Posted on 10/13/2005 2:21:15 PM PDT by freepatriot32
My rearview mirror exploded with blue and white lights. I glanced down at my speedometer -- I was pushing 80 mph. But the cars around me were going about the same speed. Could this cop really be pulling me over?
I carefully navigated my way across six lanes of traffic. I pulled over on the shoulder and waited, my heart pounding. Moments later the motorcycle cop's helmeted face appeared in the passenger window.
"License and registration," he said, raising his voice over the roar of the traffic.
"What's the problem?" I asked.
"You were doing 80 in a 65-mile-an-hour zone." He disappeared before I could argue the point.
Busted.
I sat there fuming, thinking of the money this would cost me, the increased insurance premiums or the cost and time to attend traffic school. And for what? Going 80 miles per hour on the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles where speeds routinely reach 80 and even soar into the 90s? No way was I a reckless driver, the kind you see threading the needle between a tractor-trailer truck and a school bus. Those guys deserved tickets, not me. Still, I was--
Busted.
When the cop returned I tried a few excuses on him.
Me: I was going with the flow of traffic.
Cop: You passed three cars while I was behind you.
Me: Maybe I was speeding, but I couldn't have been going 80 -- not in this little gas/electric hybrid Honda Insight.
Cop: I followed you for a half mile. If you had seen me and slowed down, I wouldn't ticket you.
Me: I'm vulnerable in this little car and need to keep up with traffic.
Cop: You should drive slower and more carefully in a small car.
Obviously, he'd heard it all. I signed the ticket with a shaky hand and surrendered to my fate. But wait! Other drivers at Edmunds.com had received tickets and beat them. I could do the same thing. I would fight my ticket.
A few days later, I shared this story with Walt Meyer, a friend of mine who is a freelance writer and also teaches at a comedy traffic school. I told him I was going to fight my ticket.
"You'll lose," he said.
"Why? I was going with the flow of traffic," I whined.
"Oh, so there was a road sign saying 'Go with the flow'?"
Jeez, and I thought he was my friend.
"If you really want to try to fight your ticket, read 'Beat the Cops' by Alex Carroll," Meyer said. "But you'll probably lose anyway."
I ordered the book through Carroll's Web site and read it. And for the first time since seeing those blue and white lights I felt a glimmer of hope. The book describes how the author got 16 tickets in a short time and was able to nullify 10 of them. He eventually wrote his book based on what he learned.
Even more interesting was the writer's perspective. Unlike traffic cops, who make you feel like a serial killer for speeding, the book states that the majority of tickets are issued to generate money for government municipalities. Insurance companies benefit from traffic tickets, too, raising your rates when your driving record shows a moving violation. The National Motorists Association claims that costly radar guns are donated to police departments by some insurance carriers to encourage them to write more speeding tickets.
Finally, I was getting somewhere in this process. I called Carroll and told him the details of my traffic stop.
"A speeding ticket based on pacing is the hardest kind to beat," he said.
"Pacing" is when a police officer follows you and checks your speed by looking at his speedometer. Speeding tickets can also be issued based on an officer "estimating" your speed -- this is nothing more than a cop watching you and guessing how fast you are going.
According to Carroll, there are three ways to beat a ticket:
1. The cop doesn't show up for court
2. You exploit a technicality (such as a problem with the patrol car's speedometer)
3. You have a good argument for extenuating circumstances (you are speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital)
This reminded me of a story a friend told me. He was driving down a canyon road when he struck a bird, which became lodged under the windshield wipers. His daughters were in the car with him and they began screaming hysterically. He sped up to dislodge the bird and, at that moment, was pulled over for speeding. When he told this bizarre story to a judge, the ticket was dismissed.
My pacing ticket didn't fall easily into any of Carroll's three categories. The only technical angle to exploit was to prove that my speedometer was malfunctioning. I spoke to Edmunds.com's technical editor and he told me the speedometer might in fact be wrong. My heart jumped. "I think it's actually a little low," he said.
