS as well, there is a constant 2 mph difference between the 2. 
I was being passed by several other vehicles.  That means they were going faster.  
They all had TX plates though, so might contest things.

I stand by my statement that this was not an honest cop, just a cash collector.

Or.

Are you telling me that the radar units cops use are not accurate?
Are not 'calibrated and tested daily' (which another cop stated in court under oath about 15 years ago)
That it's more important to pull over the 75mph car than the 85mph semi?

Because what I got was hosed, and he wrote me up for 10 over, not the 5 I was actually going.
So he either lied, or had defective gear.

Or....he had an accurate reading, on another car, but he made a mistake and nailed me because he wasn't as accurate as he thought?

I was polite during the stop. I signed the ticket. I said thank you. I said sorry. I said 'yes sir' a few times.
If you stop me, you'll be talking about how syrupy polite I was for days afterwards.

But maybe he could have cut me a break. Maybe he could have been honest about his reading. Maybe he could have issued a warning.
Instead I got a $200 bill, in a speed trap, with a reputation for such, and a reputation for 'not getting paid on time' so that the fine doubles.

But I have learned my lesson.  From now on, I'm locking my cruise control for 1 mile -under- the posted limit, slamming on my breaks to rapidly drop to posted speeds when it changes etc.  
I'm also investing in a radar detector, radar jammer, and 4 way cameras to record speed, conditions and encounters.
I'll hold off on aft-firing photon torpedoes for now....I hear they overload the electrical system on older Prius's.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 8, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've been tagged in New Mexico on I-25 headed for Colorado.  It was a local town cop where the town jurisdiction covered a couple miles of the interstate; he got me for 78 in a 75 (yes, we have 75 MPH limits in some parts of the West).  Three miles over the limit?  And it was a $200+ ticket.  Outrageous!
> 
> I went back a few weeks later and drove around the 'town'.  It consisted of about half-a-dozen houses.  The police station / town hall was a double-wide trailer, and the police car was parked in front of a single-wide trailer, which is where I assumed the 'Chief of Police' lived.
> 
> ...



It pisses me off is what it is. But, I'll pay it, I'll vent a little, and in the future I'll be more careful.
Until I get a 80 in a 70 when I am only doing 65.
Then I'll get even more sarcastic.

It's not the ticket that annoys me, it's that little rounding up bit.  It's only a $10 difference ($185 vs $195) but it still annoys me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It pisses me off is what it is. But, I'll pay it, I'll vent a little, and in the future I'll be more careful.
> Until I get a 80 in a 70 when I am only doing 65.
> Then I'll get even more sarcastic.
> 
> It's not the ticket that annoys me, it's that little rounding up bit.  It's only a $10 difference ($185 vs $195) but it still annoys me.



I'm hip.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Are you telling me that the radar units cops use are not accurate?
> Are not 'calibrated and tested daily' (which another cop stated in court under oath about 15 years ago)



Yes.  It's a load of hooey.

If you have the time and inclination, you can fight most radar-gun speeding tickets in court and win.  I saw many cases lost on simple technicalities.  For example, serve a subpoena on the department for their radar training records, and compel the training officer, shift commander, and everyone else involved in the radar certification process to testify.  If you can establish a break in the chain of radar gun certification or officer certification to operate the radar gun, the DA will dismiss at the request of the PD.  The idea is you get the cop on the stand and say "when were you certified?" and "when was the radar gun you were using certified" and establish that one or both are either not up to snuff, or done improperly.  Many small departments do not keep on training, certifications, and unit calibration certs.  When you subpoena the records, they know what's coming next and if they're out of compliance, they'll drop charges to keep from having many tickets they've written impeached in court.  That's just one method, there are lots of them.  But you have to have the time, money, and inclination to fight.  In your case, as an out-of-state person, it's probably not worth it.  Guess what?  They know that.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2011)

I would say "that depends" Bill. In a case like this where we are talking a 5-10 MPH difference I can see where attacking the radar equipment could work, but (in my state at least) radar is simply a verification (or is supposed to be) of a visual speed estimation. All radar is supposed to be is a verification of that estimate.

