Traffic Court

[budman]

Of the few times I showed in traffic court only one was not to take a whooping.

That one time was in Pismo Beach where I lived and I got a ticket for not making a full stop.

I did make the stop and wondered how the officer could not see that. On my way home after school I stopped to see where he was parked. I did see it because he flashed his light as I rolled on from the stop.

He was looking up a hill and I noted you could not see the stop only just beyond. So Architecture school boy created a map showing his and my position the intersection and a few artsty frills like the gas station. I parked in the same spot took photo's of the view to the stop sign. Photo's of my car parked where he was parked and came to court ready for battle with two large display boards.

I knew I had to get him to agree with location of his car before throwing out my best F. Lee Bailey tactics and just showed the picture of the car location to get his acknowledgement and I then brought out the heavy guns (map board and full photo board) to show that he did not quite have a full view of me and asked "Could you might have made an oversight? (F. Lee Bailey said not to say mistake) because I did stop".

Judge let me off.

I actually had to win this as I had 6 speeding tickets and my license had already been suspended for 3 months previously.

Nervous day for sure.

 

[bpw]

Still appreciate the officer who wrote me a $55 ticket for "Failure to obey a highway sign" late one night without mentioning the sign was the speed limit sign that I was exceeding by about 30mph.

He did very clearly mention that I shouldn't dare try to contest it...

 

[Alan_Hepburn]

Many years ago I got a speeding ticket on 17 coming back from Santa Cruz - I was doing about 65 in our old Ford Escape and got caught. The officer asked me if I wanted him to write in for 60 instead of 65 and I agreed. Later, I wondered what he would have said if I had responded with "I would like you to give me a stern lecture and let me go on my way, at the speed limit" but thoughts like that always happen after the fact!

 

[bojangle]

Let's talk about attitude.

As a motor officer who's primary jobs is traffic enforcement, almost every stop is going to be a ticket. But prior to that I used to give lots of warnings. The driver's attitude was a factor in deciding to give a warning, as I used that as an indication of how receptive they might be to using the warning to actually correct the behavior. Even now, when writing tickets for almost all stops, there are often multiple violations. I usually only write for one violation and warn for the others.

A couple stories.

I recently stopped a driver for use of a handheld device while driving. She was immediately argumentative, denying that she did that. I told her that the vehicle registration was also expired and she shot back, "no it's not!"

Still, I decided, like my usual, to cite her for the cell phone violation and warn for the expired reg. When I went to issue the ticket, the driver continued to be argumentative, saying she could prove she wasn't on her phone, etc. She talked her way into a fix it ticket for the registration as well. I added it to the ticket right up at the driver door. She then asked if I could hand her a pen I hadn't touched, and I had to explain to her that request was a physical impossibility.

Years ago, while working a graveyard shift, I was DUI hunting in a downtown area when I stopped a driver for driving without lights on during darkness. Like most downtowns, the area was well lit. The violation is a good indicator for DUI, and I've made a lot of arrests from those stops. But usually, if the driver is sober and just forgot, I would give a warning and send them on their way.

This particular stop, the driver was so pissed off, argumentative, and yelling at me, I decided that though sober, he needed a ticket for the stop. So he got one. He took the ticket to court. When it was his turn to testify, his inability to control his emotions was on full display. The judge commented that he could tell why the officer gave him a ticket, based on his display in court. Yet still, due to the area being well lit, the judge found that the driver did, in fact, commit the violation, but he dismissed the ticket in the "interest of justice".

 

[Kurosaki]

Having a good attitude towards officers was instilled in me way before I was old enough to drive.

As a black guy, my dad taught me to comply, always have your license and registration easily accessible, yes sir no sir, etc. I assume most good fathers teach their children the same things but it was more important because I'm black.

It's not a mindset based in paranoia.

[youtube]uj0mtxXEGE8[/youtube]

 

[deathbug74]

Let's talk about attitude.

I've found being calm and reasonably respectful has kept the majority of my less than voluntary interactions with as unstressful as can be expected. Even the one where I felt the need to disagree, I suspect attitude and delivery made a difference between walking away with a "warning" and having to make a court appearance about it (why he said he pulled me over was "it sounded like you were going way too fast", though i was actually under the 25mph limit, just in first gear, and "it's illegal to modify it to be louder than stock"); I framed it as asking if I was remembering the code related to modified exhausts correctly.

I've had a few occasions that were pretty clearly looking for other things (such as DUI), by virtue of the times of night I was out and about...the majority of times I was dead to rights (mostly speeding), I've come away with tickets. play the game, win the prizes sometimes.

 

[bojangle]

Having a good attitude towards officers was instilled in me way before I was old enough to drive.

