critique my defense

[chineseservant]

I finished my defense to the accusation of speeding. I say that officers radar is from another car, because there was many other cars around. I took picture and show that other cars were there around time I got ticket (cars going northbound and southbound). Officer fail to document how far he was from when he checked his radar. So reasonable doubt is there and I ask Judge to dismiss the case in interest of justice. Also, I demand that officer prove that it was not a speed trap, if he does not prove with a traffic survey then the case should be dismissed. I (am) finished now. Please critique the good and bad and let me know how to make it better (if I can) before I mail.

[1sgkelly]

May you have an interesting time in court.

:eek:

[Cold Zero]

This is a joke right? *looks around for the hidden cameras*

[chineseservant]

May you have an interesting time in court.

:eek:

I will not be going to court (I sending it mail).

[L-1]

OK, let's deal with the speed trap. Depending on the violation cited, sometimes a survey is not required. You need to learn which ones require a survey and which don't before you offer that defense. In addition, if a survey was required, it is not up to the officer to prove that it has been done. If you assert the speed trap defense, the burden of proving that a survey was required and that none was done, rests with you alone.

Ditto with your other assertions (got you mixed up with other cars, didn't state how far away he was, etc.) It's not enough to simply make bare allegations. The burden is upon you to prove that they are actually true and that they actually effected the officer's ability to determine which car was speeding.

In short, you are going to have to come up with a lot more than what you have to effectively defend yourself.

[t150vsuptpr]

I finished my defense to the accusation of speeding. I say that officers radar is from another car, because there was many other cars around. I took picture and show that other cars were there around time I got ticket (cars going northbound and southbound). Officer fail to document how far he was from when he checked his radar. So reasonable doubt is there and I ask Judge to dismiss the case in interest of justice. Also, I demand that officer prove that it was not a speed trap, if he does not prove with a traffic survey then the case should be dismissed. I (am) finished now. Please critique the good and bad and let me know how to make it better (if I can) before I mail.

Nodoubt about it, I could definately make it better, but first I have to know ..... :rolleyes:

:cool: ..... what's in it for me? :)

[chineseservant]

OK, let's deal with the speed trap. Depending on the violation cited, sometimes a survey is not required. You need to learn which ones require a survey and which don't before you offer that defense.

Under CVC to qualify the road must have a prima facie speed limit, (not a maximum speed like 65mph) and road cannot be "local street or road" it says in 40802(b) CVC. The Officer stop me where its 40mph and its a county road so a traffic survey is required.


In addition, if a survey was required, it is not up to the officer to prove that it has been done. If you assert the speed trap defense, the burden of proving that a survey was required and that none was done, rests with you alone.

Is that true? Officer accused me, he must be the one to prove. I have a law that says the other, the officer is the one who must prove, this law: CVC 40803(b) "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802." Also, I find this one: People v. Earnest (33.CAL.APP.4thSUPP.18) the Officer must present the original traffic survey or a certified copy of it, otherwise is "hearsay" and as such, is not admissable.


Ditto with your other assertions (got you mixed up with other cars, didn't state how far away he was, etc.) It's not enough to simply make bare allegations. The burden is upon you to prove that they are actually true and that they actually effected the officer's ability to determine which car was speeding.

I show that traffic is moderate and officer did not say how far a way he was so he can't show how my speed was indicate on his radar. Welcome more suggestions.

[Metro174]

Why on earth do people come to a police web site and ask how to beat a speeding ticket??? :rolleyes:

[SlowDownThere]

I'd start picking up those soda cans along the road and turn them in for nickels. You're going to have a fine to pay.

[RabbitMPD]

Why on earth do people come to a police web site and ask how to beat a speeding ticket??? :rolleyes:
You beat me to it. I was also wondering why people are wasting time with this guy as he obviously knows his stuff. :rolleyes:

If you want advice, get a lawyer.

[chineseservant]

I come to hear for advice. Not saying "how do I get out of it?, just saying "whats wrong with it?. To poke holes in it.

I figure you know what a strong case is and a weak one.

[133MPD]

I come to hear for advice. Not saying "how do I get out of it?, just saying "whats wrong with it?. To poke holes in it.

I figure you know what a strong case is and a weak one.