Again..in this case that would probably be a good strategy, but not in all cases.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I would say "that depends" Bill. In a case like this where we are talking a 5-10 MPH difference I can see where attacking the radar equipment could work, but (in my state at least) radar is simply a verification (or is supposed to be) of a visual speed estimation. All radar is supposed to be is a verification of that estimate.
> 
> Again..in this case that would probably be a good strategy, but not in all cases.



Yeah, but in cases like yours, the _"Oh, so you have calibrated eyeballs, do you?  Let's find out."_ defense works every time.

And as to the radar itself; really it does not matter what the speed variation is; if the unit has not been calibrated in a year and the manufacturer recommends calibrating it every time it's used, for example, or the person doing the calibration is not qualified to do so, etc, it's 'case dismissed' 100% of the time.  _"I verified my visual speed estimate with this radar gun." "Oh, the one you're not qualified to use, according to your own department's records and requirements, that one?"_


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2011)

I actually have a speed estimation cert card. States that I can accurately estimate speed to within 5 mph.

So in a case like this, sure there is some defensive "wiggle room". In the case where I charged a guy with reckless driving for 70 in a 30....without radar....that defense didn't work.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 8, 2011)

For our department we have calibration on the radars once a year and the records are all kept.  For certification it is a one time deal and for the time being there is no "keeping current" etc.

As to testing daily, yep every time I get into my patrol car I hit the "test" button and watch it go through it's little test and every time I return the car I hit the test button again and record it on my daily log.  It's habit and takes less than a second to hit the button and only about 10 seconds for the unit to self-test.

So to have an officer testify that they do that daily does not strike me as odd or dishonest when you understand what it entails to test it daily.  Takes me longer to put on my seatbelt than to run the radar test.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 8, 2011)

I always caution people even around where I live to NOT speed through any of the small towns in surrounding areas because the police there are VERY strict as to speed laws etc.  When you are in a bigger city you are more apt to get a warning if you are pulled over by a regular patrol unit (not traffic specific) because they just want to stop the behavior, but don't have the time to write the tickets and spend time in courts over it.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2011)

It's been a while since I've worked any traffic, but our units came with the tuning forks. Any radar enforcement had to be logged on a radar sheet that included the speed registered by the tuning forks. If the readout matched the fork speed there wasn't much to attack.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> For our department we have calibration on the radars once a year and the records are all kept.  For certification it is a one time deal and for the time being there is no "keeping current" etc.
> 
> As to testing daily, yep every time I get into my patrol car I hit the "test" button and watch it go through it's little test and every time I return the car I hit the test button again and record it on my daily log.  It's habit and takes less than a second to hit the button and only about 10 seconds for the unit to self-test.
> 
> So to have an officer testify that they do that daily does not strike me as odd or dishonest when you understand what it entails to test it daily.  Takes me longer to put on my seatbelt than to run the radar test.



Every department is different, and sometimes department regulations don't match manufacturer recommendations.  The defense doesn't have to prove a thing, only to introduce reasonable doubt.  If the manufacturer's guide says send back to factory for recalibration every other year but the department says 'just press the calibration button and log that you did it', that's something that can be used to introduce doubt in the accuracy of the equipment.  Not saying it's inaccurate, saying it's a wedge to create doubt.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> It's been a while since I've worked any traffic, but our units came with the tuning forks. Any radar enforcement had to be logged on a radar sheet that included the speed registered by the tuning forks. If the readout matched the fork speed there wasn't much to attack.



Gotta think like a defense attorney.  There all all kinds of things to attack.  Don't have to prove any of it, just create reasonable doubt.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 8, 2011)

And -- by working traffic enforcement, we do fight real crime.  Like, say, unlicensed drunk drivers.  Or narcotics.  Or murder.

