incorrect info on ticket

[mean dad]

i know in the movies, cool-ass bad guys get everything thrown out of court cause the medical name of the drug is mispelled by one letter, or the date for the warrant is wrong, or the clerk forgot to dot an 'I', but how likely is it to have a ticket tossed due to misinformation?
direction of travel and location are incorrect, and the two tickets (one for me, one for my buddy. cool cop, not leaving anyone out) are for the same violation (wheelie), but one ticket is 23103, and the other is 23109.
also, the cop in the car wrote my buddy's ticket, while mine was written by another cop, who showed up after initial contact. the cop that wrote mine wasn't present, and the original cop did not sign my ticket.
i'm not looking for a freebie on a wheelie, i would like to know how damning is the info, if a lot of it is incorrect?

btw, both of us received ammendments, dropping the charge to (i think) unsafe speed. i still need to fight it, but my defense will depend on whether or not i can get some wiggle room due to the direction of travel and location. i mean, if i can show the judge that the cop was wrong on those two things, couldn't he be wrong on more things?

thanks.

 

[silversvs]

If you end up in court and the officer testifies to the wrong location and/or direction then you should be able to raise enough doubt to probably get the citation dismissed.

If one officer observed the violation, and a second issued you the citation, then both officers will need to be in court to testify. If both don't show then your citation should get dismissed.

 

[bojangle]

Were the location and direction amended in the amendment?

How sure are you that the information was incorrect? You do know that the location on the ticket should be the location the violation occurred, not the location you were stopped, right? Also, a major southbound street that curves to the west at the end would still be listed as traveling southbound, when the true compass direction would be west.

If you are correct and the officers are wrong, then you might be able to create enough reasonable doubt to get it dismissed.

 

[mean dad]

no, ammendments did not include corrected info.
ticket says eastbound, we were westbound. ticket says violation occured at a different intesection (1/8 to 1/4 mile away), not violation vs ticket loc.

so what is the process in court? do i start off, and say this ticket is bogus? or does the officer go first, and state the case against me?
i think i'd like the latter, cause i think i would be able to verify his (on the ticket) statement of direction and loc. correct?
i'm concerned that he could say, "oh, i meant westbound, at elm ave, not eastbound at magnolia, but the rest of the info is correct, your honor."

i know i only get one shot, so i want to be prepared. i just went in and got a feb court date, so i have plenty of time to print giant maps and cut-outs of cop cars and motorcycles.

 

[ScottRNelson]

so what is the process in court? do i start off, and say this ticket is bogus? or does the officer go first, and state the case against me?

The last time I went to court the officer presented his case first. I had my whole list of ways to get out of the ticket and one by one checked them off as being correctly covered by him. When it was my turn I basically through myself on the mercy of the court and plead guilty with an explanation. They reduced the fine a bit, but that was all.

If you're going to court I would recommend that you have each of your points clearly noted on a paper and mark off whatever the officer covered correctly that you can no longer use for your defense. If all you have left is one minor point about location, you're probably going to lose in court.

 

[mean dad]

is direction and location that minor? it seems to me that it is, in fact, crucial evidence that was erronously recorded.
if a copper says i was speeding northbound on I5 at hwy4, and i was traveling southbound at whatever exit is a mile down the road, how can that be minor?
not arguing, just trying to do due diligence.

 

[bojangle]

so what is the process in court? do i start off, and say this ticket is bogus? or does the officer go first, and state the case against me?

First you would plead not guilty and then you will get a trial court date. The officers will not be present for the arraignment but they will be subpeonaed to attend for the trial if you plead not guilty.

At the trial the officer will testify first. Since the issuing officer and the arresting (citing) officer are different, it is very possible that there was some miscommunication between the two officers resulting in the wrong location/direction on the ticket. This should have been corrected, but the arresting officer may very well testify to the correct location/direction and explain the error on the citation. That would hurt your chances for a dismissal if that is the only thing you are basing you defense upon.

After that the judge will probably hear testimony from the citing officer. If you made any incriminating statements, expect that they will be part of the testimony. Then it will be your turn. You will have the chance to ask any questions you have of the officers. Then, if you choose, you can testify on your own behalf.

The officer can then ask you questions. Everyone accused of a crime has a 5th amendment right against self incrimination. However, if you choose to testify you are giving up that right. The officer could choose to ask you if you were the motorcyclist he observed doing the wheelie, etc. You would be required to answer this under oath since you are not allowed to pick and choose which questions to answer once you waive the 5th amendment. Of course, if you chose not to testify you could remain silent, but then what would be the point of fighting it in court, right?

 

[Audacious Nick]

Is it possible to argue that because the officer was incapable of properly identifying something, say car manufacturer, that he might also have been incapable of properly judging the situation properly?