Sending it in the mail! :rolleyes:

What a Duesh bag

[Frank Booth]

Where I come from, the officer wins if he proves his case by a "preponderance of the evidence". That's a lot easier standard for him to prove than "reasonable doubt". You'd be better off just going in there and trying to get them let you plead responsible for an offense with no points.

[chineseservant]

Sending it in the mail! :rolleyes:

What a Duesh bag

Whats wrong with sending it in mail?

[SlowDownThere]

You can send it in the mail, but you can't have a trial (hearing) through the mail. If you want to mount this defense, you will have to show up in person eventually.

[RabbitMPD]

I figure you know what a strong case is and a weak one.
Well then this is easy. You have a WEAK case and you will not win.

Here is my last bit of advice; Next time you get a ticket, find somewhere else for advice. Now I'm done with you.

[chineseservant]

Well then this is easy. You have a WEAK case and you will not win.
Explain why.....

And also, do you think Officer's case is strong?

[chineseservant]

You can send it in the mail, but you can't have a trial (hearing) through the mail. If you want to mount this defense, you will have to show up in person eventually.


The court clerk say I can do it this way in the mail. It even says on my papers: "Trial by Written Declaration" per CVC 40902. She say I don't have to show (in person) to court. because of this law CVC 40902. So I am sending it in mail. I'll call court tommorow to make sure I can send it in mail.

Thanks for the pm, read mine, and be safe.

Thank you Officer.

[SgtScott31]

Whats wrong with sending it in mail?

How can you defend a ticket by sending it in the mail? Not sure about other courts, but you have to plead not-guilty and be subpoenaed to state your defense in order to fight a ticket.

Only way to mail it in my state is if you're paying it (by pleading guilty) or opting for traffic school (if it is available to you.)

[chineseservant]

Here you can do a "Trial by Written declaration" see post above. I submit paperwork documenting case as well as photographs. Advantage for me (defense) is Officer is payed overtime to go to court in person. But if trial is done in mail he is not neccessarily paid over to submit paperwork for prosecution. And many cops dislike paperwork. ;) If Officerr does not submit paperwork, then case is dismissed due to lack of prosecution. Officer already maid several ommision, failing to note in spaces on the citation. So who knows..?

Anyway, though, its more convenient becuase I have only been accused. This way with no hassle in court.

[L-1]

How can you defend a ticket by sending it in the mail?

In California we have trial by declaration. The violator gives the court his version in writing. The court sends it to the officer who then gives his side in writing and rebuts the violator's side. The judge then decides the case based on the paperwork presented.

[Hookem']

If you testify the same way you type your words and sentences, you will surely win.

[chineseservant]

Don't worry, English is my third language I'm having friend help me with the paperwork ;)

[L-1]

Under CVC to qualify the road must have a prima facie speed limit, (not a maximum speed like 65mph) and road cannot be "local street or road" it says in 40802(b) CVC. The Officer stop me where its 40mph and its a county road so a traffic survey is required.

I have a law that says the other, the officer is the one who must prove, this law: CVC 40803(b) "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802." Also, I find this one: People v. Earnest (33.CAL.APP.4thSUPP.18) the Officer must present the original traffic survey or a certified copy of it, otherwise is "hearsay" and as such, is not admissable.

I show that traffic is moderate and officer did not say how far a way he was so he can't show how my speed was indicate on his radar. Welcome more suggestions.

Obviously you haven't done your homework (and I suspect you have not asked for or received informal discovery documents yet).

The officer is not obligated to state his entire case on the ticket. Just because he didn't put it on the citation doesn't mean he can't testify to it in court. Because you can't depose the officer ahead of time, you have no idea what he is going to testify to.

Next, you need to find out how the officer determined your speed. Was it based on radar alone or did it include visual observation or pacing? If either of the last two were involved, your speed trap issue becomes moot.

Next, have you personally determined that no survey has been done for this road? If you demand proof of a survey as part of the state's case and they present one, it will appear that yours is not a quest for the truth but simply an attempt to harass the state. The courts look dimly on such tactics. Finally, based on prior cases, has the court already taken judicial notice of existing speed surveys in the county? Again, if they have, your defense will look foolish.

Best of luck.

[chineseservant]

Obviously you haven't done your homework (and I suspect you have not asked for or received informal discovery documents yet).

Even though "the prosecution is required to establish" per CVC I need to obtain "informal discovery documents"? Thank you, I will find out from court clerk if I need to.