As a black guy, my dad taught me to comply, always have your license and registration easily accessible, yes sir no sir, etc. I assume most good fathers teach their children the same things but it was more important because I'm black.

It's not a mindset based in paranoia.

[youtube]uj0mtxXEGE8[/youtube]

Chris Rock is awesome! . That video is a classic.

I've found being calm and reasonably respectful has kept the majority of my less than voluntary interactions with as unstressful as can be expected. Even the one where I felt the need to disagree, I suspect attitude and delivery made a difference between walking away with a "warning" and having to make a court appearance about it (why he said he pulled me over was "it sounded like you were going way too fast", though i was actually under the 25mph limit, just in first gear, and "it's illegal to modify it to be louder than stock"); I framed it as asking if I was remembering the code related to modified exhausts correctly.

I've had a few occasions that were pretty clearly looking for other things (such as DUI), by virtue of the times of night I was out and about...the majority of times I was dead to rights (mostly speeding), I've come away with tickets. play the game, win the prizes sometimes.

I was recently reading a post on Nextdoor where someone was complaining about being g woken up early every morning by a loud speeding vehicle.

Except that they really didn't know if the vehicle was speeding because of the modified exhaust. I've seen plenty of relatively slow driving vehicles that sounded like they were going fast. It's still an equipment violation, but not necessarily speeding.

 

[Jalopyshoppe]

Chris Rock is awesome! . That video is a classic.



I was recently reading a post on Nextdoor where someone was complaining about being g woken up early every morning by a loud speeding vehicle.

Except that they really didn't know if the vehicle was speeding because of the modified exhaust. I've seen plenty of relatively slow driving vehicles that sounded like they were going fast. It's still an equipment violation, but not necessarily speeding.

I remember having loud exhausts on my cars as a kid, but I feel like the cars nowadays are substantially louder and more obnoxious than cars of my days. I live on a fairly busy thoroughfare with a 30mph limit, but it’s a popular spot for people to get on it for a second. The latest trend of cars with extreme popping on decel is flourishing here. I know some Harley tuners have a “pop on decel” setting that dribbles fuel when you’re coasting, but the cars are just over the top. It takes loud and obnoxious to a next level. It might be worse than the standard loud pipes throttle Tourette’s crowd. Never thought I would wish more people would buy electric cars.

 

[deathbug74]

Except that they really didn't know if the vehicle was speeding because of the modified exhaust. I've seen plenty of relatively slow driving vehicles that sounded like they were going fast. It's still an equipment violation, but not necessarily speeding.

i'd frankly be shocked if it's over 95db, except when i'm really on it (maybe not even then..it's completely stock past the cat), though the turn down tip doesn't help the sound dissipate. it does have a low tone that really resonates in parking garages though.

the one that got me shouted at, yeah, that was ungodly loud...ported heads, headers, and an unbaffled 18" megaphone (old VW). it does actually have a muffler on it now (thanks again, Sckego!)

neither does the obnoxious backfiring off throttle, thankfully, unless i intentionally kill the ignition on the VW.

 

[bojangle]

Attorneys in traffic court: What I've seen.

For those who have never been to traffic court, it works more or less like small claims court. Each side can give testimony and ask the other side questions. The judge can ask questions. And the judge, not a jury, decides the outcome, or verdict. Both types of court are designed to operate without attorney representation, but both can have attorney involvement. The biggest difference is that in traffic court, the state (ie prosecution, ie officer) has the burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the judgement is based on the preponderance of evidence for a certain side. Sometimes it's even 50/50.

Usually those who have the most to lose are the ones who hire attorneys to represent them in traffic court. Those would be commercial driver license holders facing a moving violation. I'd guess the second highest category would be those who have more money than time, as a major benefit to hiring an attorney means they can appear on your behalf, so one doesn't need to take time off work and such.

While I'm sure it happens from time to time, I don't think I've ever witnessed an attorney putting on some amazing argument that pokes holes in the officer's testimony, creates reasonable doubt, and gets not guilty verdicts. That's gotta be very rare. In fact, I've never even testified in traffic court when the defendant was represented by an attorney. (I have testified, on occasion, for motion to supress/prelims/jury trials for DUI cases with attorneys, but that is in criminal court, not traffic court.)

It usually works like this. When a defendant is represented by an attorney, the court will notify the D.A.'s Office, and they will send an attorney to traffic court. The defense attorney will then meet with the deputy D.A. and propose to plead to some other traffic infraction which carries a similar fine, but that does not show up as a point on one's driving record. The D.A. will usually go for this plea bargain, if you will. Why? Good question. I've been present in court, ready to go, and have even informed the D.A. that the violation was clearly caught on video that I brought. The D.A. still wanted to come to a resolution with the defense. I believe this is simply a form of professional courtesy. I was pretty much *almost* told as much, but I can read between the lines. If the defense attorney can't even get a non-point conviction for their client, then what good are they, really? Might as well just pay the fine and save the attorney fees. The D.A. really gets nothing out of it, but hey, Ima help out a brother lawyer.

