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.
Sensible litigants, both civil and criminal settle matters every day. And for the record traffic is civil, resulting in no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Another reason to settle.
If you knew you were innocent, you would have fought it. If you were so sure you were right(like you have been insisting you were on here) Why would you accept any form of punishment?
If you knew you were innocent, you would have fought it. If you were so sure you were right(like you have been insisting you were on here) Why would you accept any form of punishment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkf747
That is not a straw man argument. It's one of the reasons they decided to pass a cell phone law. It does have slight relevance to the topic.
The problem with the law as amended in 2013 is that they have made the tickets virtually undefendable even if innocent. The statute has a "rebutabble presumption" that anyone with one hand on a cell phone is using the cell phone. This reverses the normal burden of proof from the State to the driver. Given case law that an officer's testimony is, rebuttably as well, presumed to be neutral defending one of these tickets is a huge gamble. I was willing to pay a fine in return for no license points. Anyone would be crazy to risk a trial wit that kind of an offer.
Arguably, the fact that the offer was made by the State is evidence that the charge was shaky. Risking a part-time judge's parsing of the statute was a bridge too far.
The problem with the law as amended in 2013 is that they have made the tickets virtually undefendable even if innocent. The statute has a "rebutabble presumption" that anyone with one hand on a cell phone is using the cell phone. This reverses the normal burden of proof from the State to the driver. Given case law that an officer's testimony is, rebuttably as well, presumed to be neutral defending one of these tickets is a huge gamble. I was willing to pay a fine in return for no license points. Anyone would be crazy to risk a trial wit that kind of an offer.
Arguably, the fact that the offer was made by the State is evidence that the charge was shaky. Risking a part-time judge's parsing of the statute was a bridge too far.
I don't know about that. I mean they make deals everyday. I'm not sure it is evidence the charge was shaky. More likely is that they just wanted whatever they could get without having to deal with the case. You know, the path of least resistance.
I don't know about that. I mean they make deals everyday. I'm not sure it is evidence the charge was shaky. More likely is that they just wanted whatever they could get without having to deal with the case. You know, the path of least resistance.
My lawyer had a screen shot of my texts and calls that day; none within 12 hours of the ticket. We had a pretty good case going in. I settled because I'd rather pay money than risk points.
[quote=jbgusa;44474943]My lawyer had a screen shot of my texts and calls that day; none within 12 hours of the ticket...... On my phone you can delete individual calls and texts so that screen shot would mean nothing whatsoever. Or did he actually get records from the cell phone provider?
My lawyer had a screen shot of my texts and calls that day; none within 12 hours of the ticket......
On my phone you can delete individual calls and texts so that screen shot would mean nothing whatsoever. Or did he actually get records from the cell phone provider?
Don in Austin
We didn't but if it had gone beyond the conference I would have; since I wasn't texting or calling. I in fact invited the officer to do that on the highway.
My lawyer had a screen shot of my texts and calls that day; none within 12 hours of the ticket. We had a pretty good case going in. I settled because I'd rather pay money than risk points.
And because your screen shots don't prove that you weren't "performing a command" or "accessing electronic data," which are both prohibited by the statute, and which you were doing.
And because your screen shots don't prove that you weren't "performing a command" or "accessing electronic data," which are both prohibited by the statute, and which you were doing.
When you're trying to prove a negative knocking out the most common illegal activities is a big help. But not conclusive, which is why I pleaded to a reduced charge.
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.
