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.
Years ago I went to court for a ticket for failure to yield. Using trigonometry I was able to prove a car made a lane change after I had pulled out into traffic. Judge was impressed lowered the ticket to $15 and no points on my license. Had my dad to thank for that one!
Don't you guys have a Ticket Clinic kind of thing?
You just pay or so them $100 or so and they take care of the ticket.
Not in my area, but most DUI lawyers will do it for a couple hundred bucks. So you're paying them about $1000/hr for that.
Speaking only from research and not personal experience, I've concluded that it makes no difference if you or your attorney calls a prosecutor to work out a deal. The prosecutor isn't impressed by another lawyer's law degree and the deal is only getting so good no matter what (which is the first offer the prosecutor makes you... You committed a crime and they're not haggling with you like a used car salesman. It makes no difference if you or your attorney accepts it) for goofy stuff like speeding. The prosecutor still wants their conviction so you're not going home off the hook. I've also never seen anyone "innocent" in any of these discussions (OP admits 10 over), so you broke the deal, you spin the wheel.
When you should absolutely go to those guys is for stuff that is more serious, like potentially losing your license or something getting you a felony rap. That's when even if an attorney only carries 10% more ammo, you need it. From the tales I've been told, first DUI defense is about $5k, it gets reduced to something WAY less offensive to your insurance company so the money comes out in the wash, and you don't totally lose your license for a period of time (can still drive to work and such). Without a lawyer? Enjoy your 6 months on the couch and your first strike of 3 to a mandatory felony conviction in my state.
I think your odds are low of prevailing. The system is a revenue scheme and they aren't letting that go easily. In reality, minor errors and typos aren't going to get your ticket dismissed unless you hire a lawyer. And so you get to decide if you want your $200 to go to the city or the attorney.
Working against you:
You might not be able to introduce new evidence in an appeal.
You do not know how fast you were actually going. You testified to this so you can't change your story now.
Even if you could prove where you stopped that doesn't prove your speed. You're making a math calculation assuming you know where the cop was, when he first saw you, how fast he accelerated, and how fast you stopped. It's not about how fast you were going when you passed by him. To a judge, it's plausible you were going 63, saw the cop a quarter mile ahead and sharply slowed down, and passed him at 40. Too late, he already tagged you.
Speeding tickets are the lowest common denominator for law enforcement to persue and remind me of parking meter officers. I was doing a 72 in a 55? Who cares. During rush hour that's pretty normal on interstates the nation over... Dont you have anything better to do like catch the big fish? By big fish the people who go 90-100mph or more on the interstates... Or how about going after people going too slow? The safest thing to do is go with traffic flow, not some arbitrarily set limit. The person going 50 when traffic flow is 70 is just as dangerous as the person going 90 and they usually cause most of the traffic jams.
Of all the things to pull people over for that rarely pose a danger to life and property if road conditions are good and a person has their eyes on the road.... Such a big man worrying I might be doing 10 over... Go fight some real crime.
What do the cops, judges, and prosecutors have in common? They are all public employees whose salary come from taxes, fees, and fines. It won't be easy persuading them not to collect for the public employee fund.
Speeding tickets are the lowest common denominator for law enforcement to persue and remind me of parking meter officers. I was doing a 72 in a 55? Who cares. During rush hour that's pretty normal on interstates the nation over...
NO, 72 is NOT "normal" speed limit on interstates the nation over. Not even on I-95 up and down the East Coast. Just because some dopes speed doesn't make it acceptable.
There are, however, PLENTY of deadly crashes up and down FL I-95 with the added enjoyment of explosions and fires.
So I was going with a flow of a traffic on a 4 lane local highway in Massachusetts, in right lane, maybe 50 mph, then out of the blue - cop lights right behind me. I slow down and pull over right away and get slapped with a 63 in a 40 ticket, posted-estimated-LIDAR. Because I know I wasn't doing 63, I decided to contest, which I did. Spent some time researching various forums including this one to see what defense options I have, of which there aren't many.
Finally, came up with the only defense that made sense to me. I took location of alleged offense (a specific intersection) from the ticket, location where I know I pulled over (another intersection some 700 feet down the road), and worked in math showing that at 63 mph there was no way the cop could pull out of the street where he was hiding, catch up with me, and pull me over all in 700 feet - there is just no way. The pursuit would have consisted of a spectacular 4 seconds that would include a cop accelerating from 0 to 120 and then slowing down to my speed. I did my homework and went to magistrate hearing with a map and a printout of vehicle safe stopping distances at various speeds feeling pretty good about myself.
In the hearing yesterday, the cop presenting the evidence (not the one who fined me) starts reading notes from the back of the citation, and he reads that my car stopped at a DIFFERENT intersection, about half a mile from where I actually stopped! With that, my defense becomes moot right off the bat.
The magistrate asks me if I have anything to say, I say "your honor, my entire defense is based on the fact that I stopped in point X" and explain briefly what the defense is. She says "well, do you have any questions to this cop here?" I say, "Sir, can you be sure that I stopped at Y because I remember vividly that I stopped at X"? Cop goes "no, I'm reading other officer's notes". Then asks me: "How fast were you driving". I reply "Can't tell you exactly as I wasn't watching the speedometer, but I could prove it wasn't 63 if the location was correct". Then magistrate basically says it's your "can't tell exactly" vs. a pretty exact LIDAR reading, you are responsible, I find the whole location argument immaterial.
I decided to appeal in front of the judge and now have a couple of weeks before that hearing. So the question I have - should I try to present the same defense in front of the judge? I realize I don't have any evidence the location is wrong, but I know it is! Should I just say my facts ignoring what officer says about the pull-over location? Finally, on the question of speed. I know "going with a flow of traffic" is not going to win me the case, but I'm not about to lie under oath and say I was doing 40 either. How to answer that question as to not ruin the defense?
Thank you all in advance.
This is EXACTLY why you should have used a lawyer and should use one now.
You've worked yourself into a corner and have no idea of the typical rulings on these matters. You got blind sided with the address thing - but an attorney would have known if it was worth fighting or not. Plus I think that judges give more credence to lawyers than pro se defendants.
Just FYI when my kid had to appear in traffic court, with about 100 other defendants, the lawyers ALL got called first and the schmucks who represented themselves had to wait all day. My kid had a lawyer who cut a deal with the judge in 3 minutes.
I'd probably say "I'd say I was going 50 MPH maximum if that."
Usually not a good idea to fight a traffic ticket yourself. Hire a traffic attorney who does it for a living. In California, most charge a hundred bucks with a guarantee if you don't win you don't pay. I lucked out on a left turn moving violation years ago when I plead not guilty and the officer didn't show. But if the officer is highway patrol then you're out of luck because they are required to appear for the trial at least in CA, but you can still argue your case. Or you can just pay the ticket and ask to do traffic school so you don't get the points on your record.
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.
With that, my defense becomes moot right off the bat.