However, I'll also say that nothing is set in stone, and it all depends on the D.A. I recently went to traffic court and had the *not usual* deputy D.A. show up as a last minute fill in. While normally I don't care, and just let the attorneys come to their resolution (not that I really have a say in that). On this particular case, there were reasons that I felt strongly that the D.A. should not settle that one. One reason was that it was the second time I cited the same person for the same violation in the same location within a few months. They should know better. And when you're hostile to the point where I feel I need to call for backup, suggest I have nothing better to do, suggest that you're more important than me, and tell me to fuck off, let's just say it makes for a very memorable encounter. Oh, and also, it wasn't like I even knew it was the same person before I stopped him a second time. The second time he was driving a different vehicle with illegal dark tinted front windows, so I had no idea it was the same person prior to the stop. The D.A. was on board and we were prepared to go to trial. The trial never happened. The defense attorney just plead no contest on his client's behalf for the moving violation and for the tinted window charge, and that was that. The guy would have been better off just paying the ticket, as he ended up doing that anyways, plus whatever his attorney charged.

Attorneys also get plenty on cases dismissed the same way anyone else who shows up to court does, when the prosecution (officer) does not show up, and hasn't provided the court with a valid excuse beforehand. But one doesn't need an attorney to roll the dice on that one. That is, unless one has more money than time. I wonder how many attorneys who get cases dismissed for lack of prosecution explain that was the reason to their clients. Or do they just call them and tell them their case was dismissed without going into detail, leaving their client with the impression that they did some awesome magical work?

And finally, if there was a good case to make to create that reasonable doubt, then most likely that would require the defendant to testify as a witness, which would require their appearance in court anyways.

My purpose for this post isn't to rag on attorneys who take traffic court cases. Our very own Scotty Storey sometimes comes in here and offers helpful advice. And I hear he's helped out a number of barfers in traffic court matters. My purpose is simply to explain my observations from my perspective over the years.

 

[deathbug74]

My purpose is simply to explain my observations from my perspective over the years.

and the perspective and information are appreciated

 

[tuxumino]

In the 80s I was in traffic court a fair amount as were my compatriots, we hoped up our imports and drove over the speed limit most of the time.
In the 80s the state hadn't centralized the ticketing system so it was county by county, so you could get a ticket in one county and do traffic school to keep it off your record; then get a ticket in a different county and go to court and ask for traffic school in that county.
At one point I was in traffic court or school for 6 straight weeks, I remember postponing traffic school so I could go to traffic court and ask for traffic school so I wouldn't have a ticket after I had done traffic school.
I got a ticket for running a red light in 2018, I had dash cam vid of it but the laptop that had the vid died, but I went to court the last day before I had to and asked for a trial, then agreed for a postponement and the cop didn't show.

The thing I learned in the 80s is never admit you were speeding and say as little as you can to the officer and the judge.

 

[x42bnx]

I'll be honest here, you made a mistake by giving him a break. I've been on the receiving end of stupidity, not nearly as egregious as what you witnessed but to a lesser degree and I knew when I started to drive like an ass-hat that I was endangering myself and those around me as well as blatantly ignoring the law. I was not given a break and by that default I learned very quickly.

When people are given breaks, they use that as the scapegoat/hallpass as if it never happened.

 

[NorCalBusa]

I'll be honest here, you made a mistake by giving him a break. I've been on the receiving end of stupidity, not nearly as egregious as what you witnessed but to a lesser degree and I knew when I started to drive like an ass-hat that I was endangering myself and those around me as well as blatantly ignoring the law. I was not given a break and by that default I learned very quickly.

When people are given breaks, they use that as the scapegoat/hallpass as if it never happened.

Advantage- police.

Forever, knuckleheads will continue to be- so it's a mere matter of time for them to find another in blue who'd be down for scratching their itchy pen.

 

[Kurosaki]

That's kinda of a big broad brush to be painting with to suggest people that are given a break are just gonna do it again. Maybe, maybe not.

Not everyone needs punishment to cause changes in behavior. I've made a few substantial changes in driving habits after being given a break.

 

[dittoalex]

This has been a very informative thread. Thanks, bojangle.

 

[kneedraggeroldy]

I second the informative thread and thank you for the insight. I have had several encounters throughout my driving/riding career and am always respectful. Sometimes it reduces the pain in my wallet and sometimes not; however it is just the right thing to do for all you LEOs have to put up with.