Just curious.

 

[bojangle]

Is it possible to argue that because the officer was incapable of properly identifying something, say car manufacturer, that he might also have been incapable of properly judging the situation properly?

Just curious.

The state (read officer for traffic/county DA for criminal) has the burden of proof for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Errors might create reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt. If that were to occur, there would be a verdict of not guilty. That's how it works. It all depends on the number, types, and severity of the errors on whether or not it would constitue reasonable doubt regarding whether or not the defendant committed the violation in the case.

 

[mean dad]

i appreciate the help.
both tickets have the same errors. and what does the fact that the ammendments changed the violation from 23109 to 22350 do for me? the fact that i did not do a wheelie is moot at this point; i'm going to court on a speed rap. as i can definitively state that i was not driving at an unsafe speed, i'd take this to the box.
here's where it gets tricky. the entire situation (location, sight-lines, visual impedents, etc) may need to be explained to fully articulate a response, and i'm just paranoid enough to leave out crucial details on a website that police frequent. what if the citing officer is a homeboy? am i giving my game plan away? or is it cut and dry at this point, and time will reveal the predetermined conclusion?
again, i really appreciate the insights, and understand that it is what it is. i want to be as prepared as possible, not a douche that walks into court with a fuzzy-headed idea of american justice prevailing for the little guys against the machinations of coporate malfeasance.
or cops that hate wheelies. whatever.

 

[Trogdor]

Is it possible to argue that because the officer was incapable of properly identifying something, say car manufacturer, that he might also have been incapable of properly judging the situation properly?

Just curious.

If the officer catches the mistake before testifying, he can amend the cite in court.

If he doesn't, it'll be up to the judge to decide after both of you testify. Factual mistakes are easier to prove, like I drive a Toyota, not a BMW, and my car is a 2 door, not a 4 door. Mistakes like you are describing, such as the direction of travel, could end up just being your word against his. I have seen the judge most often side with the officer because, even though some information on the cite might be incorrect, it doesn't cast doubt on the overall violation. If you can cross-examine the officer and show that he has no independent recollection of the event, you might win.

 

[bojangle]

i appreciate the help.
both tickets have the same errors. and what does the fact that the ammendments changed the violation from 23109 to 22350 do for me? the fact that i did not do a wheelie is moot at this point; i'm going to court on a speed rap. as i can definitively state that i was not driving at an unsafe speed, i'd take this to the box.

What subsection of 23109 were you originally cited for? That is a misdemeanor section for speed contest or exhibition of speed. Often times 23109(c) V.C. is cited for exhibition of speed for a person caught doing a wheelie. For whatever reason, they arresting officer decided to amend the citation reducing it to a speeding infraction (22350 V.C.), so you are already facing a lesser charge than you were originally cited for.

22350 V.C. is simply the section for unsafe speed for conditions. So even if you were not exceeding the speed limit, the officer can still articulate that your speed was unsafe for the conditions of doing a wheelie, also taking into account for any weather or traffic conditions, etc.

You might get more help from LEOs here if you followed the guidelines in posting questions / asking for advice about citations.

 

[mean dad]

You might get more help from LEOs here if you followed the guidelines in posting questions / asking for advice about citations.

my bad. i thought that the original post containing the vc 23103 and vc23109, statements that direction were incorrect, etc, would be sufficient to explain whether or not misinformation would invalidate a ticket.
the information i've received so far has been very helpful, and informative.
if i came across as petulant that no one was answering my question, i apologize, but i don't think that was the case. what i am trying to do, is articulate the specifics of the situation without identifying myself, or the citing officer. although the opening line of the "how to ask a cop a question" guideline is that no info will be used in court, the paranoid voices in my head won't allow me to detail everything. however, in the interest of me, i will provide more info, as completely as i can.
so. to clarify:

1. VC23103 (don't have the ticket in front of me, so i don't know the section of vc23103 he wrote.)
1. (a) ticket has been ammended to CVC 22350 - Excessive speed (0 mph in a 45 mph zone)

2. a city in the far east bay (contra costa county)

3. drz400sm, tagged, insured, legal beagle.

4. "what the hell were you thinking?? angry words angry words angry words you're getting a ticket angry words angry words." (this happened around six months ago, so i can't recite verbatim. he was wound up, and non-negotiable.)

5. i tried not to incriminate myself, although i may have antagonized him just a bit when i realized tickets were being issued. i did not, however, push him to the point of impounding my bike, or detaining me at the martinez facility.

