WARNING: Illinois' enforcement of Scott's Law is abusive and is entrapment (Marion: appointed, motorhome)

[NotfromIllinois]

Thanks again Bob for your prompt replies. I will post our outcome when we get to that stage.

[lolaland]

How do you contact the DA/ SA for a plea bargain? I have trouble getting past the reception - they tell me that he will only talk to me in court!

[illini_trucker]

So i know my post is a year late.. i just stumbled onto this, but for those other PRO SE do-it-yourselfers, it IS possible (I am prima facie evidence) to fight Scott's Law, IF you were NOT violating it. Some INSIGHT to ponder though....

Not sure about local municipalities, but what I learned fighting my ticket, that state troopers have CAMERAS!! these CAMERAS are ACTIVATED the minute they turn on their cherries and blueberries! In order for Scott's Law to be in "effect," track down the video... if it was a IL state trooper, no video means no emergency lights were on, which means Scott's Law DOES NOT APPLY!!



Here's my case if you wanna look it up, and notice a couple things... PRO SE, and NOT GUILTY and TRIAL BY JURY.....

http://www.mcleancountyil.gov/CircuitClerk/PA_Main.htm (broken link)
Case: 2007TR003970

Make sure "Search by case" box is checked or circled whatever....


Yea, it was Bloomington area, trying to get onto I-39 North to Rockford

And if anybody wants the gorey details, it was me, myself, and I, versus Asst. States Atty Karle Koritze, two Motorcycle Enforcement Bureau Troopers (who just happen to be in cruisers that day)

We took up a whole court room from 9am to 4pm..

My motivation was the whole license suspension thing. I drive a semi truck by trade. A license suspension is a "kiss of death" to a truck driver. SA made an offer that was more of a comedy than an offer. I chose Trial by Jury. Judge asked me if i wanted 12 or 6 jurors.. I chose 6...

Appearance!!! this is EVERYTHING TOO!!!! During our lunch recess, I saw some chick going into the courthouse wearing pajama bottoms and a purple cotton tee-shirt. Come on guys!! You have to SHOW the Judge and Jury that you are SERIOUS about your allegations and your innocence!!! I had a suit and tie, and the judge asked me on THREE different occasions throughout the trial day if I had done any attorney work elsewhere... To which I repeated over and over and over again, that NO, this is actually my FIRST case by myself. And I won!

Also, you cannot really tell your story too much. Learn to use the witnesses to YOUR benefit. Learn how to tell your story through questions for the witnesses. NEVER argue with a law enforcement officer at the scene. I personally gave my stupidest smirk, said "thank you sir" and thought to myself the whole time... see you in court B*TCH!! Of course i was ticked at the moment. But I DID have my day in court, I DID make those two cops feel stupid in court... by questions!!! Like walking back to their trooper car looking at the video tape. I remember these few questions I asked.

1. Officer "lah dee dah," when you had the first vehicle stopped, which side of the vehicles were you walking on?

A. The driver's side and you blew off my hat.

2. Okay then, how come you chose the safest route with my semi truck walking on the passenger side the entire time? Would it not have been safer to do the same, seeing a big semi truck coming your way?

A. to which the SA objected and the question was thrown out of the court, but NOT out of the jurors head, and victory, sweet victory being a smarta** to a cop in a court of law. and there was NOTHING........ the trooper couldve done about it... I do remember seeing his face turn 3 different shades of red... was it because he was MAD or EMBARRASSED, I'll never really know...

But also know when to quit! My defense was originally along a different line, but I saw that red car and it was game time!! And who knows. Driving 9 years now, it very well couldve been second nature for me to follow proper procedure. My memory will never know.

Also, closing argument. I learned the SA wears the burden of proof, so as such, the SA gets the final FINAL closing argument. Your argument HAS got to TOP the SA argument!! I could feel passion in what i had said. I remember feeling my ears tilt back and everything (if there is such a thing) I just wish I knew what i said.. because it was rolling off my tongue like no tomorrow.