One story, just got my R6 for the track, less than 24 hours, got on a highway and ripped through the gears doing 87+, right past a LEO giving another ass hat a ticket....crap! Immediately pulled over, he told me going 87+ and I really did not know it was that fast and replied...really? I wasnt even in top gear yet.....asked for license, reg told him license check, reg nope just bought it, check pillion compartment found license plate and said ummmmm....he said what? I said found it ...but it is expired...he started laughing so hard he doubled over and said your really not helping yourself here. I shrugged, he wrote me for soemthing like 63 in a 55 and told me to fix everything else. I thanked him for my ticket and the break and have a good day

 

[jdhu]

Attorneys in traffic court: What I've seen.

While I'm sure it happens from time to time, I don't think I've ever witnessed an attorney putting on some amazing argument that pokes holes in the officer's testimony, creates reasonable doubt, and gets not guilty verdicts. That's gotta be very rare.

Super interesting and informative post. I only quoted the bits I'd like to directly respond to, for brevity.

In theory, the state has the burden, but in practice, I respectfully disagree. Most traffic court commissioners I've appeared before (all for myself lol, not as counsel for defendant) heavily favor the officer. As traffic court defendant, you come in facing a steep burden to prove innocence (which is backward, of course).

Fortunately, my last contest was years ago (knock on wood), in Marin County. The commissioner was, I'm sorry to say, a complete asshole to defendants (rude from the moment he stepped into the courtroom, 45 minutes late).

In Sonoma County, I had a ticket in which I obtained the officer's dashcam footage. Footage showed, beyond any doubt, that I was not speeding when the officer decided to follow me (there was traffic and I wasn't lane sharing at the time). I asked the officer why he decided to follow, and his response was "I know sportbike riders often speed." OK, profiling, whatever.

At some point, I do start lane sharing, and officer loses me. When he catches up to me (near freeway exit), I'm again behind a line of cars, and again clearly not speeding. So, the only two times on camera, there's no doubt whatsoever I'm not speeding (officer concedes). Then, I use a simple Google Maps printout (showing distance in between the two times I'm on camera), and then do the simplest calculation (distance/time elapsed on video) to show that in addition to not speeding when I'm on camera, the moments the officer can't film me (due to my lane sharing), the average speed remains below the speed limit (FYI, I wasn't cited for unsafe lane change, sharing at excessive speeds, etc., only for speeding). Officer conceded that Google Maps distance was accurate, as was of course time elapse on footage.

Despite all this, I lose lol. Judge's reasoning was something like "well, it's possible you exceeded the speed limit at some point, despite your distance/time average calculation." So, the burden was certainly not on the state.

 

[Dmitriy]

Super interesting and informative post. I only quoted the bits I'd like to directly respond to, for brevity.

In theory, the state has the burden, but in practice, I respectfully disagree. Most traffic court commissioners I've appeared before (all for myself lol, not as counsel for defendant) heavily favor the officer. As traffic court defendant, you come in facing a steep burden to prove innocence (which is backward, of course).

Fortunately, my last contest was years ago (knock on wood), in Marin County. The commissioner was, I'm sorry to say, a complete asshole to defendants (rude from the moment he stepped into the courtroom, 45 minutes late).

In Sonoma County, I had a ticket in which I obtained the officer's dashcam footage. Footage showed, beyond any doubt, that I was not speeding when the officer decided to follow me (there was traffic and I wasn't lane sharing at the time). I asked the officer why he decided to follow, and his response was "I know sportbike riders often speed." OK, profiling, whatever.

At some point, I do start lane sharing, and officer loses me. When he catches up to me (near freeway exit), I'm again behind a line of cars, and again clearly not speeding. So, the only two times on camera, there's no doubt whatsoever I'm not speeding (officer concedes). Then, I use a simple Google Maps printout (showing distance in between the two times I'm on camera), and then do the simplest calculation (distance/time elapsed on video) to show that in addition to not speeding when I'm on camera, the moments the officer can't film me (due to my lane sharing), the average speed remains below the speed limit (FYI, I wasn't cited for unsafe lane change, sharing at excessive speeds, etc., only for speeding). Officer conceded that Google Maps distance was accurate, as was of course time elapse on footage.

Despite all this, I lose lol. Judge's reasoning was something like "well, it's possible you exceeded the speed limit at some point, despite your distance/time average calculation." So, the burden was certainly not on the state.

Let me guess Frank Drago? Just looked it up - thankfully retired. There are places where the system is setup so well against the defendant that I will not chance it. Marin County is one of them.

 

[budman]

Despite all this, I lose lol. Judge's reasoning was something like "well, it's possible you exceeded the speed limit at some point, despite your distance/time average calculation." So, the burden was certainly not on the state.

That is messed up.

Without proof you still had your wallet lightened.