To Protect, Serve and Collect Revenue.

[punisher73]

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]

...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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