%#^!#$ AHHHHH!!

[liablemtl]

But the person in question didn't commit a "crime". He committed an infraction which is viewed much differently by the court system. He'll be going to court for a minor traffic violation, which is why he has the option of paying the fine or fighting it in court. As far as the common law issue is concerned... those arguements are usually defeated by the judge who job it is to study and interpret the law. Good luck with that defense.

Depending on the state, an officer's estimation is a good as a laser or a radar reading. I know cops who can dead eye a speed and then merely verify they're estimation was correct with a laser or radar... I've seen it done and it' s impressive!

My advice would be to go to court, plead not guilty and hope the cop doesn't show up when it goes to trial. When the trial day arrives, then he can argue his case before the judge and then await the verdict/outcome. Chances are, it won't be in his favor but the court system allows you to plead your case. Most

[Dirtytoes]

okay so if i want to challenge my case and say not guilty...

i go there othe court date, i say "not guilty" and nothing else?

so thats ALL i say on that day and then i get another court date to where the cop is supposed to show up also?

P.S. it was LAPD, we chatted for 15+ minutes about me, him, bikes...etc....which i now realize was kind of a mistake?

[dieziege]

Bubba,

That's fine, I know about common law... but the issue is that California isn't a common law state. Nor is Quebec a common law province. Nor is Louisiana a common law state. And that's getting pretty irrelevant except to point out that assuming everything is "common law" is silly.

In California, everything is codified. The rules of evidence, the criminal and civil procedure, everything. EVERYTHING. If you want to know our rules of evidence, you won't learn 'em by looking up "common law"... and there is no mystery difference between civil and criminal. You will learn everything you need to know by looking up the California Code. That's disregarding precedent of course...precedent usually doesn't have much bearing in traffic court.

If you can't even cite the code and you keep misusing the jargon you are by definition giving bad advice.

Read the CA code (it is all online) and tell me what a judge is going to do when someone walks in to a traffic court and starts yapping about "Full Disclosure"... your Jargon is wrong... which was my point. Don't take advice about <your state>'s laws from somone who is not familliar with <your state>. This is just common sense. The sense of it has been made even more clear here... the advisor doesn't even know the fundemental nature of the legal system he is advising about.

As for rolling over... I never said that. I just said dirty should've been more careful when riding... and that he should just get it over with and learn to be more careful. Does that exclude going to court and trying to get out of the ticket? No... that's worse lumps than paying the fine as far as I'm concerned... especially if you work for a living...

Dirty... talking to the cop isn't a bad thing... you've just got to be careful about admissions of guilt (including "I'm sorry")... being nice, having your paperwork in order, etc will sometimes get you a warning in place of the ticket.



1054.1.

[BubbaGump]

Ya - I've stopped watching this thread - no point in getting into a pissing contest w. anyone on here. I could care less about CA law vs. whatever, the basics are the same regardless. The kid should fight the BS ticket he got. End of story.

[liablemtl]

okay so if i want to challenge my case and say not guilty...

i go there othe court date, i say "not guilty" and nothing else?

so thats ALL i say on that day and then i get another court date to where the cop is supposed to show up also?

P.S. it was LAPD, we chatted for 15+ minutes about me, him, bikes...etc....which i now realize was kind of a mistake?

Yes. That's generally how it works. Your first scheduled court appearance is where you enter your plea of "not guilty", "guilty", or (in Oregon) "no contest". The back of your citation should list all of your options for pleading and/or paying the fine. If you choose "not guilty", then the judge will set a date for trial. If you choose that route, make sure you show up for your trial. At the trial, you will give testimony about your part in the citation (submission of evidence), the cop will give his testimony about this part of citation (submission of evidence) and then you can question the officer about anything related to the case. Then, based upon the submission of evidence on the part of both you and the officer, the judge will reach a verdict and you will either be found guilty or not guilty.

With that said, cops in most jurisdictions are paid for their court time. Many agencies have strict requirements that the officer appear in court. Chances are, should you plead "not guilty" and choose to go to court, the officer will show up and it will be your testimony and evidence against his testimony and evidence... and in my experience, you'll likely lose. But that's just my experience... which has been extensive in this area.