Another thing I learned. Dont let the SA get too close to you. I promise you, he is your best friend outside the court room, but a bloodthirsty shark when its game time!

The other thing. You have EVERY right to the EVIDENCE as the SA prosecuting the case. That video saved my rear end!! No, I did not scoot over in to another lane, but the video clearly showed that a red car passed me up in the left lane, which PROVED two points... 1) I could NOT get over safely, and 2) i was OBVIOUSLY going slower than the rest of traffic which falls into Scott's Law if you read the above post.

EDITS....

1. if u want the LINK, to the website above, just delete the and (broken link) and thats the web address.

2. IMPORTANT!!! State Trooper videos are DESTROYED after 90 (NINETY) days... EVEN if your court case is 11 months away!!! Unless you get the SA to grab it for you. I gave my SA 2 months, and then I was going to file a motion for discovery to force the tape out of the path of destruction... but the SA got the tape successfully without me having to go that route, thank god.......

3. And I guess for ANYONE who is in trouble because of "allegations" they know are not true.... There is a legal phrase. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Only ONE (1) Juror has to believe your story... and thats reasonable doubt. Its not a democracy in the jurors box, they ALL HAVE to AGREE as to guilt!!! And thats why the SA makes really good offers sometimes.. you get a big black mark on your record, they get a win... and they didnt do CRAP for work!!

4. If you really REALLY THINK you have your case all good to go, dont allow the SA time to prepare a case against you! You have a constitutional right. It is called the "RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL!!" Trust me, it is one of the orginal ten amendments, known as the bill of rights


And FINALLY...

All this info is FREE based on my personal experiences... I do NOT accept ANY liability that may come from YOUR choices. I consider this ENTIRE post "seeing the light" and NOTHING more. I really am NOT an attorney, I have just built up a little bit of experience doing a divorce by myself, custody battles by myself and of course, this traffic case by myself...

[unearthmirrors]

I just recently was issued a ticket for Scott's Law (Illegal passing of an emergency vehicle).
I have always practiced this caution, as a courtesy...I never even knew it was a law. Well I was recently issued this ticket
and the sad thing was that I didn't commit the violation. I actually did get a lane over and traffic was so bad that I passed
with a cautious speed...maybe 10-15mph. While I believe this is a good law, I feel like it is used unfairly. I found out that if
I pleaded guilty I would lose my license for 90 days and be heavily fined, but good luck fighting for this when it's your word
vs. a police officer's word. What judge will decide in favor of the defendant in a police officer's safety concern? So basically,
whether you commit the offense or not, you are pretty much screwed. Against my instinct and reasoning, I went ahead and hired a
lawyer to fight this. Good thing I did! I guess lately people have been losing license for 90+ days, community service and
those ridiculous driving classes, not to mention the hundreds or even thousands in fines and fees. Ouch! Well I ended up hiring a lawyer
for a few hundred dollars and he was able to work magic and get me off with court supervision and a couple hundred dollars in
fines. I didn't lose my license, no community service, no classes and was able to get court supervision...in 90 days this will
be off my record (as it should be). Until this event I had a completely clean record free of tickets and have driven 15k+ miles
each year for work for the last few years. If I were a non-cautious bad driver, I think I'd have had a ticket or two in the
interim. Anyways, that was my rant. The police officer was completely rude and offensive...I will be filing a complaint. I feel
completely bent over by the man for this one. Had I committed the offense, I could look at the hundreds of dollars spent as a
lesson learned, but it hurts when I was innocent and not a thing to do about it. My lawyer stated that this is MAJOR money
maker ticket for the state (Illinois - go figure!). He mentioned it's known to be common for police to pull cars over for concerns

as license plate obstruction or seat belts, etc... in hopes of a car passing incorrectly in which they would leave the car
initially pulled over and go after the Scott's Law ticket...$$$. There are also conspirisy theorists out there that are calling this the
entrapment law. Police are pulling over and sitting and waiting for people to commit this so they can bust them. The cop that got
me had an unmarked white van pulled over and left it sit there to come and get me as he felt "I endangered his life." Wow!
A complete lane away going 10-15mph and I was endangering his life...interesting. Wonder if the unmarked white van was an under-
cover police officer helping in this act?...who knows! Either way, whether you commit it or not, you WILL NOT win...how can you?
Expect to pay greatly...I would DEFINITELY recommend getting legal representation!

