Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Fight the ticket. You have a right to a day in court, and going there won't increase your fine even f the judge finds you guilty, however, the judge may cut your fine, suspend your sentence, or find you not guilty.

Another point is cops are trained to estimate speed by a lovely math calculation for measuring the distance between 2 points and the time it takes you to get through them. I'm not saying that this cop did that, but it's not necessary for you to be caught by laser, radar, or lidar.

Some cops may get paid extra for going to court. It's called overtime. If it's not during their normal working hours, then they'll get paid.

Take the court day. It can't hurt.

Dirtytoes wrote:

BubbaGump wrote:I guess the question would be why would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment, training and manpower to get their traffic cops qualified in using technical equipment if any shaved ape can be "trained" to just with their eyes? Rolling Eyes

seriosuly, i think i'm gonna bring that up when i go to court....

i read that the cop gets anywhere from $200-$300 if he shows up to court on that day....true/false?

eitherway, i hope the officer doesn't show because then i have to sit there for fifty hours, then try talk for another 50 hours to the judge...etc...etc....and if he does show, then i'm definitly fighting it.

If you ask for full disclosure, it has to be in writing and given to the prosecutor when you go in to plead not guilty. Does the cop wear prescription glasses or contacts? Has he had an eye exam in the last 12 months? Has he had and passed a physical? Were there any tests to determine spatial acuity, balance, motor coordination as part of that physical? If cops are required by law to check their equipment is working properly on a regular basis, what are the standards for using a visual estimation? You'll win....

RnR is right - they do often use time trials to determine speed...hence the wide yellow lines you see running across some highways. They know the distance and using a stopwatch time how long it takes you to get between those two points, but from what you've said, it doesnt sound like thats what was happening.

BubbaGump wrote:... but from what you've said, it doesnt sound like thats what was happening.

yepp, i dont thing he used the 2 point estimation either because he was facing forward when i passed him.

here is a drawing of what happened:




P.S. what exactly is "Full-Disclosure" ? i don't really understand it.

NorthernPete wrote:if he didnt nail you with a radar, you probably can fight it, you might not win him against you, but cops wont allways show up for traffic court Ive been told.

depends on the department. CHP gets paid overtime to go to court, so they always make it, LAPD is about half and half, smaller ones or unpredictable.





JWF

Also... many departments around here (greater LA area) the cops have tape recorders on their belts and departmental policy is to hit record for all traffic stops and most public interaction. So you go to court saying whatever you want... he's got you on tape saying you weren't looking at the speedo 'cause the MSF told you not to. Guess which version the judge will believe.

Take your lumps and in the future WATCH YOUR #&@ SURROUNDINGS!

Full disclosure is a requirement, by law, that you be able to have all evidence before you and any pertinent information relative to your case, prior to it being heard. The prosecutor has to give you what you ask for (relative to your case) and you have to give him nothing. I got a $300 ticket once and when I got disclosure of the statement given by the "witness" I tore it apart when he got on the stand. Needless to say...i walked.

By the way... taking advice on US law from a Canadian non-lawyer may not be the swiftest move either.

dieziege wrote:By the way... taking advice on US law from a Canadian non-lawyer may not be the swiftest move either.

It's called common-law you putz. Unless you're living under a military regime, the basics are the same.....oh wait...George Bush=Military Regime. Forget what i said.

"It" isn't called common-law. You are referring to an attribute of common law systems... But the US isn't entirely a common law system.

Which wasn't the point. The point is that if you go into a California traffic court blathering about "Full Disclosure" people will laugh at you.

FYI: "The U.S. state of California has a system based on common law, but it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the codes in California in the nineteenth century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other Western states, however, have retained the concept of community property derived from civil law. The California courts have treated portions of the codes as an extension of the common-law tradition, subject to judicial development in the same manner as judge-made common law. (Most notably, in the case Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence in the face of a California Civil Code provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of contributory negligence."-- WP.

Name another state (or, since you are Canadian, even a province) with a legal system not based on common law. They exist.

Ya...ummm....common law pertains primarily to criminal cases, not so much civil ones. Civil law has much more flexibility and is open to a lot more interpretation and judicial discretion whereas criminal cases generally aren't. You cite a civil court case.

It's funny you'd say that requesting full disclosure would result in being laughed at (civilly its known as discovery). One landmark case was involving a violation of the highway traffic act for speeding. At the time, lasers were considered new technology and the individual fought the laser ticket and won. The reason? At the time, laser technology was new and the laser gun actually shot 3 beams which resulted in not a single vehicle being tracked, but any within a 40 foot span if I recall correctly.

The case was dismissed because someone took the time to challenge it, based on discovery. But if you're one to just roll over and take your lumps......