I Got A Summons...I Need Your Help...

[txusa03]

This is be dismissed on several technicalities as many have indicated. Also, the court might even discipline the cop for failure to fill out a ticket properly .

[Maestro]

First, you already admitted to doing 35, that alone will convict you, if he did not make a note on your copy of the ticket that you admitted to 35 in 30 PSL, he probably made the note on the back of his ticket.

Next many state have passed statutes due to the street racers which they call the "Exhibition of Speed" laws, so any fast acceleration or spinning of wheels and other things fall in to these rules. He might not have written you for speeding but he might have written you up for reckless driving or show of speed, or racing.

As you can guess this is very subjective, but you could argue that all the other cars were just slow and you accelerated normally, he was basing your speed distance you put between you and the other cars and time it took.

What statute did he put on the the ticket. You can look that up on your states vehicle code site and see exactly that he wrote you up for.

Also, he could have written you up for the basic speed law which say you were going faster than conditions allow, again they do not have to say how fast you were going just that conditions did not allow it.

[Design1314]

pigs in NY....

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by HyperM3

By law youre allowed to ask to see the readout on the radar gun.

First, there is no law that say the officer has to show the reading, I have looked and can not find a single law that clearly states that must show it or not show it. It is up to their own discretion, As it was once pointed out to me, the court room is the time to review evidence not the road side

Originally Posted by HyperM3

Secondly, radar doesnt work from behind. A cop has to pace you from behind to get your speed. Its physically impossible to get a rate of speed from a radar gun from something moving away from you.

Next radar works from any direction, well most front and rear, does not work from the side. Radar can measure your speed come and going, and today police have what is called moving radar, which subtracts or adds their speed from the object they are measuring whether it is coming towards them or away.

Originally Posted by HyperM3

So if he says he didnt use the gun but paced you, its also impossible for him to have paced you when there were cars in between.

Lastly, he could simply claim he did a visual estimate, cops will claim they are trained in doing visual estimates, but it error prone especial when the car is moving away or toward someone, it much easier to estimate from the side watching a car going past two points.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by doc1911

Fight it and you don't need a lawyer. A lot of cops wear microphones that go back to thier in-dash cameras. If the cop tries to change the story ask for the audio tape and video tape. That would help prove you asked a few times for the speed and he could not give one. The video will prove that he had 2-3 cars in front of him and did not get a good view of you nor could he pace you.

Most time these are not recording unless they turned on the lights and stuff, if those were not on then most likely there is no recording.

[retlod]

Originally Posted by scm6079

FWIW, it doesn't matter if you were or were not going over the posted speed for a ticket of "unreasonable speed." You can get that ticket for doing 35mph in a 35mph zone!! That particular offense states that the officer, who is given the right to do this, feels your speed was inappropriate for the conditions he witnessed.

Although you may still have this thrown out or reduced in court it is not a "slam dunk sure thing" as stated in this thread earlier. Do your homework first before blindly challenging this...

_Scott

Logic (or lack thereof) like that from law enforcement kills me. Who's to say your speed at any given time is reasonable or unreasonable? Some cop who isn't even in your car? Only in hindsight can anyone say for sure. If you're driving 1 mph in a parking lot and you rear-end another vehicle, your speed was unreasonable. If you're an experienced driver who's clipping along at 120 mph on a deserted stretch of smooth Interstate highway on a warm, sunny day, in a well-maintained, autobahn-ready BMW and you don't cause anything bad to happen, then that's reasonable.

There are enough subjective factors that go into determining "reasonability" that it shouldn't ever factor into the equation. If all speeds should be determined by "reasonability" alone, then why do we have blatantly objective speed limits on our roads? Cops shouldn't be able to go around and slap willy-nilly tickets on people based upon their "good judgement." That sounds like harassment. If this was really all that was required, why do radar guns even exist?

You should fight it by whatever means you see fit. "Speeding" without a speed listed on your ticket is beyond ridiculous. It's just laughable. Like the guy above said, it's like being charged with murder when no one ever died.

[Maestro]

Ok, sorry I repeated what other had said to you, did not read all the posting,

But some advice if you fight the ticket, do not testify, do not allow yourself to get swore in. Because the judge will ask you questions and get you to admit guilt to something, even if the ticket identified the wrong statute you broke the judge can amend your ticket to what he thinks the laws you broke or to what you admitted in front of him.

Next if you do fight, you have to rip the officers case against you apart. If he said the speed exceed the conditions, he has to explain what the conditions were that did not allow your speed. Make sure you take picture of the location to show there are no hazard there.