Either way, good luck. Traffic citations suck, but I've tried to learn from my mistakes and everytime I've been cited, I've deserved it.

[Dirtytoes]

just wanted to thank EVERYONE for all the helpful replies...will let you guys know how it turns out....in 2 months...

[obfg]

Dirtytoes, I found the diagram you posted very interesting. As has already been said, there are other means of determining speed other than radar. It could be the officer was using the spacing of the trees and his watch to determine the speed of traffic moving in both directions. In short order he would have an idea of what a particular rate of speed looked like. So anyone going appreciably faster would stick out. In addition your diagram seems to indicate that you were passing someone at the time.
So the officer might get on the stand and say something like: Your honor, I patrol this section of highway as my normal assignment. I have done this at all times of the day and night. I have used radar, paced vehicles and used timing devices to determine the speed of vehicles. On that particular day I was timing vehicles going between known distances. I noticed a vehicle driving at the speed limit and then saw the motorcycle pass in the right lane at a high rate of speed and issued the ticket. The accused did not know how fast he was driving and based on my experience it was in excess of 60mph.

Your defence might be to question how much actual experience the officer had, two months or twenty years. How had he determined the distance required to time vehicles. Is it the policy of the police force to issue tickets based on estimations. The car you passed was going inordinately slowly and the officer was not only wrong about your speed but the speed of that vehicle as well.

If you trulley believe you were not speeding than fight the ticket calling into question how the officer determined your speed.

But if ( and thats a big if ) I have interpeted your diagram correctly than pay the fine and be done with it.

[Dirtytoes]

Dirtytoes, I found the diagram you posted very interesting. As has already been said, there are other means of determining speed other than radar. It could be the officer was using the spacing of the trees and his watch to determine the speed of traffic moving in both directions. In short order he would have an idea of what a particular rate of speed looked like. So anyone going appreciably faster would stick out. In addition your diagram seems to indicate that you were passing someone at the time.
So the officer might get on the stand and say something like: Your honor, I patrol this section of highway as my normal assignment. I have done this at all times of the day and night. I have used radar, paced vehicles and used timing devices to determine the speed of vehicles. On that particular day I was timing vehicles going between known distances. I noticed a vehicle driving at the speed limit and then saw the motorcycle pass in the right lane at a high rate of speed and issued the ticket. The accused did not know how fast he was driving and based on my experience it was in excess of 60mph.

Your defence might be to question how much actual experience the officer had, two months or twenty years. How had he determined the distance required to time vehicles. Is it the policy of the police force to issue tickets based on estimations. The car you passed was going inordinately slowly and the officer was not only wrong about your speed but the speed of that vehicle as well.

If you trulley believe you were not speeding than fight the ticket calling into question how the officer determined your speed.

But if ( and thats a big if ) I have interpeted your diagram correctly than pay the fine and be done with it.

good point, i remember him saying something about me going faster than the other vehicle, but the other vehicle WAS going slower than speed limit.

but here is another thing, assuming that i AM found guilty, then i might not be able to take traffic school online which is only $15, thus id have to pay $320 + w/e the ticket costs....which will definitly be $500+!

[rnr262]

And if the officer does patrol there regularly, he very well may have a few spots already picked out, a stopwatch ready, and then all he has to do is know that over so many seconds is enough for him to stop you.

And I say this with all due respect (hard to convey over a message board) the fact that you aren't sure of your speed won't sit well with a judge. You know you you weren't speeding, yet don't know how fast you were going? Put yourself in a judge's shoes. What would you believe?

If the course is just $15, I'd take it! Then again, if you truly feel that you were wronged, a judge or prosecutor may see it your way.

[Dirtytoes]

If the course is just $15, I'd take it! Then again, if you truly feel that you were wronged, a judge or prosecutor may see it your way.

but the problem is that I "might" not be able to take it online since i'm a "juvenile", in other words i'd have to pay around $500 intead of the $15!

and as a rider, you usually know how fast you're going...you don't necessarily need to look at the speedo....most of the time, you can just tell.