The officer is not obligated to state his entire case on the ticket. Just because he didn't put it on the citation doesn't mean he can't testify to it in court. Because you can't depose the officer ahead of time, you have no idea what he is going to testify to.

I realize this, another Officer tell me that he can write some notes on the back of his copy of citation. He don't have to, but since it was prima facie speed limit it would help his case to indicate Safe and Reasonable speed per CVC 22350, (to make a credible case that I was in violation in the first place).

Next, you need to find out how the officer determined your speed. Was it based on radar alone or did it include visual observation or pacing? If either of the last two were involved, your speed trap issue becomes moot.

Says on the citation based on radar evidence, does not say any other evidence used.


Next, have you personally determined that no survey has been done for this road? If you demand proof of a survey as part of the state's case and they present one, it will appear that yours is not a quest for the truth but simply an attempt to harass the state. The courts look dimly on such tactics. Finally, based on prior cases, has the court already taken judicial notice of existing speed surveys in the county? Again, if they have, your defense will look foolish.

The County Engineer Office and Caltrans both say they dont have the survey for this road! I wrote this in my dec. too.

Thank you for the help, I'll call court clerk to find out if discovery docs. must be needed for the court.

[keith758]

You asked why the officer's case is strong: He has no reason to lie, he's probably certified to use the radar and trained to distinguish which car he is tracking. The court will take this into consideration and find you guilty 99 times out of 100.

[chineseservant]

You asked why the officer's case is strong: He has no reason to lie, he's probably certified to use the radar and trained to distinguish which car he is tracking. The court will take this into consideration and find you guilty 99 times out of 100.

True.

The court may find in favor of Officer on that part true, but if he (the prosecution) can't prove that the radar evidence isn't based on a speed trap the court must dismiss the case per CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence "Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidene or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissable under this article."

If no speed survey has ever been taken of that road, then no Safe and Reasonable speed exists. The Officer does not make a case that I was speeding.

This is the other half of the case.

[keith758]

All I know is that in Wisconsin, the court would take the officers side, and you'd be found guilty in almost all cases involving radar. I don't know what the certification standards are in California, but in Wisconsin if the officer has gone through the radar certification course, you're pretty much screwed.

[gotthblues]

hey cat person, nice job quoting all the motor veh. codes, just remember one thing, everything that you are spouting off, that you think you understand, the judge and the lawyers *more important what the judge says*, quite often have a completly different interpretation of what you are reading, you may think you understand it, but 95% of the time, you, we, me, dont understand it,
you better have a lot more in you pocket than *no traffic study = a speed trap* there is more to it, by all means argue your defense, you have that right, but dont try and be a lawyer when youre not.

[cst.sb]

Just curious, were you speeding?

[keith758]

HEY, LETS TAKE A POLL! How many of you think chineseservent was probably speeding?

I vote a hearty "YES!"

[That Guy]

So are you telling us that you were not speeding?

TGY

[chineseservant]

Just curious, were you speeding?

No, the road was dry with clear visibility and my speed was Safe and Reasonable for the existing road and weather conditions. Hence, I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

[gotthblues]

No, the road was dry with clear visibility and my speed was Safe and Reasonable for the existing road and weather conditions. Hence, I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.
you might want to re read that part, i dont know about out there, but what you are saying, 'the road was dry, so on so on,' well, here that means that if these conditions are present, then you are allowed to go the posted speed limit, anythiing other than clear and dry, you technically arent allowed to do the speed limit, well, you can, but if you get in a wreck, then you were going to fast, clear and dry doesnt mean you can pick a speed limit.

[51094]

No, the road was dry with clear visibility and my speed was Safe and Reasonable for the existing road and weather conditions. Hence, I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

I think you're reading into cst.sb question. Let me rephrase for him.

Were you driving at a rate of speed which was faster than the maximum posted/prescribed speed for that stretch of road?

[RookieD]

Have you had a speeding ticket before? If so, your SOL. The judge will find out about it, and be upset that you are wasting his/her time. In addition, you will get a denial notice in the mail with a big red stamp [B]

[RookieD]

(PAY YOUR TICKET) (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/traffic/payment.htm)

[backinblue]

I don't know Ca traffic law, but to be able to have a "trial by mail" I think that is just wrong. My theory, if you want to contest the cite then show up yourself and show the reason why you contest the cite. You may have a good defense, honestly I don't know, but I just don't agree with "trial by mail."

p.s. I am not saying "trial by mail" is not an option in Ca, I just don't agree.