Traffic enforcement is unpopular.  It's not most cops favorite thing, either... but it is a means to make contact with people, and to find out what they're up to.

Was your ticket cheap and questionable?  Because I know you and trust you -- yes.  Could the cop have decided to ticket the out of state car because you're less likely to challenge it?  Absolutely.  

But should you tar every cop doing traffic enforcement for the actions of that guy?  Maybe we should assume that all photographers are sneaking nude shots while models are changing, too?  After all, a few have done it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 8, 2011)

I don't believe I did the blanket tar here, if I've given that impression I apologize.  Most cops I've dealt with have been ok.  The fact that I made it home without a second ticket also highlights in part the other cops honesty. (I must have passed 100 at least. Holiday weekend and all).  This is also the first ticket I've gotten in almost 20 years. Again, safe driver.

As to dirty photographers...I'm dealing with 1 now. That's a whole different headache.  And tarring him....would be enjoyable.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 8, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I would say "that depends" Bill. In a case like this where we are talking a 5-10 MPH difference I can see where attacking the radar equipment could work, but (in my state at least) radar is simply a verification (or is supposed to be) of a visual speed estimation. All radar is supposed to be is a verification of that estimate.
> 
> Again..in this case that would probably be a good strategy, but not in all cases.



I do believe that's how it is in most states.  There was an Ohio case in the last 2 or 3 years where an officer successfully convicted someone based solely on his visual assessment of the speed.  The officer was able to point to his training, experience, and I believe may have been called upon to demonstrate his ability.

Relying on many of the on-line or otherwise available guides to defending yourself in a speeding ticket is akin to taking a guy who read *The Art of War* and *A Book of 5 Rings* and handing him a sword to go against an actual trained swordsman.  It might work -- but odds are pretty good that it won't.  For example, Virginia does not require recertification of the officer -- ever, after initial training.  As to the radar unit... you might get lucky, but most are pretty good about keeping them up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> I do believe that's how it is in most states.  There was an Ohio case in the last 2 or 3 years where an officer successfully convicted someone based solely on his visual assessment of the speed.  The officer was able to point to his training, experience, and I believe may have been called upon to demonstrate his ability.



No doubt.  But it's easier to impeach that kind of claim than to establish it.  Again, the defense doesn't have to prove the cop can't do it.  They only have to establish doubt.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No doubt. But it's easier to impeach that kind of claim than to establish it. Again, the defense doesn't have to prove the cop can't do it. They only have to establish doubt.



That presumes you take it to circuit court (or its equivalent) with a jury, rather that just traffic court where you only have a judge.  Of course, if you lose, your sentence is almost certainly going to be more than in a traffic court.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 12, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> That presumes you take it to circuit court (or its equivalent) with a jury, rather that just traffic court where you only have a judge. Of course, if you lose, your sentence is almost certainly going to be more than in a traffic court.



Again, depends. Ours goes in front of a magistrate since it is a civil infraction. After the magistrate rules, you can appeal his decision and it will go in front of a district court magistrate (in Michigan Circuit Court is for felonies).

Most people will spend more in court costs/attorney fees to try and fight it so it doesn't get beyond the level of magistrate in our county for the vast majority of the time.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> ...
> 
> For example, Virginia does not require recertification of the officer -- ever, after initial training. As to the radar unit... you might get lucky, but most are pretty good about keeping them up.



A little over 20 years ago I was rear ended and dutifully went to court, per supeana, to testify.  As I sat there, I noticed an elderly African-American gentleman sitting in the court room waiting as well.  He was dressed in old, used looking, but quite clean work clothing.  He did look somewhat comfortable with himself.  When his case was called, he walked up in front of the judge and announced that he wished plead not guilty and to act in his own defense.  I remember thinking, somewhat derisively, of the old addage that a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.  I think everyone there probably had him pegged as a stereotype.