Another tactic Carroll describes is to delay the trial to a time when the ticketing officer can't come to court. He suggested I call the station house where my California Highway Patrol officer was based and find out when he was on vacation, or what his days off were. This could be done by calling over a number of days to find out when he was working. Then, when I extended my court date, try to schedule it for a day that he wasn't on duty.
Other strategies might include requesting the officer's notes written on the back of the ticket hoping there is something there which is inaccurate.
I decided to extend the date of my trial to increase the chances the officer wouldn't appear in court. As I attempted to do this I made an alarming discovery. You can request only one postponement (called an "extension") and it must be requested 10 days before your trial date. This is stated in very small print on the ticket, and it doesn't really make sense. I mean, you're more apt to have a scheduling conflict arise at the last minute rather than 10 days earlier. But this is the way the law is written so I was committed to the assigned trial date.
However, I still had one ace in the hole. If the ticketing officer did show up, and my defense was falling on deaf ears, I could quote California Vehicle Code 41501 allowing me to attend traffic school. But -- and this was important -- I should make a photocopy of the law because some judges weren't familiar with it.
"If it looks like you're going to lose, say, 'Your honor, I see that you're very busy here. I will cite CVC 41501 and take traffic school,'" Meyer told me.
With this backup plan in mind I set about creating a reasonable sounding argument. But I had to get busy. My court date was in three days
Part Two -- Your Day in Traffic Court
On the day of my trial for a speeding ticket I arrived outside traffic court in West Los Angeles to find about 30 people milling around, waiting for the doors to open. At the other end of the corridor, the police officers who had issued the tickets had gathered. I noticed that these two groups didn't mingle at all.
When the doors finally opened (45 minutes late) we all filed into the courtroom. The police officers sat on one side of the room while the ticketed motorists sat on the other.
I had prepared for my day in court in several ways:
I wore a coat and tie I had read several books about presenting cases in traffic court I had drawn a diagram of the area where the traffic stop occurred I had copies of the California Vehicle Codes relevant to my case The only thing I was lacking was a compelling argument to prove that I wasn't speeding. I mean, I was speeding and there were no real technicalities I could exploit to contradict that. My strategy was to wait until the last possible moment, hoping the ticketing officer didn't show up, and then, if he did make an appearance, invoke California Vehicle Code 41501 stating my right to go to traffic school.
The judge finally appeared and told us that he would be reading off our names. If we were prepared to proceed to trial, we should respond by saying, "Ready." The judge sternly warned us that this was our last chance to opt for traffic school. If we went to trial and lost, there would be points on our license. If we took traffic school now our sins would be forgiven.
Surveying the room, the judge then said to one of his clerks, "You know, I saw a lot of officers downstairs. Let them know we're starting now." The clerk disappeared. This, and several other comments showed that the judge was trying to scare us into taking traffic school rather than tying up the court with a trial.
The judge then began reading our names. In several cases, the defendant answered, "Ready," and the police officers responded by saying, "The people are ready." The judge set these case files to one side for trial. But in over half of the cases there was no response from the police. In other cases the police responded by saying, "Officer doesn't remember," and the case was dismissed.
In one case, the judge got no response when he called the police officer's name. He told his clerk, "Check downstairs. I know I saw the officer down there." This case file was set to one side, and the defender slouched in his seat, muttering an obscenity. The people whose cases were dismissed usually said, "All right!" and left the courtroom with a spring in their step.
When my name was called I responded with a confident, "Ready!" The judge then called out the police officer's name. I held my breath. He called it again. No response. The judge glanced over the case and said, "People unable to proceed. Case dismissed. Watch your speed." I left the courtroom feeling a load was lifted, and joined the other celebrating ex-offenders in the corridor.
As I walked back to my car I realized that I had won in a number of ways: The charges were dropped and my $77 fine would be returned No points would be put on my license My insurance premiums would not go up I wouldn't have to spend the money or time on traffic school All of these benefits were the result of taking the time to go to traffic court.