[flicks28]

Originally Posted by BK

Just to clarify - this is not true these days. I understand that early radar guns were designed to be stationary, but newer models can be used on the move, including from behind a car moving away from them. http://www.radarbusters.com/2003rada...indarticle.cfm

I'm not saying the OP was radar-ed, just that you shouldn't feel comfortable thinking the cop behind you can't use his radar on you.

This is true but the biggest threat is being lasered. They operate just like a sharp shooters gun and can pick a car out of a crowd if needed. Anyone in OH?

[timtech]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Ok, sorry I repeated what other had said to you, did not read all the posting,

But some advice if you fight the ticket, do not testify, do not allow yourself to get swore in. Because the judge will ask you questions and get you to admit guilt to something, even if the ticket identified the wrong statute you broke the judge can amend your ticket to what he thinks the laws you broke or to what you admitted in front of him.

Next if you do fight, you have to rip the officers case against you apart. If he said the speed exceed the conditions, he has to explain what the conditions were that did not allow your speed. Make sure you take picture of the location to show there are no hazard there.

I completely agree.. I once got a drag racing ticket that had no speed listed or any other ticket issued to the myself or the person in the lane next to me. I thought it was a no brainer... Yet, I ended up paying tons in fees both to the court and a lawyer (which was at the court house - hired on the spot)....

[RonPaul4Prez]

I find a lot of legal advice/commentary on this site hilarious (e.g. that municipal court judges aren't judges - you may be thinking of magistrate court judges who are indeed judges, but do not have to be licensed attorneys). Kudos to Maestro for having a better bead on things than some others. I'd consider waiving your arraignment and requesting a jury trial so that a non-municipal court judge and solicitor would have the opportunity to look at the case before you negotiate some sort of plea or dismissal if possible. I think your best bet in fighting this thing successfully is to retain an attorney, but I feel that will probably cost you more than what it's worth. I'd just pay the fine and be done with it.

[SoYank]

Originally Posted by Sparkplug

He was trying to bait you into agreeing that you were speeding because he had nothing on you otherwise.

If he was baiting then it worked quite well. Unless mathematics have change quite radically in the thirty years since I was in school, 35 is greater than 30.

Originally Posted by xxballinboi786

i was at a red light, no one around...a few cars pulled up behind me, and alongside me, but no one ahead...i thought, hey i havent used DS mode in a while, why not give it a shot...so i switched to sport mode and accelerated pretty fast to 35 mph and then let go, i looked in my rear view mirror and most of the cars were pretty far backk so i dropped to 30 and kept going...i made the turn for the street to my house and a cop pulls me over [he was at least 3 cars behind me, so even if was speeding, he coouldnt of detected it with his radar]...i had my top down...

Originally Posted by xxballinboi786

officer: hi speed racer
me: excuse me? [i tried to be as polite as possible]
officer: can i see your license and registration
me: yes sir, what did i do wrong?
officer: you dont think you were speeding?
me: no, i only went to 35, i admit i accelerated quickly, but i dont think i was speeding...how fast was i going?
officer: you dont think you were speeding?
me: no officer, i honestly dont...but how fast was i going?
officer: you were going fast
me: can i please get a warning officer?
officer: im not sure what im gonna do yet

Originally Posted by xxballinboi786

the speed limit was 30

Or did I miss something?

[titaniume90]

When you appear in court to make your plead, the judge should notice no speed noted and dismiss it automatically. They can't guess how fast you were going. Go get a court date, and it should get dismissed that day.

[jhv]

a lot of policemen confuse 'exhibition of speed' for actual speeding, good luck fighting it man

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by SoYank

If he was baiting then it worked quite well. Unless mathematics have change quite radically in the thirty years since I was in school, 35 is greater than 30.

Or did I miss something?

+1

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by RonPaul4Prez

I find a lot of legal advice/commentary on this site hilarious (e.g. that municipal court judges aren't judges - you may be thinking of magistrate court judges who are indeed judges, but do not have to be licensed attorneys).

Good point most "judges" in local courts are call magistrates, which mean they are not required to have any legal background or training what so every. In some places you're lucky they even have a high school degree. So think about it, you about to talk reason with something who is not as smart as you. So never walk in an act like you know more than them.

So i tend to us judge loosely when I say judge, plus it less letter to type.

Originally Posted by RonPaul4Prez

I'd consider waiving your arraignment and requesting a jury trial so that a non-municipal court judge and solicitor would have the opportunity to look at the case before you negotiate some sort of plea or dismissal if possible. I think your best bet in fighting this thing successfully is to retain an attorney, but I feel that will probably cost you more than what it's worth. I'd just pay the fine and be done with it.