The prosecutor called the ticketing policeman, who testified about clocking the defendent on radar, and the speed he was going, which resulted in the traffic stop and the ticket.  The prosecutor sat down and indulgently awaited the gentleman's attempt at defense.  The gentleman asked how the cop knew the radar gun was correct.  The cop replied he had tested it against the police car used as the chase car.  He was then asked how he knew the chase car's speedometer was correct.  The cop replied he had checked it with the radar gun.  

There was an immediate change in the courtroom.  The judge quit looking bored and was leaning forward to listen as the cop stumbled with his replies.  The prosecutor looked like he had stepped on a snake as he quickly got to his feet.  He allowed to the judge as how based on the recent testmony, he would like to drop all charges.  The judge had no problem with that and immediately ordered it so.  The gentleman thanked the court and left.

That was in Prince William County, Virginia.  Maybe things have changed?


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Every department is different, and sometimes department regulations don't match manufacturer recommendations. The defense doesn't have to prove a thing, only to introduce reasonable doubt. If the manufacturer's guide says send back to factory for recalibration every other year but the department says 'just press the calibration button and log that you did it', that's something that can be used to introduce doubt in the accuracy of the equipment. Not saying it's inaccurate, saying it's a wedge to create doubt.



I agree with this, I was just pointing out the fact that an officer can say that they test it daily and not be lying. Ours falls within manufacturer specs for testing because awhile ago some person with a little legal knowledge started telling everyone this type of stuff and we got some challenges. All of them lost and it quickly fell out of favor for people challenging our departmental tickets based on that. Kind of like in our county everyone used to tell people to fight the ticket because the officer wouldn't show. Well, all of the hearings are specifically scheduled during their regular working shifts so it is not an issue of coming in on an off day.

As a side note, one of the things that an officer can do when someone chooses to fight a ticket (in Michigan at least) is to amend the ticket to the original charge. For example, I clock a person going 60 in a 45, and only write the citation for 1-5 over. On that ticket, you have to still document the 60/45. In court, you can ask the magistrate to amend that back up to the full 15 over instead of the lower amount that you cut the break on. That has also cut down on people trying to fight tickets when they were already given a break in the first place and just hoping the officer wouldnt' show.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Again, depends. Ours goes in front of a magistrate since it is a civil infraction. After the magistrate rules, you can appeal his decision and it will go in front of a district court magistrate (in Michigan Circuit Court is for felonies).
> 
> ...



That's a good point, I should have said the next higher court.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 12, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I agree with this, I was just pointing out the fact that an officer can say that they test it daily and not be lying. Ours falls within manufacturer specs for testing because awhile ago some person with a little legal knowledge started telling everyone this type of stuff and we got some challenges. All of them lost and it quickly fell out of favor for people challenging our departmental tickets based on that. Kind of like in our county everyone used to tell people to fight the ticket because the officer wouldn't show. Well, all of the hearings are specifically scheduled during their regular working shifts so it is not an issue of coming in on an off day.
> 
> As a side note, one of the things that an officer can do when someone chooses to fight a ticket (in Michigan at least) is to amend the ticket to the original charge. For example, I clock a person going 60 in a 45, and only write the citation for 1-5 over. On that ticket, you have to still document the 60/45. In court, you can ask the magistrate to amend that back up to the full 15 over instead of the lower amount that you cut the break on. That has also cut down on people trying to fight tickets when they were already given a break in the first place and just hoping the officer wouldnt' show.



Punishing people to encourage them not to pursue their rights under the law?  I'd love to see what a competent defense attorney could do with that one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 12, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Again, depends. Ours goes in front of a magistrate since it is a civil infraction. After the magistrate rules, you can appeal his decision and it will go in front of a district court magistrate (in Michigan Circuit Court is for felonies).
> 
> Most people will spend more in court costs/attorney fees to try and fight it so it doesn't get beyond the level of magistrate in our county for the vast majority of the time.