[t150vsuptpr]

Oh, you can also be "Tried in Absentia" here as well, and you can write a letter to the court and enclose paperwork. You cannot be sworn, only the officer can be sworn in those cases. Same with having an attourney appear for you, he cannot be sworn, he cannot offer testimony of the facts and events that occurred at the time of the cite. I get plenty of these types of cases from travelers and truckers, both those who get an atty and those who write letters. I am the only one who testifies to the facts. Some get a reduction if their reason is compelling, but it's a decision that I make and offer the judge, or one in which he asks me for because they are all guilty (all of my cases' defendants are guilty, always have been, and that is the way it should be ... no LEO worth his spit will take innocent people to trial as defendants).

Past driving convictions have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand if the judge is following the law, he can consider past record only after making a finding of guilt, when he's setting fine and / or jail time and license suspension. If I have 8 speeding tickets on my record, or none ... it in no way proves that I am guilty or not guilty of the one at question before the court.

I'm alergic to cats, I say "chineseservant" is guilty as charged. :D

[chineseservant]

.Were you driving at a rate of speed which was faster than the maximum posted/prescribed speed for that stretch of road?

The posted speed for the road is a prima facie speed limit, as such, a driver may legally exceed the posted speed if his speed is Safe and Reasonable for the existing road and weather conditions.

I agree, that one can't legally go a ridiculous speed (such as 40mph) over a prima facie posted speed.

With a prima facie posted speed, if the conditions where say, wet, icy, and dark then a speed of five mile an hour over the limit may not be appropraite and a citation may be justified. However, given my circumstance, the Officer fails to make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

[L-1]

The posted speed for the road is a prima facie speed limit, as such, a driver may legally exceed the posted speed if his speed is Safe and Reasonable for the existing road and weather conditions.

You just gave me my greatest laugh for the day. Thank you!!!!!

Now, like I said before, YOU NEED TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Somewhere in your community there will probably be a law library. Go there, find an annotated Vehicle code that lists past case decisions and check it with respect to the safe and reasonable speed section. It has nothing to do with being able to exceed the prima facie speed limit. It's intent (and the court's interpretation) is that you may not travel at the highest posted speed limit if conditions make it unsafe to do so.

On the bright side, I could not have made my living if it were not for folks like yourself so once again, thank you for your conrtibution. <GD&R>

[SgtScott31]

Just make sure and post here on the outcome of your ticket. ;)

[L-1]

"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidene or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissable under this article."

One last thing I forgot to mention. The above exclusion is predicated on the court admitting radar evidence where a survey is required but has not been done. What are you going to do if the officer doesn't present evidence as to radar use, or if he does and the court refuses to admit it? Based on the law, the court remains competent and retains jurisdiction.

Remember, officers are taught to determine speed by a variety of methods such as pacing, radar and visual observation. If a survey was required but has not been done, all the officer need do is testify as to your speed based solely on his visual observations and training. What do you do then?

Remember also that you are placing yourself at a distinct disadvantage by opting for trial by declaration. Your written statement will be presented to the officer who will then have several days to formulate a proper response, addressing all of your issues. He wouldn't necessarily have that advantage if you opted to make an in-person court appearance.

When this whole thing is over, please let us know how much the fine was and how many points they placed on your license. <G>

[chineseservant]

When this whole thing is over, please let us know how much the fine was and how many points they placed on your license. <G>

Thank you btw for giving criticism on my defense. I will look for case decisions regarding the speed trap defense in my county. If I loose, I probably won't get point on my license because by pleading not guilty I don't loose eligibility for traffic school (or so the court clerk say).

I will accept the court's decision and not appeal it (trial de nova), if the court finds that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law, I will accept that I was "speeding".

I'll keep you updated, but I won't know for another 3-5 week.

[SgtScott31]

probably won't get point on my license because by pleading not guilty I don't loose eligibility for traffic school (or so the court clerk say).

I can't believe that. If you plead not guilty and you are found guilty, I have never seen any judge in my jurisdiction still allow traffic school. It's a court fine (price of ticket + court costs) and the offense goes straight to your record.

I guess it's possible, but unlikely.