Depending on where you live jury trial for traffic violation is not an option, they made them civil infractions so you be lucky if a "judge" will actually hear the case

[2007_E93]

Originally Posted by RonPaul4Prez

I find a lot of legal advice/commentary on this site hilarious (e.g. that municipal court judges aren't judges - you may be thinking of magistrate court judges who are indeed judges, but do not have to be licensed attorneys). Kudos to Maestro for having a better bead on things than some others. I'd consider waiving your arraignment and requesting a jury trial so that a non-municipal court judge and solicitor would have the opportunity to look at the case before you negotiate some sort of plea or dismissal if possible. I think your best bet in fighting this thing successfully is to retain an attorney, but I feel that will probably cost you more than what it's worth. I'd just pay the fine and be done with it.

I don't know about GA or other states but the person hearing a civil infraction in Florida traffic court is NOT a judge. He said so in open court to me and my cousin (an attorney) who advised me of how to fight also informed me of this! He is appointed by the Clerks office to hear these cases and has knowledge of the law. Don't know or recall if he was an attorney. If there is a criminal infraction then I do believe a judge hears the case.

At least in FL for a civil infraction you plead not guilty on your ticket, and turn it in <30 days and go to traffic court. You plead "no contest" in traffic court if the cop shows up. Assuming you are not a habitual offender with multiple DUI's or something like that then you can plead "no contest" and will usually get only the typical fine + court fees of around $30 + NO POINTS. If he doesn't or the cop has no evidence then it is dropped. Thats what I did and thats exactly how it turned out. Paid $130 ($100 traffic fine + $30 court fees) and got no points instead of a fine + driving school or points on my DL. I desperately did not want the points because of the insurance rate hike.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by HyperM3

By law youre allowed to ask to see the readout on the radar gun. If theres nothing there to read then its not legal. You can even take a pic of it with your camera or cell phone if you want to prove it. Secondly, radar doesnt work from behind. A cop has to pace you from behind to get your speed. Its physically impossible to get a rate of speed from a radar gun from something moving away from you. So if he says he didnt use the gun but paced you, its also impossible for him to have paced you when there were cars in between.

uhhh,

1. By law youre allowed to ask to see the readout on the radar gun. If theres nothing there to read then its not legal. You can even take a pic of it with your camera or cell phone if you want to prove it.
Not true. At least not in any state i've been ticketed in. I think I'm at 6 and counting.

2. Radar doesnt work from behind. A cop has to pace you from behind to get your speed. Its physically impossible to get a rate of speed from a radar gun from something moving away from you.
Uh, doppler shift works both ways. Might want to go back to that day of physics. The gun is smart enough to know the difference.

3. So if he says he didnt use the gun but paced you, its also impossible for him to have paced you when there were cars in between.
Not impossible, but hard to get admitted in court. The officer only needs to verify that he was a constant distance away from you. If he is doing the speed limit, and you are pulling away, he can write you up. Most states have also taken judicial notice that a cop can estimate speed rather accurately, and many judges will allow.

To the OP, fight the ticket. With nothing on the ticket indicating your speed, you will in all likelyhood get off.

[DasBlitz]

Originally Posted by BMW335icDDS

I bet the cop is jealous of a younger guy in a nicer car than he can afford.

Nah, sounds like a kid who was for sure going over 35. also even if you really did go 35. Are you fucking kidding me? 35 and you used DS mode. What is the point?

Next time be more aware of your surroundings. I am not trying to preach but if you feel there was anything wrong should of kept asking questions on why there isnt a speed limit he got you at etc.

Either way it will most likely be dropped.

[xxballinboi786]

so i went today and they said i only had to plead either guilty or not guilty...when it got to my turn, the judge said that the ticket was defective cause there was no speed written then she handed it over to some guy and he said it was valid...i explained to the judge that i wasnt speeding and that the cop wouldnt give me the speed he thought i was going...she said i would have to come back november 7th becuase shes not allowed to dismiss the ticket unless its invalid...im not mad that the ticket was ruled valid...im mad that the judge said it was defective and that other asshole had to ruin it for me...well, i guess we'll see what happens november 7th

[UncleWede]

It sounds like you didn't see a true judge, if someone overruled her right there in court. More likely you saw a clerk who records your pleading then assigns you an actual court date if you claim not guilty.

[xxballinboi786]

im thinking i should just print out a forecast showing the forecast for the day i was pulled over so that the judge can see since i was doing the speed limit, my speed was reasonable because there were no conditions that wouldve made the reasonable speed limit lower than the posted one