Sometimes it is not just about the cost of the ticket.  After a couple of speeding tickets, insurance costs can go through the roof.  People so threatened can spend a pretty penny to keep that from happening if they have the dosh.  And some people just like to exercise their civil rights because they can.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Punishing people to encourage them not to pursue their rights under the law? I'd love to see what a competent defense attorney could do with that one.



One of the things people often forget about the law is that (activist judges aside) if the law allows it, it will stand unless proven unconstitutional. If it isn't against the State constitution in Michigan, a challenge will likely be thrown out without a trial. It likely isn't against the Michigan constitutution. (But I know you will now check. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 )


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 12, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> One of the things people often forget about the law is that (activist judges aside) if the law allows it, it will stand unless proven unconstitutional. If it isn't against the State constitution in Michigan, a challenge will likely be thrown out without a trial. It likely isn't against the Michigan constitutution. (But I know you will now check.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly, I don't have time.  I guess maybe malicious prosecution, but that has some rigorous requirements, including that the defendant in the original action (the ticket) be found not guilty before they can raise a malicious prosecution claim in a tort action.  Dunno.  However, getting a cop to admit he asked the DA to increase the charge in order to pressure the defendant not to appear to contest the ticket would likely enrage a judge or a jury.  Perhaps not illegal, but likely to anger people who matter.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Punishing people to encourage them not to pursue their rights under the law? I'd love to see what a competent defense attorney could do with that one.



For the record, our deparmental policy does not allow us to do that for the reason you stated.  Just playing devil's advocate on officer choices that can be used when people start up with certain things, like getting specific traffic signs subpoena'd (sp?) in court to show the speed.  I don't have issue with someone fighting a ticket that they legitimately felt that was wrong and the officer made a mistake.  I just get frustrated when it turns into the game of smoke and mirrors for someone who got the ticket to try and get out of it and take up time.  Having to go to traffic court many times it is amazing how everyone has lied when fighting it.  I always ask them why they were speeding and write it on the ticket.  Last time, I asked and the lady told me that she wasn't paying attention (40/25 school zone) and wrote that on the ticket.  When we went to court, she told the magistrate that she had a digital speedometer that projects on her windshield and it said she was ONLY going 25 and how I HAD to have been mistaken.  

Also, my personal opinion....I don't agree with it and I have never done it before.  Either they deserved the full amount or they didn't deserve it.  If they were a jerk when you made contact with them and were so inclined, then just write it for the full amount then, not later.  To me, it does come across as vindictive to "cut a break" for whatever reason (you felt they deserved a break, or worse case you wrote a lower amount to hope to avoid lots of extra court time) and then raise it back up when they do fight it.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Honestly, I don't have time. I guess maybe malicious prosecution, but that has some rigorous requirements, including that the defendant in the original action (the ticket) be found not guilty before they can raise a malicious prosecution claim in a tort action. Dunno.* However, getting a cop to admit he asked the DA to increase the charge in order to pressure the defendant not to appear to contest the ticket would likely enrage a judge or a jury. Perhaps not illegal, but likely to anger people who matter*.



