Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right but many seem to nowadays. EDIT: I just caught the $50 extra a month. Just a quick story and lesson hard learned for the wife and I. I went with Liberty Mutual back around 1981 as the police association brought them onboard so they could provide decent group rates. Over the years my kids grew up and of course had a few crashes as all teens do. We saw rate increases which we knew would happen but to be honest we just went with the flow. Finally when we moved to the Valley in 15 I decided to look at auto insurance and couple it with our homeowners. Turns out we were getting gouged by Liberty Mutual for a boatload of money for way too many years. The broker we use out here was shocked at what we were paying and now that I see what we pay now I can't believe I did not do this sooner. There is no such thing as loyalty with insurance companies no matter what the commercials might say. Look around and do it often.
Sorry to know that you had paying a lot and glad you caught it.
I remember other insurance companies like National have a forgiveness.
In my 20 years of driving in US, I got 4 tickets. I need to talk to the insurance company soon to fix this. Otherwise, Ameriprise Costco is a very good insurance.
Just wanted to give my quick notes for others who may find it useful.
Case specific
I got a ticket in Fairfax County (County Trooper) for doing 47/25 (which may or may not be accurate....). The speed limit had just been dropped from 35 for that section probably within about 1-2 weeks before my ticket as they were going to be starting some construction.
The cop was in the shoulder and just motioned me over...and right in front of me was another speed limit sign for 35 mph, which could also be seen clearly from the place he claimed to have tagged me.
Finding - The judge definitely seemed like he was going to find me guilty (vs. thwhen I sasked as it seemed he was going to judge against me) did reduce the ticket to failure to obey a traffic sign, though with a higher fine than that normally has ($45 vs $30). Still less than I'd pay even if it was in a 35 mph zone, and fewer points for that offense, though that's entirely an automatic thing with the DMV that the judges in VA can't adjust. I had nothing on my record, and a +2 point balance having been living in the area for only 2-3 years).
My basic takeaways are:
- Better driving record will get you some leniency
- Judge can't reduce your points but they can change your offense to a different one that has fewer points.
- I did not need a lawyer to do this, though I admit that it helps that I was paying attention and following what the judge and officer were saying AND seemed to be thinking as the basis for their talking to each other and me. There were a couple points in questions not actually asked to me when I made a clarification that I'm sure helped my case a bit. (There were a couple times in other cases that day that the judge seemed to miss / not understand something someone said and pressed down a different path where the defendants were confused and just gave up.)
- ***(While true throughout, especially note for this bullet point that I'm not a lawyer and this is NOT legal advice)*** I 'believe' from what the judge was saying that specifically for minor traffic infractions (anything less than $250) that the judge does not have the leeway to increase any fines / costs. So if it looks like you're not getting any leeway, I think you can offer up some of the more 'getting off on a technicality' items and see what happens without much penalty. Even listed on their webpage, "Each defendant in a traffic case is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." That's a high standard of proof, and an officer's word on what their radar noted along with a piece of data on their radar/lidar being within spec may be 'more believable' than an individual's word, but almost certainly not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to me. One of the key issues with trying this though is that you'll likely have to take one track (leniency) or the other (technicality) as you need to work carefully to work the leniency route without incriminating yourself. Most of the judge's questions could be responded in ways that would be incriminating, so you'd need to choose your words wisely. Because the judge gave me the best option behind having it thrown out, I never attempted this 'technicality' route so again - try it at your own potential peril.
Timing / Schedule of Courtroom
- 1st goes ANYONE WITH A LAWYER who'd worked out pleas with the prosecutor (who ONLY works on cases when you have a lawyer and won't personally work with you on a plea without one - I was early to my courtroom and asked him and he refused). Lawyers were also coming and going throughout the morning as they made pleas and just cut in line at any point.
- Judge then went 1 by 1 through the OFFICERS that were in court, and calling out their individual cases. If they were pleading guilty / no contest, then they immediately came forward, the judge asked the officer for their details of the case (which also included the individual's points / driving record). If the defendant was pleading not guilty, then they sat down and waited for the judge to work through all the officers and their guilty/no contest pleas. If the defendant was not present, they were immediately found guilty and the appropriate fines/repercussions were noted.
- I think there were some cases which didn't involve officers or where the officers weren't present and were not going to be and these were then handled (I think it was again that they only came up if guilty/no contest first, though there was only one of these and it was regarding proof of registration which the judge dismissed the case since the guy brought it with him to court).
- Finally, they went through the officers again for those cases people were pleading not guilty. The judge asked the officer for their side/evidence, asked the defendants if they had any cross-examination / questions for the officer, then let the defendants offer any evidence of their own. As I was presenting my case, the judge was asking me clarifying questions. It was still pretty informal - while I didn't cross-examine the officer at first, I did ask him questions as I was presenting my case - basically having him verify that things I was saying were true as well. Generally it seems like the judge has made up his mind fairly quickly of your guilt (as most people probably were), and this is the time to be most careful with your words. Basically the questions implied guilt or otherwise hurt your standing ("so after you did [offense] ABC, then [miscellaneous inconsequential circumstance] XYZ happened" or "So you were paying attention to the traffic [i.e. you were 'distracted' by that] and then ABC") and if you accepted the premise of the question, then you admit to the guilt / weaken your case.
