My Speeding Ticket Trial

[rickyjo]

I don't understand, if loopholes exist why is it wrong to take advantage of them? He did nothing illegal and I don't believe that it's immoral to outplay the government, especially if you are playing by their own rules.

I really don't want to fight with anybody, this has gotten really heated! I just am somewhat perplexed by it. Perhaps my cynicism towards government comes into play here, so please think the best of my intentions.

[Ruddigore]

I will, and have, try to slow down and watch my speed more--but it’s foolish to believe that taking my eye off the road more frequently to check my speed is actually making me a SAFER driver. It is, in fact, making me a more COMPLIANT, but LESS SAFE driver.

I have a lot of respect for you, barcotta, but this one makes me grin. It takes hardly any time to check the speedometer. The tiny fractions of time used to keep yourself under the speed limit endanger you far less than going 10-15 mph over the speed limit. (Also, it's not just danger to you, but danger to others.)

This whole discussion boils down to whether we should obey the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.

This is a fascinating thread. Make sure we all stay civil so that it doesn't get locked. :patriot:

[blu2blu]

I have a lot of respect for you, barcotta, but this one makes me grin. It takes hardly any time to check the speedometer. The tiny fractions of time used to keep yourself under the speed limit endanger you far less than going 10-15 mph over the speed limit. (Also, it's not just danger to you, but danger to others.)

This whole discussion boils down to whether we should obey the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.

This is a fascinating thread. Make sure we all stay civil so that it doesn't get locked. :patriot:

I like your thinking. I believe this is a situation where following the spirit of the law is best, the spirit and intention being public safety. It's the letter of the law that got him off.

[MomOfMany]

I like your thinking. I believe this is a situation where following the spirit of the law is best, the spirit and intention being public safety. It's the letter of the law that got him off.

Yes. And a good natured judge. Really amazingly good mood day for that judge. Most would not have taken lightly to someone who is guilty griping about their crime not being memorable enough. Especially when if it had been more memorable, they probably would have gotten hit with more fines.:confused:

Pardon if I was too...strident... in my expressed opinion.:o

I'm not seeing any loopholes. And I wouldn't have thought it immoral to ask for leniency since the officer didn't state the unsafe offense.

But the attitude of fighting against some tyranny of injustice for his admitted repeated reckless driving leaves me without sympathy.

I bet every person who has splattered someone on the street justified their driving the same way and said it wouldn't happen to them too.

[rickyjo]

I can understand somebody suggesting that the system shouldn't have allowed the leniency it did, also the driving is a separate issue entirely, but it seems to me that as far as court goes the OP simply did what was in his best interests and succeeded. If there was a fault made it was not his. Also, at least the system was being consistent, if one can get nailed on a technicality why can't someone get off on a technicality? No matter which way one desires the system to operate (letter vs. intent) it would be extremely dangerous for it to not be a two way street (at least not one that does not favor caution in conviction).

BTW: Put me down as strongly on the side of intent (within reason).

[barcotta]

FYI, I appeared for the second of my two tickets this morning. The officer was not there when I arrived. When they called roll, the officer was still not present, but another officer indicated that he was on his way. Before my officer arrived, the baliff gave instruction regarding traffic school and I indicated that I wished to change my plea to no contest and go to traffic school. The baliff instructed me to wait to appear before the judge to change my plea.

My officer arrived approximately half an hour late and stood around for another ten minutes (the jury box was completely full of officers) talking to the court clerk and fellow officers before the judge took the bench.

They called my case third. I stood, and the judge said, "Your case has been dismissed in the interest of justice."

I thanked the judge and walked out.

[blu2blu]

Maybe I'll be as lucky. I got a ticket on I-10 the other day!

FYI, I appeared for the second of my two tickets this morning. The officer was not there when I arrived. When they called roll, the officer was still not present, but another officer indicated that he was on his way. Before my officer arrived, the baliff gave instruction regarding traffic school and I indicated that I wished to change my plea to no contest and go to traffic school. The baliff instructed me to wait to appear before the judge to change my plea.

My officer arrived approximately half an hour late and stood around for another ten minutes (the jury box was completely full of officers) talking to the court clerk and fellow officers before the judge took the bench.