The process that happens (at least our county) is when you both go in front of the magistrate, s/he asks if either of you have anything to say beforehand.  In many cases, the person fighting just can't have the points on their license (and insurance) and will make a deal with the officer to plead guilty to a 'no point' charge, such as defective equipment of impeding traffic.  At that time, the officer would ask the magistrate to amend the charge (on record).  In the other case, the officer would point out what the actual infraction was and would like it charged as such (on record).  Up till that point, the person has no idea before they scheduled the hearing and apprearance that the ticket would be amended to the original speed/charge.  Also at that point the person would be able to make a statement in regards to that before hearing the evidence of the traffic ticket, so the officer isn't telling someone AT the stop that if they show up we'll ding you harder, it is done at the time of the hearing, which from the other way that you described I would be in total agreement that it is coercive in nature to tell someone that during a stop.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 12, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> For the record, our deparmental policy does not allow us to do that for the reason you stated.  Just playing devil's advocate on officer choices that can be used when people start up with certain things, like getting specific traffic signs subpoena'd (sp?) in court to show the speed.  I don't have issue with someone fighting a ticket that they legitimately felt that was wrong and the officer made a mistake.  I just get frustrated when it turns into the game of smoke and mirrors for someone who got the ticket to try and get out of it and take up time.  Having to go to traffic court many times it is amazing how everyone has lied when fighting it.  I always ask them why they were speeding and write it on the ticket.  Last time, I asked and the lady told me that she wasn't paying attention (40/25 school zone) and wrote that on the ticket.  When we went to court, she told the magistrate that she had a digital speedometer that projects on her windshield and it said she was ONLY going 25 and how I HAD to have been mistaken.
> 
> Also, my personal opinion....I don't agree with it and I have never done it before.  Either they deserved the full amount or they didn't deserve it.  If they were a jerk when you made contact with them and were so inclined, then just write it for the full amount then, not later.  To me, it does come across as vindictive to "cut a break" for whatever reason (you felt they deserved a break, or worse case you wrote a lower amount to hope to avoid lots of extra court time) and then raise it back up when they do fight it.



I well remember.  Various 'charges' discussed amongst fellow LE were _"Dumb After Dark," "Being an Idiot on a Sunny Day," "Felony Contempt of Cop," _and so on.  I get it, believe me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 12, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The process that happens (at least our county) is when you both go in front of the magistrate, s/he asks if either of you have anything to say beforehand.  In many cases, the person fighting just can't have the points on their license (and insurance) and will make a deal with the officer to plead guilty to a 'no point' charge, such as defective equipment of impeding traffic.  At that time, the officer would ask the magistrate to amend the charge (on record).  In the other case, the officer would point out what the actual infraction was and would like it charged as such (on record).  Up till that point, the person has no idea before they scheduled the hearing and apprearance that the ticket would be amended to the original speed/charge.  Also at that point the person would be able to make a statement in regards to that before hearing the evidence of the traffic ticket, so the officer isn't telling someone AT the stop that if they show up we'll ding you harder, it is done at the time of the hearing, which from the other way that you described I would be in total agreement that it is coercive in nature to tell someone that during a stop.



Yeah, when it's just a magistrate I'm sure you're right.  Small towns often allow a not guilty plea followed by an appearance in criminal court, which allows the defendant to hire an attorney, subpoena witnesses, etc.  Since in the situation I'm talking about, the defense attorney would have subpoenaed the records ahead of time, the defense would know full well what was up.

I used to live in Colorado, and generally, the city attorney would let you plea-bargain down to a no-point violation as you said.  Last I heard, they had stopped doing that and were playing hardball with every ticket; new DA, new rules.  Every place is different, it seems.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 12, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> A little over 20 years ago I was rear ended and dutifully went to court, per supeana, to testify.  As I sat there, I noticed an elderly African-American gentleman sitting in the court room waiting as well.  He was dressed in old, used looking, but quite clean work clothing.  He did look somewhat comfortable with himself.  When his case was called, he walked up in front of the judge and announced that he wished plead not guilty and to act in his own defense.  I remember thinking, somewhat derisively, of the old addage that a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.  I think everyone there probably had him pegged as a stereotype.
> 
> The prosecutor called the ticketing policeman, who testified about clocking the defendent on radar, and the speed he was going, which resulted in the traffic stop and the ticket.  The prosecutor sat down and indulgently awaited the gentleman's attempt at defense.  The gentleman asked how the cop knew the radar gun was correct.  The cop replied he had tested it against the police car used as the chase car.  He was then asked how he knew the chase car's speedometer was correct.  The cop replied he had checked it with the radar gun.
> 
> ...