- There were probably about 60 cases, with about 30 being guilty/no contest (about 2 minutes each) /no shows (20 seconds), about 15 lawyer handled pleas (1 minute), and about 15 not guilty (3-10 minutes - avg of about 5 minutes). There was only one person left in the courtroom after me, and I was done less than 2 hours from when it started.
Just wanted to give my quick notes for others who may find it useful.
Case specific
I got a ticket in Fairfax County (County Trooper) for doing 47/25 (which may or may not be accurate....). The speed limit had just been dropped from 35 for that section probably within about 1-2 weeks before my ticket as they were going to be starting some construction.
The cop was in the shoulder and just motioned me over...and right in front of me was another speed limit sign for 35 mph, which could also be seen clearly from the place he claimed to have tagged me.
Finding - The judge definitely seemed like he was going to find me guilty (vs. thwhen I sasked as it seemed he was going to judge against me) did reduce the ticket to failure to obey a traffic sign, though with a higher fine than that normally has ($45 vs $30). Still less than I'd pay even if it was in a 35 mph zone, and fewer points for that offense, though that's entirely an automatic thing with the DMV that the judges in VA can't adjust. I had nothing on my record, and a +2 point balance having been living in the area for only 2-3 years).
My basic takeaways are:
- Better driving record will get you some leniency
- Judge can't reduce your points but they can change your offense to a different one that has fewer points.
- I did not need a lawyer to do this, though I admit that it helps that I was paying attention and following what the judge and officer were saying AND seemed to be thinking as the basis for their talking to each other and me. There were a couple points in questions not actually asked to me when I made a clarification that I'm sure helped my case a bit. (There were a couple times in other cases that day that the judge seemed to miss / not understand something someone said and pressed down a different path where the defendants were confused and just gave up.)
- ***(While true throughout, especially note for this bullet point that I'm not a lawyer and this is NOT legal advice)*** I 'believe' from what the judge was saying that specifically for minor traffic infractions (anything less than $250) that the judge does not have the leeway to increase any fines / costs. So if it looks like you're not getting any leeway, I think you can offer up some of the more 'getting off on a technicality' items and see what happens without much penalty. Even listed on their webpage, "Each defendant in a traffic case is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." That's a high standard of proof, and an officer's word on what their radar noted along with a piece of data on their radar/lidar being within spec may be 'more believable' than an individual's word, but almost certainly not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to me. One of the key issues with trying this though is that you'll likely have to take one track (leniency) or the other (technicality) as you need to work carefully to work the leniency route without incriminating yourself. Most of the judge's questions could be responded in ways that would be incriminating, so you'd need to choose your words wisely. Because the judge gave me the best option behind having it thrown out, I never attempted this 'technicality' route so again - try it at your own potential peril.
Timing / Schedule of Courtroom
- 1st goes ANYONE WITH A LAWYER who'd worked out pleas with the prosecutor (who ONLY works on cases when you have a lawyer and won't personally work with you on a plea without one - I was early to my courtroom and asked him and he refused). Lawyers were also coming and going throughout the morning as they made pleas and just cut in line at any point.
- Judge then went 1 by 1 through the OFFICERS that were in court, and calling out their individual cases. If they were pleading guilty / no contest, then they immediately came forward, the judge asked the officer for their details of the case (which also included the individual's points / driving record). If the defendant was pleading not guilty, then they sat down and waited for the judge to work through all the officers and their guilty/no contest pleas. If the defendant was not present, they were immediately found guilty and the appropriate fines/repercussions were noted.
- I think there were some cases which didn't involve officers or where the officers weren't present and were not going to be and these were then handled (I think it was again that they only came up if guilty/no contest first, though there was only one of these and it was regarding proof of registration which the judge dismissed the case since the guy brought it with him to court).
- Finally, they went through the officers again for those cases people were pleading not guilty. The judge asked the officer for their side/evidence, asked the defendants if they had any cross-examination / questions for the officer, then let the defendants offer any evidence of their own. As I was presenting my case, the judge was asking me clarifying questions. It was still pretty informal - while I didn't cross-examine the officer at first, I did ask him questions as I was presenting my case - basically having him verify that things I was saying were true as well. Generally it seems like the judge has made up his mind fairly quickly of your guilt (as most people probably were), and this is the time to be most careful with your words. Basically the questions implied guilt or otherwise hurt your standing ("so after you did [offense] ABC, then [miscellaneous inconsequential circumstance] XYZ happened" or "So you were paying attention to the traffic [i.e. you were 'distracted' by that] and then ABC") and if you accepted the premise of the question, then you admit to the guilt / weaken your case.
- There were probably about 60 cases, with about 30 being guilty/no contest (about 2 minutes each) /no shows (20 seconds), about 15 lawyer handled pleas (1 minute), and about 15 not guilty (3-10 minutes - avg of about 5 minutes). There was only one person left in the courtroom after me, and I was done less than 2 hours from when it started.
Never heard of a County Trooper, whats that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