[AnGardaSiochana]

In California we have trial by declaration. The violator gives the court his version in writing. The court sends it to the officer who then gives his side in writing and rebuts the violator's side. The judge then decides the case based on the paperwork presented.

WE have something similar except its before it makes court. Basically the person writes to my Superintendent telling him why they shouldnt have to pay. I then attach a response form filling in all the relevent parts including part C which is if I think it should be canceled based on the persons letter and send it back. My Sergeant then fills in part D saying if he agrees with me or not and finally the Super makes a call. I have never had any canceled by this method but I had one summons canceled as the woman had since died. :(

Also, I know most judges here will ask one thing at the start "Were you speeding?" If you asnwer yes you get an immediate fine of about 400 euro and 4 points (12 lose your license)and found guilty without the cop even speaking. If you answer no but are found guilty, oh man, have you ever seen a ****ed off judge? :( 400 + 4 is tame compared to what your now getting and all over an 80 euro ticket with 2 points.

"The posted speed for the road is a prima facie speed limit, as such, a driver may legally exceed the posted speed if his speed is Safe and Reasonable for the existing road and weather conditions"
Classic! I just love canteen lawyers, they crack me up. :D :D :D

[eric_farang_bah]

guess we know what happened here

[Northtechsan]

I wonder if he had to submit a check for court fee's equal to the fine with his defense statement. ;)

[grussem]

Actually, I wish this guy would post questions a little more often, they're quite funny. It'll be funny when he ends up having to pay for the ticket and the price of the "beat any traffic ticket." It's just not worth the trouble, if you're caught, just pay the fine.

[Hinged]

The essence of the radar isn't it great. Im not sure how they do it in your town, but were I am from if you get cited on radar and request a hearing you can obtain one with a clerk magistrate from the city along with a representative from the city/county/etc. In some places the officers do show up because it is "overtime". Good luck with the appeal, how is your driving record? is there anything on your vehicle that shouldn't be ? were you going down a hill and picking up speed?. Have a good day.

[chineseservant]

I wonder if he had to submit a check for court fee's equal to the fine with his defense statement. ;)

No, paperwork actually said "no bail required". ;) Maybe I will win.

[chineseservant]

Update..

Today I received mail from the Superior Court. The Court has found me to be Not Guilty to the charge of CVC 22350 "Speeding". :D :D

Thanks to those who helped me. :)

[operator81]

My opinion on your defense...WEAK,WEAK,WEAK,WEAK,WEAK and for those in the back...WEAK!. Get out the check book. The way you are disputing the officer's use of radar leads me to believe you know absolutly nothing about radar. I have found one and only one surefire way to beat a speeding ticket. DON'T SPEED. Make the numbers on your speedometer match the numbers on the speed limit sign and you will be ok. ;)

[bigcop97]

Update..

Today I received mail from the Superior Court. The Court has found me to be Not Guilty to the charge of CVC 22350 "Speeding". :D :D

Thanks to those who helped me. :)

Here is some more advice, I would keep all that research handy, your going to keep getting more speeding tickets if you disredard the posted speed limit and go what you "think" is a safe speed...

Congrats on your big victory...

[chineseservant]

Here is some more advice, I would keep all that research handy, your going to keep getting more speeding tickets if you disredard the posted speed limit and go what you "think" is a safe speed...

Congrats on your big victory...

Thanks. :) But you don't have the full picture.

This was my first and only citation and I have drive for years. I asked a local cop (off duty) about my case and why he thinks I won the case, and he said that he never would have written someone with a good attitude (like me) who was going only 6 over on a rural country road. Thats what I was cited for: 6 over. The officer said it was a cs ticket and judges don't like those in the first place. Maybe my defense was weak..but the basis for the citation was weak in the first place.

[chineseservant]

My opinion on your defense...WEAK,WEAK,WEAK,WEAK,WEAK and for those in the back...WEAK!. Get out the check book.

I don't feel that you have told me what you really think of my defense. Why do you think it was weak? I don't need my check book, I was found not guilty. :)

Maybe the Judge didn't think it was weak. ;)

[SgtScott31]

I don't feel that you have told me what you really think of my defense. Why do you think it was weak? I don't need my check book, I was found not guilty. :)

Maybe the Judge didn't think it was weak. ;)

The only problem now since you won (on a weak ticket in traffic court) is that you feel like you've become an expert in law enforcement, as indicated by these other posts:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=553912&postcount=4

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=553345&postcount=32

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=553986&postcount=2

When people post in ask-a-cop, it means just that. I'm honestly surprised that the mods have not banned you yet because of your blatant disregard of forum rules. I am very active on another LE forum and I guarantee you would have been from there.