They called my case third. I stood, and the judge said, "Your case has been dismissed in the interest of justice."

I thanked the judge and walked out.

[PonyGirl93]

I look at law enforcement as being on my side--to a fault--except every so often they turn around and poke me in the eye--hard!

Ummmm yeah, because they were totally the ones breaking the law.

It's not like this was some random arbitrary law that they just made up... It's a speed limit, I'm sure you knew it was there

[barcotta]

The following was published in the California "Daily Journal" which is a paid-subscription publication for lawyers. I think it helps bring some perspective to the primary purpose of traffic law enforcement (see bold areas in particular)

OCTOBER 15, 2010

Jump in Traffic Tickets Raises Questions

By Brandon Ortiz

Daily Journal Staff Writer

LOS ANGELES - Abubaker Bahrun had just finished loading his hotel shuttle van with luggage when he drove to a different hotel just a few dozen yards away on Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue in Hollywood. Since he was just about to jump out of the shuttle again to help customers with their luggage, he didn't see the need to put on his seat belt for such a short trip.

A Los Angeles police officer disagreed, promptly pulling him over and writing a ticket. When Bahrun didn't show for his court appearance several months later because, he said, his mother had a heart attack, he was hit with another fine and a collections fee.

Total bill: $825.

"How can I think this is fair at all?" said Bahrun, who posted bail Wednesday. "Whether you think it is fair or not, you have to pay or they'll take you away in cuffs."

Tax collections may be down sharply for the state and municipalities, but traffic ticket revenues are soaring. Not only has the Legislature sharply raised fines in recent years, police are writing more tickets than ever before - a development that some claim is more than just a coincidence.

In the 2008-09 fiscal year, the most recent year for which data are available, the number of traffic infractions statewide surged by 600,000 to 6.3 million. Those tickets raised at least $110 million for counties alone, according to the state controller's office. But the figures understate revenues, because counties do not uniformly report fees from vehicle-code violations, with several counties intermingling those funds with fees from criminal convictions.

Since 2002, traffic citations have increased by 46 percent, according to data from the Judicial Council of California. But Californians aren't driving much more today than in 2002, transportation data shows.

For some, the sharp increase raises questions about whether cities are cracking down on traffic violations to raise revenue rather than to ensure public safety.

"It doesn't take a lot for the average person to believe that we're being gouged," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in Los Angeles. "They're interested in more revenue. The idea they are making the roads safer with these usurious charges is just a smokescreen to find justification for squeezing more money from drivers."

It is not clear exactly how much revenue traffic tickets bring in for the state, court system and localities; the state department of finance, state controller and Judicial Council all lump those figures in with fines from criminal convictions.

The Legislature hiked traffic fees in 2008 to generate $280 million for courthouse construction. Some base fines more than doubled, such as tickets for broken headlights that rose to $25 from $10. In addition to base fees that can range from $20 to $100, the state and localities tack on surcharges, a conviction fee, a DNA collection fee, an emergency medical services fee, a security fee, a night-court fee, penalty assessments and other fines based on the nature of the conviction.

That can elevate the cost of a $20 ticket for using a cell phone while driving to $142.

The surge in tickets has been good business for lawyers.

Los Angeles-area traffic lawyer Sherman Ellison formerly defended accused murders and people charged with serious felonies, but switched to traffic tickets full time in 2003. His practice has grown from a one-man operation to three attorneys and five staff, all handling nothing but traffic tickets.

Ellison said he defends tickets as aggressively as felonies, taking 90 percent of cases to trial. He likes that he no longer has to worry about his clients spending the rest of their lives in prison.

"After 33 years of intense criminal litigation, the stress of that litigation was immense," Ellison said. "As I was growing older, at the age of 61, I just decided I didn't want to take on that kind of stress anymore."

Scores of cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, have installed red-light cameras to catch drivers who run red lights. City officials have maintained that the main reason for the cameras is public safety, despite studies showing that cameras do not make intersections safer.

A 2008 report by the University of Southern Florida showed that the cameras actually make intersections less safe because they encourage drivers to make sudden stops. Studies in North Carolina, Virginia and Ontario had the same findings.