Note that I said "MOST" which means there are some that don't.  And I can't speak for 20 years ago, in a different jurisdiction with certainty.

However, I suspect the problem here was really poor articulation rather than an actual problem with certifications.  Our cruisers speedometer calibrations are tested every 6 months.  The radar is also certified every 6 months, independently.  Testing the radar on a daily basis consists of running an internal test (assures the device is in proper working order), using calibrated tuning forks (demonstrates that the antenna is reading speeds correctly), and comparing against the calibrated cruiser speedometer (again, shows that it is determining speeds properly).  The radar unit in the cruiser is often used to test the cruiser calibration -- but note that it is independently shown to be working properly before doing this.  Yeah, it could sound like a circular argument unless explained and shown properly.

We did have a stretch a few years back when the person in charge of maintaining the certifications let a few slip.  Someone fighting a ticket ended up bringing it to light -- and for about a year or 18 months after that -- the JUDGES started proactively requesting the certifications on all of our radar tickets.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 12, 2011)

Just to follow up on my OP.
I called today and paid my fine by credit card.

Woman who answered asked the nature of my call. I said "I was visiting your wonderful community last week when one of your excellent constables informed me that my warp drive had malfunctioned and was causing his velocity measurement device to malfunction, as it reported me to be traveling at Warp factor 8 in a Warp 7 hyperspace corridor. He very politely invited me to make a financial contribution to your community, which is the nature of my call.  I understand I can use terrestrial postal service to send it in, but I was wondering if you had an internet payment portal so that I may use preferably Federation Credits or a Terran "Credit Card"?"

I got a chuckle back and she said they could take payment over the phone.  We then exchanged the required information and said out good byes.

Bottom line is, I could rant, I can rave, I can accept it, I can argue it. End of the day, it's $195 so for that price, why not have a good time eh?



I also get to know that they will talk about me for a while now, balancing out the 6+ hrs I spent swearing about them.  It's ain't an even exchange, but I take it as I can.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I well remember.  Various 'charges' discussed amongst fellow LE were _"Dumb After Dark," "Being an Idiot on a Sunny Day," "Felony Contempt of Cop," _and so on.  I get it, believe me.



How about "Being in possession of a loud shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness" or "Accompanying an offensive wife"? :lol:

Joking aside, abuse of such essential law enforcement details as speed control is a global problem.  What speed limits are for is safety not revenue generation {altho' I believe that in America the very low limits on interstate highways were for fuel economy?}. Ticketing someone for being a couple of MPH over the limit might be the right 'legal' course but it is not exactly following the spirit of the law, which is to stop people doing 50 in a 30 zone et al.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I well remember. Various 'charges' discussed amongst fellow LE were _"Dumb After Dark," "Being an Idiot on a Sunny Day," "Felony Contempt of Cop," _and so on. I get it, believe me.



Never heard any of those.  The only ones I have heard joked about was "DWHUA", which is "driving while head up ***"


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 13, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Note that I said "MOST" which means there are some that don't. And I can't speak for 20 years ago, in a different jurisdiction with certainty.
> 
> However, I suspect the problem here was really poor articulation rather than an actual problem with certifications. Our cruisers speedometer calibrations are tested every 6 months. The radar is also certified every 6 months, independently. Testing the radar on a daily basis consists of running an internal test (assures the device is in proper working order), using calibrated tuning forks (demonstrates that the antenna is reading speeds correctly), and comparing against the calibrated cruiser speedometer (again, shows that it is determining speeds properly). The radar unit in the cruiser is often used to test the cruiser calibration -- but note that it is independently shown to be working properly before doing this. Yeah, it could sound like a circular argument unless explained and shown properly.
> 
> We did have a stretch a few years back when the person in charge of maintaining the certifications let a few slip. Someone fighting a ticket ended up bringing it to light -- and for about a year or 18 months after that -- the JUDGES started proactively requesting the certifications on all of our radar tickets.