[chineseservant]

The only problem now since you won (on a weak ticket in traffic court) is that you feel like you've become an expert in law enforcement, as indicated by these other posts:

I do not feel that I am an expert in law enforcement. I do have an interest in the legal system and I am taking night classes now to get my law degree.

I just want to let you know that I mean no disrespect. I apologize if I disturbed you.

[operator81]

I don't feel that you have told me what you really think of my defense. Why do you think it was weak? I don't need my check book, I was found not guilty. :)

Maybe the Judge didn't think it was weak. ;)

Your defense was weak. For all you know the officer didn't show up to tell his/her side. You got lucky. Keep driving at your "safe" but excessive speed and see how long it stays that way.

[SgtScott31]

I do not feel that I am an expert in law enforcement. I do have an interest in the legal system and I am taking night classes now to get my law degree.

I just want to let you know that I mean no disrespect. I apologize if I disturbed you.

You're not offending/disturbing me, just leave the police questions to be answered by police officers. Good luck in your law career.

[Redders]

[QUOTE=chineseservant]I do not feel that I am an expert in law enforcement. I do have an interest in the legal system and I am taking night classes now to get my law degree.


Personally a 6 over speeding ticket is not a Chicken Sh** ticket. Would I write one? No, but this job is about officer discrection (sp). chineseservant fails to comprehend in this entire assinine debaucle (sp) that a "posted" speed limit is just that posted. Regardless of the "speed trap" stuff, the majority of which I fail to understand (Nebraska has no such thing.....Thank god) A posted speed is the maximum speed allowed for safe travel on the "posted" roadway.

I am speaking from experience in Nebraska, so being unfamiliar with CA law, I may be comparing apples and oranges, but...... When a limit is posted that is the finally and definative decision, I don't believe that unless allowed by state law a motorist is allowed to determine "reasonable and prudent" speed based on "safe conditions", with regards to the comment of "dry road surface" or whatever he wrote.

Based upon my knowledge and experience along with jurisdiction, be verrrrrrryyyyy relieved that this worked for you. In the state of nebraska you would have received a 25.00 fine and 44.00 court costs, along with points on your license. The defendent must show that the Officer failed in some way to complete either a radar qualification, and or tracking history to prove that they weren't speeding. Essentially if I say you did, took the time to pull you over and write it on paper, then you did it and should just pay it.

[Cptdragn]

Based upon my knowledge and experience along with jurisdiction, be verrrrrrryyyyy relieved that this worked for you. In the state of nebraska you would have received a 25.00 fine and 44.00 court costs, along with points on your license. The defendent must show that the Officer failed in some way to complete either a radar qualification, and or tracking history to prove that they weren't speeding. Essentially if I say you did, took the time to pull you over and write it on paper, then you did it and should just pay it.

Here it would be 62.50 for the fine and 125.00 cost of court.

here, you can "ask" for traffic school AFTER you plead GUILTY but if you maintain your NOT GUILTY and have it go before a judge and are found GUILTY, You lose that privilege.

lastly Here, The officer only needs to articulate to the court that based on his training and experience, He observed your vehicle to be in excess of the posted speed. While he can also state that he verified it via radar, He is not required to do so. Radar is not the end all, catch all tool of speed enforcement, It's simply one tool of many.

chineseservant, Good luck on your law degree.
This time you were lucky and perhaps a little knowledgeable in traffic laws.
However, That may not always be the case.

[formercop]

*not a cop, but used to be a cop*

First does anyone really believe that this person won his case? Does anyone truly think that he'd post otherwise?

Gotta tell ya, chineseservant, if I'd have pulled you over, I would have laid every tag I could on you, just to see whatever interesting defense you'd come up with. Then I'd be in court just to laugh my head off at you.

I've NEVER EVER heard of "reasonably safe excessive speed", good LORD can you imagine the chaos on the roadways if that'd happen?

[Mike11]

Only six over is C.S. I wouldn't even look at a six over for a warning unless there were extenuating circumstances, and sure wouldn't write a "hard copy" unless somebody had an attitude problem.