Several days later a friend of mine had a different experience in court. So far this year my friend has beat two tickets and lost two. The two tickets he successfully challenged were for speeding based on radar and were given to him by California Highway Patrol; the two he lost were from city police departments for non-speeding moving violations. In this particular case he was ticketed for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He went to court in West Los Angeles and waited for the entire afternoon for the chance to argue his case.
My friend reported that the judge in his courtroom was like a flamboyant game show host. When he ruled in favor of the driver, he seemed to share in the excitement of the moment by boisterously proclaiming, "Looks like you won't be going to traffic school! And we'll even be mailing you your money back!" But when he ruled against the motorist he became sarcastic and abrupt.
The order of the events in the trials were: The officer described the circumstances under which he issued the ticket The judge asked the officer follow-up questions about the case The defendant told his or her side of the story The judge questioned the defendant and referred further questions to the officer In some cases, the defendant was allowed to tell his story only to discover that the officer had shot a video of the traffic stop. These cases always went against the driver.
When my friend was stopped he had asked the police officer: "Are you saying that I blew off the stop sign completely?" The officer said, "No. You just rolled through it." But in court the cop told a different story.
The officer described the location where he was parked and stated that he had an unobstructed view of the intersection. He then told the judge that my friend had gone through the stop sign at 15 mph. The judge then asked, "What's the error factor in your speed estimation certification?" The officer said it was "plus or minus 3 mph."
When it came time to issue a ruling, this judge used this fact against my friend. He said, "Assume for a minute that the officer had been having a bad day. That still means you were going at least 9 mph. Suppose he was having a really, really bad day. That still means you were going 6 miles an hour."
My friend felt that he had learned an important lesson from this trip to court. Since the police officer presents his side of the story first, you should try to anticipate what he will say and create your strategy accordingly. Clearly, this officer had presented what he thought would be an ironclad story to refute someone trying to say that they didn't "roll" through the intersection. If he had said that my friend had gone through the intersection at 5 mph without stopping, that 3 mph variation in his speed estimation certification would be cutting it pretty close.
This brought up another important point. Walter Meyer, a traffic school instructor and freelance writer who lives in San Diego, Calif., said that if the case hinges on your word versus the police officer, the judge will usually rule in favor of the officer. This is because police officers are perceived as experts in traffic rules. Furthermore, Meyer said, "The judge knows that he can walk out the door of the courthouse and find a dozen people breaking the traffic laws." This leads to an attitude of "guilty until proven innocent" — at least in traffic court.
This was echoed by my friend who had some advice for anyone going to try his or her case in traffic court: "Make sure your case is based on concrete evidence and don't rely strictly on what the officer said at the time of the traffic stop. Don't just go in there and say, 'I didn't do it.'"
For example, one woman who successfully challenged her ticket convinced the judge that the stop sign she supposedly ran was resting on a concrete pylon that was too low to see. She brought photos to court to show the judge and her case was dismissed.
Although my case was dismissed, I still had one important step. Experts advise that you contact the DMV and get a copy of your driving record to make sure your dismissed case hasn't inadvertently wound up on your license. While the clerical error is the court's fault, you could be the one spending a night in jail.
As my friend and I discussed our experiences we agreed that there was very little reason not to go to traffic court. There was some chance that the officer wouldn't show up and your case would be dismissed. If the officer did appear, you could always opt for traffic school at the last minute. Furthermore, some speeding tickets (most notably radar tickets) can be challenged on a technicality. Other tickets can be dismissed by presenting evidence such as diagrams or photographs.
It's important to take a larger view of this whole subject. The police write many tickets knowing that the motorist will simply pay their fine by mail hoping to put the whole incident behind them. Other offenders will choose traffic school. Only a small group of motorists will ask for a trial in traffic court. And an even smaller number will actually go to trial.
Clearly, if everyone went to traffic court, the system would become overburdened and collapse. So, if you feel your ticket was unwarranted, ask for your day in court — you could walk out a winner.
Seems to me like this guy probably spent more money on books than the fine and more time in preperation than traffic school would have taken. I speed pretty much every time I get behind the wheel, get caught every 3 or 4 years, no big deal.