[102020]

It's my opinion that if every traffic citation was fully contested, the tone of the prosecutors would change. Courts would be overwhelmed, jammed. Lets see, 3 years to hear a parking ticket case!
Fines are low for good reason, to maintain traffic courts. If parking tickets were $1000......

[Ronald Hudson]

It's a trap and you know it. The law was written to protect emergency responders. It is now being used as an easy way to write tickets n both good and bad drivers. Money is the game. It's huge on I-55 just northeast on Bloomington - the Towanda exit.

[Kalbo]

Glad I found this tread before I travel through Il. Thanks to all who posted here.

[NYrules]

Originally Posted by zbob99

I received a Scott's Law (Move Over Law) ticket yesterday on I-64 near Mt Vernon. The trooper's vehicle was stopped, well off on the side of the road, with lights flashing, no other cars around or any people around -- it did not look like an emergency situation. I normally slow down and move to an alternate lane if the situation looks hazardous but this one did not. I just thought this was some sort of "friendly" warning to keep to the speed limit, which I did. Also, I try to minimize lane changing for safety reasons.

I have never heard of this law and I am from Maryland where we do NOT have this law. No excuse, I know, but it still seems terribly unfair to expect outsiders to be familiar with this new law.

Illinois also seems to use this law abusively and actually sets traps to catch unaware motorists like me. This trooper was clearly not doing anything emergency related. He was just sitting there with lights flashing for no reason except as an entrapment setup.

The penalties are also outrageous. Mandatory requirement of a court appearance is unfair especially for out-of-towners like me. Also the fines are excessive --$150 to well over $300. Also, a person's license can be revoked and it can affect insurance rates? It is really unbelievable how overzealous the IL police and courts are pushing this.

I agree in principle with the spirit of the law but the aggressive style of enforcement is abusive, unfair and wrong. Anyway I have this ticket and a court date in January. I cannot afford to take time off from work and fly back to Illinois for court appearance. Some have suggested hiring a lawyer. I am totally distressed about this. Anyone have any suggestions on what I should do? Thanks.

Bob

Sorry, but it's called the state is broke and is looking for ANYWAY possible to raise revenue and cops are trying to justify their jobs. They saw out of state plates and figured you were an easy target.

[linicx]

No, it is called "ignorance is no excuse". I was taught to "move over"*50-years ago when I got my Illinois driver's license. Then it was called "defensive driving" and "common sense" to not impede the path of an emergency vehicle. Just becuase a driver doesn't see a stopped vehicle or ambulance does not mean the trooper did not receive a call to roll or that he/she was not preparing to move into traffic. Squad cars have driver "blind spots", too.

Originally Posted by NYrules

Sorry, but it's called the state is broke and is looking for ANYWAY possible to raise revenue and cops are trying to justify their jobs. They saw out of state plates and figured you were an easy target.

[NYrules]

Originally Posted by linicx

No, it is called "ignorance is no excuse". I was taught to "move over"*50-years ago when I got my Illinois driver's license. Then it was called "defensive driving" and "common sense" to not impede the path of an emergency vehicle. Just becuase a driver doesn't see a stopped vehicle or ambulance does not mean the trooper did not receive a call to roll or that he/she was not preparing to move into traffic. Squad cars have driver "blind spots", too.

I see those clowns sitting on the left shoulder/median of the Stevenson at about First Ave all the time just sitting over there sometimes even talking to another trooper who has parked his car in the opposite direction so both of their driver's windows are together and they can just shoot the S all day long and of course they have their emergency lights on while they are sitting there shooting the breeze, so you mean to tell me that you think everyone should move over and stop for that? More like it's called common sense. The OP CLEARLY stated the trooper was WAY OFF THE ROAD, not sitting on the side or coming up behind him. Read the original post then make your case.