What is a "speed trap"???????????????? Do they come in different sizes? How do you haul one around? Do you camo it, or do they just drive right into it?...............If the speed limit is plainly posted there ain't no trapping to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TrafficCop28]

No, the road was dry with clear visibility and my speed was Safe and Reasonable for the existing road and weather conditions. Hence, I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

I've got a quick question for ya. Sorry if this has already been covered. Do you think that the Department of Transportation just slapped up a speed limit sign to ruin your day? They research all sorts of factors before putting one up. Slow down and stop trying to blame society for your problems.

[sergeantbell]

Chineseservant you eat to much fortune cookie. My magistrate truely loves it when people bring in their own props. Please...please...please tell it in court like you did here. Can you take picture while you're there too?

Just a word of advice. Speed traps, although they've had a lot of bad press, are not illegal. That defense is gone. How did you know to bring camera when speeding to show other car in area.....(trying to sound like him)?

You should be sending fine mail....not picture mail.

JOKE:

A guy was busted speeding by a traffic camera. The PD sent him a ticket in the mail. The guy took a picture of the money for the cite and sent it too them. They sent back a picture of some handcuffs.

- He paid the fine.

[Dudley DoRight]

Wonderful example of multitasking...driving a car in traffic, exceeding the posted limit, looking for "speed traps", taking pictures as he drive in anticipation of getting a ticket, making note of all the traffic as he drives...seems to me like a "due care" ticket is the least he should have been issued?

How can anybody drive along in traffic & take pictures at the same time. I would be asking you those questions in cross examination. You don't really expect any of us on this board to believe you do you? Any pictures you took could not have been taken at the exact moment the radar reading was taken...and are therefore unadmissable...and if entered then purjury charges should be pursued IMHO.

You got really lucky on this one.....reinforced by your brilliant defense you will continue to speed and get caught. Hope you drive on my Highway sometime.

[chineseservant]

Wonderful example of multitasking...driving a car in traffic, exceeding the posted limit, looking for "speed traps", taking pictures as he drive in anticipation of getting a ticket, making note of all the traffic as he drives...seems to me like a "due care" ticket is the least he should have been issued?

How can anybody drive along in traffic & take pictures at the same time. I would be asking you those questions in cross examination. You don't really expect any of us on this board to believe you do you? Any pictures you took could not have been taken at the exact moment the radar reading was taken...and are therefore unadmissable...and if entered then purjury charges should be pursued IMHO.

You got really lucky on this one.....reinforced by your brilliant defense you will continue to speed and get caught. Hope you drive on my Highway sometime.


:rolleyes:

_______

[Dale Parker]

One of the funniest things that happens in a courtroom is someone deciding to be his own lawyer. I have seen it work because everyone was laughing so hard the judge thought the show was good enough to give the defendant a break.

[chineseservant]

I've got a quick question for ya. Sorry if this has already been covered.
:rolleyes: It has already been covered.


Do you think that the Department of Transportation just slapped up a speed limit sign to ruin your day?

No, the Department of Transportation never posted that speed limit sign in the first place.


They research all sorts of factors before putting one up.
No they did not. If they did, a Traffic and Engineering Survey would exist citing those factors.

[trooperden]

I don't for a moment think this is even a true story. I have never been in a traffic court where any of thse so call issues have been grounds for dismissal, show a copy of the citation, what court it was in and outcome of case, show me that and I'll start believing this whole story

[chineseservant]

I don't for a moment think this is even a true story.


I am not guilty I proved all I had too, couldn't care less what you "think". :cool:



I have never been in a traffic court where any of thse so call issues have been grounds for dismissal,

Have you ever done traffic court in california?

Unless you have been a cop since age 17, You are a fake.

[chineseservant]

show a copy of the citation, what court it was in and outcome of case, show me that and I'll start believing this whole story

I doubt you beleive me even if I scanned it you. Send me $50 bucks and I'll fedex overnight it too you (the originals). ;) :D

[LA Copper]

Servant,
I noticed that your posts prior to you "winning" your case were all in English that was not written very well.

And now after you have "won" your case, your English is a lot better. What's up with that?

[chineseservant]

Thanks :)

__

[PhilipCal]

Seems to me that you want this forum to act as a surrogate defense attorney for you. Ain't gonna happen as far as I'm concerned. Submit your case to the court. Let the judge decide. You win? Great!! You lose? That's even greater!!