6. this ain't gonna be brief....
ok. stay with me, i'm not sure how many words it'll take. me and my buddy (we'll call him fred) are westbound on 'A' street at a red light. coincidentally, another buddy (we'll call him bob) is travelling eastbound on 'A' street, stopped across from us at the same light. bob is in the left turn lane, about to head north on 5th street. the light turns green for him, and he turns, slowing to wave at us. our light turns green, and fred and i continue heading west. meanwhile, bob sees a chp car parked, facing north, on 5th street approx 150' north of the 'A' street intersection.
as fred and i accelerate from the light, bob sees the chp lurch forward, but he (the chp) has to wait for bob, and THREE CARS THAT WERE BEHIND BOB before he can bust a u-turn. he makes the u-turn, hits the lights, and turns right, to follow the bikes. bob sees all this, and figures that the cop is after me and fred.
so.
fred and i are a half mile down the road, turning right into the neighborhood where i live. at least twice during that half mile, i looked behind me to check for any enforcement vehicles following, and saw nothing. nothing. as i shift into second from the slow right hander into the neighborhood, we hear an ungodly loud horn/siren/deathcall of something big immediately behind us. we pull over real quick, thinking it was a fire truck, but it was the chippie, looking very out of sorts.
another car arrived, and the second guy wrote my ticket. both tickets have the same direction (incorrect), location of violation (incorrect), but diff codes cited. one is 23109, one is 23103. both ammended to 22350, excessive speed, 0 in a 45.

ASSUMING A WHEELIE WAS PERFORMED at the intersection of 'A' street and 5th street, the officer may have seen the smaller displacement bike lift its front wheel, but would have been unable to see the larger bike perform this action, as the sight line was non-existant ( the larger bike is past the intersection before these maneuvers would be attempted).

as long as the officer is truthful about his location, i just don't see how the misinformation (sorry. incorrect info) is worthy of a court of law. it seems to me that the officer decided that the first two bikes he saw after he turned right onto'A' street were the ones to commit an infraction, and fred and i were the unlucky ones that day.


again, i cannot stress enough that i am a grown man. i will suck it up and pay fines, pay increased ins premiums, etc if i must. but i feel that i need to fight this one. and since there was obvious mistakes made in the writing of the ticket, as well as an ammendment (that whispers to me that the cop's case wouldn't hold up against a guy with a lawyer. a poor guy like me, probably would, but the system knows the system, so the charge was changed to ensure conviction. absolutely appropriate) to a lesser charge, i figured i'd play "Let's Ask The LEO's!!"

i'm not looking for what to say to the judge, i'm asking opinions of law enforcement about the intricities of traffic court.

 

[silversvs]

Well we now have your version of what occurred.

Seems two officers were involved. What's the possibility that you saw the one officer turn but there was another one somewhere in position to see you ride a wheelie?

Only way to get the officers' version is to contest the citations and appear in court to hear them testify.

Not much we can offer.

 

[mean dad]

copy that.
the second officer arrived minutes after the first officer was writing the first ticket. not a chance that he saw anything.
i really appreciate all the responses, gentlemen.
it looks like my best bet would be that both officers have scheduling conflicts with court. perhaps an extension or two...?
second best is the officer recites info directly from ticket in his opening statements, which i can (hopefully) persuade the judge is not factual; which i would do with maps showing locations cited on ticket, locations of all parties involved, and indications of direction of travel from incident to cite locations.
so. since i'm in court for excessive speed (zero in a forty-five), does it change the game due to the fact that an officer can proclaim virtually any act or speed unsafe in that officer's view?
i don't mean to imply that the officer acts maliciously, i mean that the court gives the officer the benefit of the doubt in judgement calls.
again, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. i'm do appreciate the insights.

 

[bojangle]

ASSUMING A WHEELIE WAS PERFORMED at the intersection of 'A' street and 5th street, the officer may have seen the smaller displacement bike lift its front wheel, but would have been unable to see the larger bike perform this action, as the sight line was non-existant ( the larger bike is past the intersection before these maneuvers would be attempted).

That is interesting. If you believe that the officer could not have seen the larger bike perform a wheelie from his location, then how would he know to cite for it? Are you suggesting he just made it up or assumed it happened? The officer gets paid whether or not he writes the ticket. What is his incentive to write a false ticket and risk his job, civil suit, and criminal charges?

I know you made no admissions to performing a wheelie, but for the sake of argument, I am going to assume it did, in fact, occur. A person cited as you were who did not actually perform a wheelie would have strongly denied that this ever occurred.

My best judgment, just based on what you wrote, is that the officer did see the wheelie or another officer saw the wheelie. If it were me, and I did not have a good view of the second bike, I would only be issuing a citation to the one I did see.

 

[mean dad]

cool.
again, thanks for all the replies.