That's usually the next thing he says.
Dudley Doright gave me a ticket for 80 in a 65 coming off a mountain just south of Bluefield, VA.
Just a typical Sunday morning revenue enhancer.
I recall driving about 100 miles on a The 15 from Paris Valley to San Diego in a line of traffic doing 80-85 all the way. (And honestly, I don't feel comfortable at that speed.) This was back during the nation wide 55 limit. Later I was talking to one of the CA Highway Patrol and asked him what you had to do to get a speeding ticket out there. He said as long as you really are keeping up with traffic, don't weave from lane to lane trying to pass at those speeds, maintain a safe distance, and don't have a dead body plastered on your front bumper, they weren't going to stop you.
If this guy was in the passing lane at 85, then he wasn't just "keeping up".
Most illegal aliens in California make more than $77 dollars per day and don't buy insurance anyway, so what's the point?
It's important always to fight every speeding ticket you get. Even if you lose, you'll have made the government spend the money (court and officer's time) to "prove" their case, which hopefully is more than the actual cost of the fine. Everyone fighting every ticket (and overloading/bankrupting the system) is possibly the only hope of getting speed limits set by engineers for safety rather than politicians for revenue.
Driving on the four lane
Sitting on the side of the highway between Delcambre and New Iberia, Officer Thibodeaux sees a car putting along at 14 miles per hour. He thinks to himself, "This driver is just as dangerous as a speeder!" So he turns on his lights and pulls the driver over.
Approching the car, he notices there are five old ladies - two in the front and three in the back - wide eyed and white as ghosts. The driver, Melba Boudreaux, obviously confused, says to him, "Officer, I don't understand. I was doing exactly the speed limit! What seems to be the problem?"
"Ma'am," Officer Thibodeaux replies, "you weren't speeding, but you should know that driving slower that the speed limit can be as much a danger to other drivers".
"Slower that the speed limit? No, sir! I was going the speed limit exactly ... 14 miles per hour!" the old woman says a bit proudly.
The State Police Officer, trying to contain a chuckle, explains to her that 14 was the highway number, not the speed limit. A bit embarassed, the woman grinned and thanked the officer for pointing out her error.
"But before I let you go, Ma'am, I have to ask, is everyone in this car OK? These women seem awfully shaken and haven't muttered a single peep this whole time," the officer asked.
"Oh, they'll be alright, officer. We just got off Highway 90."
Do you know how fast you were Freeping? Bump for later read.
I'm sure you never ever break a traffic law. Please, it's almost impossible not to. This is good advice, plus everone is due their day in court if they want it. You know, innocent until proven guilty?
"It's important always to fight every speeding ticket you get".
Loved that one , sent it to my Mom.
I have plenty of self-discipline. Speed limits set by politicians for revenue enhancement are unjust and unsafe laws; thus there is no moral or ethical problem with violating them or with fighting the government if charged with violating them. So no self-discipline is needed one way or another.
A slight correction: I use my self-discipline to travel a safe and comfortable speed for me, my car, and the conditions. Sometimes that's less than the speed limit, and sometimes more, but either way I don't go over that speed.
Oh, I have. I just don't try to scam my way out of facing the music when I get busted.
Where's the innocent bit coming from? Guy admitted in the darned article that he was as guilty as sin, for cryin' out loud.
Just tell the cop you were speeding over to his old lady's house so you could have plenty of time with her while he was on duty...that usually works lol
If I can get out of it I will. If I get a promised day in court per the law and take advantage of it it's not a scam, it's using my rights under the law.
That's after he won in court. You have to be proven guilty in court. I'm sure you think of that as a mere technicality but it's the way the law works.
Here's my secret way to get out of tickets:
Cop: Do you know why I stopped you?
Me: Yeah, I think I was going 80 in a 65
Cop: Yup. Here's your ticket. Have a nice day
BTW - if you pass me driving like an idiot, and later down the road I see your car slam into the treeline, I'm NOT stopping to render aid. Well, I might stop to mock you, but I'm sick of agressive idiots on the road.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.