There was a little more said than I related, or even recall.  But the fact was, that day they had dropped the ball.  Not intending to make it sound like all cops drop the ball all the time.  We can do it just like anybody else though.  Discussion of that should generally be restricted to password protected sites.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 13, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Never heard any of those. The only ones I have heard joked about was "DWHUA", which is "driving while head up ***"



The one I always liked that I learned while in Colorado, was "Being dumb out of season."  Can apply to non_LE situations as well.  Another non-sensical term is "Mopery with intent to gawk."


----------



## Monroe (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't know what it's like everywhere else, but contesting speeding tickets in court helped around Toronto. I haven't had given a ticket outside of Toronto. I didn't want my insurance going up so I hoped to not lose points, but both times the cops who gave me tickets didn't show up. Other times I was pulled over for speeding I got warnings. Traffic cops have been nice to me, I was just exceptionally lucky I wasn't in any accidents. I've been pulled over for speeding in Canada, US, UK and Germany, but not since I stopped speeding about 5 years ago. I really don't think police are just looking to collect revenue from out of town drivers. I've never been given a ticket for speeding while away from home. Although, I don't think I'll press my luck.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 13, 2011)

NY doesn't issue points on licenses from tickets outside of NY, except if they are from Ontario and Quebec. No clue why.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't know either, but I sure do see a lot of NY licence plates here. Is it possible that Ontario and Quebec asked very very nicely?


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 13, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> There was a little more said than I related, or even recall.  But the fact was, that day they had dropped the ball.  Not intending to make it sound like all cops drop the ball all the time.  We can do it just like anybody else though.  Discussion of that should generally be restricted to password protected sites.



Actually, for the most part I don't have a problem discussing police mistakes publicly.  Some matters of investigative techniques, or other information -- yeah, that's not for public consumption.  And some mistakes that amount to airing dirty laundry in public without a good reason don't need public discussion.  (People don't need to know about the guy who's been written up 12 times this month for being late or who dinged a cruiser because he didn't look where he was backing, as a general rule, for example.)

Police make mistakes.  I've stopped cars because I misread a sticker.  I've even run red lights because I was distracted -- or watching the wrong one on a long straightaway.  (It's easy at a couple of our intersections to watch the wrong light at night...  And, yes, if the explanation is reasonable, I've let people of with warnings for that reason.)  Enough people think we try to hide what we do; if there's not a reason, I don't have a problem sharing and discussing.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 13, 2011)

Monroe said:


> I don't know what it's like everywhere else, but contesting speeding tickets in court helped around Toronto. I haven't had given a ticket outside of Toronto. I didn't want my insurance going up so I hoped to not lose points, but both times the cops who gave me tickets didn't show up. Other times I was pulled over for speeding I got warnings. Traffic cops have been nice to me, I was just exceptionally lucky I wasn't in any accidents. I've been pulled over for speeding in Canada, US, UK and Germany, but not since I stopped speeding about 5 years ago. I really don't think police are just looking to collect revenue from out of town drivers. I've never been given a ticket for speeding while away from home. Although, I don't think I'll press my luck.



Unfortunately, there are places that really rely on the revenue from traffic tickets, and some of them do take advantage of non-local drivers in various ways.  They drop the speed limit suddenly and precipitously with the barest minimum posted signs.  And other tricks...  The locals know and avoid the tricks -- but travelers don't.  And they cite people from out of state, figuring that it's not worth it for them to take the time to come to court and fight the ticket.  Did this happen to Bob?  Don't know.  It's possible...


----------



## chinto (Mar 23, 2012)

I find the title funny!!  "to serve and protect."  traditional motto of protection rackets. but then they have a  duty to protect you.  Attention all, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has ruled 5 times in the last 100 years that the police work for the prosecutors, and have NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU!  They have a duty to investigate crimes that have happened and collect evidence, and assist in the prosecution of those cases!

So if you get Protection, say thank you, you got an extra freebee.


----------

