Tomtexan,
I explained more about the date in a PM to the OP, but let me say a little bit here. In most cases, nothing on the ticket really matters. What is of legal consequence is the complaint filed with the court. That is the list of exactly what is alleged and must be proven. Some courts do use the ticket as the complaint, in which case it matters. It still does not have to be exact, just close enough for you to know what is alleged to prepare a defense. Some complaints will read "on xx day, at or about xx time" because no one really knows exactly which time it was. Others will say "on or about xx date at xx time" for the same reason. In the first case, the date makes much more of a difference than in the second.
But the real importance of the date on the ticket is it can be used to show the officer made mistakes. If he was sloppy about this, what other mistakes did he make - like which vehicle was being tracked by the radar? That is when you get the jury to side with you instead of them.
Search found 2 matches
- Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:56 am
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: First Contact
- Replies: 32
- Views: 5503
- Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:22 am
- Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
- Topic: First Contact
- Replies: 32
- Views: 5503
Re: First Contact
Shasta,
You can fight the ticket if you want. There are several ways to argue a speeding ticket. If you want to say you were not doing the indicated speed, I do not give you high odds on winning without some hard evidence of your sped, such as a GPS track that was live recording and shows the time. In addition, in the eyes of the law, the amount of speed over the limit is irrelevant. If you admit to one mile over, you admit you have broken the law and that is what the judge looks at.
You could argue the equipment malfunctioned, but that is also very hard to prove. You can subpoena the maintenance log for the radar gun to see if you want tot try that tack. Almost as hard is arguing that the officer did not know how to run it properly. You can subpoena his training records, again to see if it is worth trying that tack.
You can also argue that the search was illegal. Use of radar constitutes a search which must be predicated on probable cause. But most traffic courts will not agree that radar is a search because the judges are not always trained lawyers. There is no legal requirement to be a lawyer to be appointed a municipal court judge or get elected JP. Many cops will also disagree on if radar is a search or not. So I do not give this one high odds either.
Finally, you can argue that you wee not speeding, even if you were going faster than what was posted. The actual law is that you can not go faster than what is reasonable and prudent and the posted sign is just a prima facie case. If you can convince the judge that the posted sign is too low, you win. With a 75 MPH posted limit, I have trouble thinking the judge will buy this one also, but it is really the best bet in my opinion.
As you can see, I don't have a lot of faith in your beating a ticket in a trial, but it can happen. Without some evidence of your speed (such as that GPS track), it comes down to your word against the officer's. You would need to impeach his testimony to win. You would have to show that he has a better reason to lie than you do, which is very hard.
Which leads me to my advice to take the defensive driving court or work some other plea bargain (such as most of those lawyers do). Not really a fair system, but a fact of life.
You can fight the ticket if you want. There are several ways to argue a speeding ticket. If you want to say you were not doing the indicated speed, I do not give you high odds on winning without some hard evidence of your sped, such as a GPS track that was live recording and shows the time. In addition, in the eyes of the law, the amount of speed over the limit is irrelevant. If you admit to one mile over, you admit you have broken the law and that is what the judge looks at.
You could argue the equipment malfunctioned, but that is also very hard to prove. You can subpoena the maintenance log for the radar gun to see if you want tot try that tack. Almost as hard is arguing that the officer did not know how to run it properly. You can subpoena his training records, again to see if it is worth trying that tack.
You can also argue that the search was illegal. Use of radar constitutes a search which must be predicated on probable cause. But most traffic courts will not agree that radar is a search because the judges are not always trained lawyers. There is no legal requirement to be a lawyer to be appointed a municipal court judge or get elected JP. Many cops will also disagree on if radar is a search or not. So I do not give this one high odds either.
Finally, you can argue that you wee not speeding, even if you were going faster than what was posted. The actual law is that you can not go faster than what is reasonable and prudent and the posted sign is just a prima facie case. If you can convince the judge that the posted sign is too low, you win. With a 75 MPH posted limit, I have trouble thinking the judge will buy this one also, but it is really the best bet in my opinion.
As you can see, I don't have a lot of faith in your beating a ticket in a trial, but it can happen. Without some evidence of your speed (such as that GPS track), it comes down to your word against the officer's. You would need to impeach his testimony to win. You would have to show that he has a better reason to lie than you do, which is very hard.
Which leads me to my advice to take the defensive driving court or work some other plea bargain (such as most of those lawyers do). Not really a fair system, but a fact of life.