An audit by the Los Angeles city controller last month found that the city's 32 cameras are not placed at the most dangerous intersections - cameras were installed in each of the city's 15 council districts.

At intersections with cameras, conditions did not get safer, the controller's audit found.

Electronic enforcement cites even the most minor technical violations, regardless of whether anyone was at risk, Ellison said. He recently represented a woman who received a ticket in the mail for running a red light by one-tenth of a second.

"Rarely do they exercise discretion," he said.

San Francisco traffic lawyer John Stanko estimates that he's able to convince police officers about two-thirds of the time to reduce red-light tickets, which can run as high as $445, to a municipal violation.

"I see a lot of red-light camera tickets that shouldn't be charged at all," he said. "These officers are signing off on tickets when you can't even tell who the driver is" because the photo is blurry.

Stanko said police can't rely on the plate number alone. The photo also must identify the driver.

But given that many people pay the ticket rather than fight it, "it is easy money for the city," Stanko said.

Rep. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, this year sponsored a bill to cut the fine for rolling right turns - or incomplete "California stops" - in half, to $219. It was vetoed this month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said the bill "sends the wrong message to the public that California is tolerant of these types of offenses."

But Hill thinks the veto was motivated by revenue needs.

"The first comment that I heard from law enforcement over my bill is that it will reduce revenue," Hill said.

The governor did sign into law a bill this month that bans police officers from issuing tickets under local ordinances rather than state law; such fines are more lucrative for cities because they do not have to be split with the state.

Cities and their police departments have long denied that revenue collection plays any role in traffic enforcement. And, contrary to popular myth, most police union contracts prohibit departments from imposing ticket quotas.

Paul M. Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said the typical rank-and-file police officer doesn't know how much of a traffic fine goes to the city.

"I don't think police officers - and I can tell you I haven't met one in 26 years - we don't sit there and go 'OK, if I write this ticket, this is how much money it generates for the city of Los Angeles,'" he said.

Still, he acknowledges, "there is always constant pressure put on officers to be productive."

To support his view, Weber said that police impounds of vehicles in Los Angeles have decreased in recent years, even though they are a cash cow for the city because impound fees do not have to be shared with the state.

"If you look at something that brings money directly into the city, that's the big thing," Weber said. "[But] you see tows going down year after year."

Weber recently criticized the police department after it cracked down on officers who ask judges to dismiss tickets because they can't independently remember what happened at a traffic stop as required by the code of evidence. Nonetheless he doesn't think the decision was driven by revenue needs.

At the aging, warehouse-like Metropolitan Courthouse in Los Angeles, dozens of people waited Wednesday afternoon in long, snaking lines to pay tickets or ask for a court date.

The earliest trial date that Bahrun, the shuttle driver ticketed in January for not wearing a seat belt, could get was Feb. 22.

He's not sure what his defense will be.

"I'm hoping," he said, "the police officer doesn't show up."

[rickyjo]

The situation with traffic cameras sickens me. Haven't we all been stuck behind a grandma that couldn't muster up 12mph in an intersection and caused you to be stuck in the middle of things when you, her and a few others should have cleared the light easily?

Colorado springs has erected at least five of these disgusting apparatuses. Well, our city is desperate for money, so this does not surprise me.

Neither does it register strange that people rot in jail for months waiting for trials that dismissed for lack of evidence and receive no compensation, nor am I impressed over the stories of multi-year court battles over nothing costing defendants huge sums of money for crimes they did not commit. These things have become common-place, boring, and accepted. We've lost our American soul, every-time I hear another story I try to rekindle my outrage and desire to do something about it, but it seems more and more commonplace, and too big to fight.

Legalized incarceration of innocent youth, the damning behavior of police that is let go constantly (in some jurisdictions), imprisonment of petty offenders and continued freedom and power of the real criminals, misapplied laws condemning those it was not intended to apply to. What good is bureaucracy if it doesn't even serve to protect and produce caution?

This has made me so angry I think I have no choice but to go on a walk, and hope that I don't accidentally break some kind of fringe rule that some cop happens to know.

I'm totally going to end up in jail. I wonder if the day is coming when these very comments will be the reason.