O/T Anyone ever beat a speeding ticket, if so how did you do it?

[Thebigone]

Once at my college there was literally no where to park and Le had a field day with giving tickets b/c literally 100's of students had to park in the residential neighborhood's and a ticket was $40 for that. You would literally see 100's of yellow tickets esp the first few weeks of school. So i'd always just take a yellow envelope i had from a previous ticket years ago, park with everyone else and put the ticket on my car lol worked everything. I love one upping the law and its greed. Almost feels better than cumming.

 

[WayBigger]

With the officer.. Just be as nice as you can be.. and have an excuse. In court, look for things on the ticket that could be innaccurate, anything from the correct road, MPH, Dangerous traffic causing you to speed up.. Those have all worked for me in front of a judge.. If you really want out of it, go talk to the judge..! Most will throw out some of the court cost if you appear and appeal the ticket.. In my state and most, the officer who wrote the ticket to show up if you contest that ticket.. and most will not appear..

 

[PeterBobJohn]

Depending on the charge impacts what you do
1. speeding under 85(or whatever your state claims is the reckless driving threshold) deny and show up.
2. Over 85 (reckless driving, some states different threshold) bring lawyer
in my state reckless is taken seriously
3. speeding along with addtional circustances, i.e. several offenses in your past, etc. bring lawyer

i interned in traffic court in law school, if you are caught with radar gun the cop has to testify that the gun was calibrated properly, has to bring paperwork, etc.
caught with no gun? state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were speeding based on a cop saying he said it looked like you were

Remember speeding is like every other criminal offense in that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the offense and you are entitled to a jury trial, I swear people have taken 70 mph tickets to trial with a jury and won.
State will always settle

 

[maldorf]

i interned in traffic court in law school, if you are caught with radar gun the cop has to testify that the gun was calibrated properly, has to bring paperwork, etc.
caught with no gun? state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were speeding based on a cop saying he said it looked like you were

Remember speeding is like every other criminal offense in that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the offense and you are entitled to a jury trial, I swear people have taken 70 mph tickets to trial with a jury and won.
State will always settle

Well, those things dont hold true evidentally in Ohio. See my post up the page a bit. Now all the police had to do is eyball your speed in our state and it will hold up in court. Its your word against theirs. If the police officer says you were speeding in Ohio, you were speeding and its as simple as that.

 

[HardKnox]

First, you dont know what prima facia speed limits mean obviously. Prima facia is not absolute, sorry but your confused, if you would like some links to do some research for yourself here are a few.

Prima Facie
In Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah driving faster than the speed limit is prima facie evidence of unreasonable speed. One can argue in court that one was exceeding the speed limit but should not be convicted because the speed was safe (when they accept this argument, judges will likely want to see evidence beyond a defendant's claim that he was driving safely). These states are marked

State Traffic and Speed Laws

2005 Texas Code - CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES - Texas Transportation Code :: Justia -- US Laws, Codes, Statutes & Cases -- Justia

the second link is the Texas Transportation Code, you can read it and it CLEARLY states what a prima facia speed limit means,

Second, i never said it was up to the officer to calibrate the equiptment, but the equiptment is supposed to be calibrated and it is supposed to be logged. My ticket says the officer radared me at 600ft, that two football fields, if the equiptment had not been calibrated recently then how do u think its gonna look???

Finally, i was asked if i wanted a trial by judge or a trial by jury, i chose a jurry cause i figure if i try to argue it will piss off the judge. so im not really worried about pissing off the judge. asking all those questions i mentioned will help you show that the officer does not remember the day very well and that you do, and it solidifies your credibility as to weather or not you were actually speeding and weakens his. you dont ask those questions to try and prove that it wasnt you driving, you ask the questions to prove that the officer does not even remember the day at all, therefore he cant argue against u cause he doesnt remember.

this advice i gave him is not my own, i did plenty of research and talked to a lawyer. you can do a simple google search and you will find dozens of published articles saying exactly what i said

I'm well aware of what Prima Facie is, it means on the face of, or at first sight, and if you read the transportation code, you'll see that it's still speeding. Here you go:

Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1 (b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;(2) 70 miles per hour in daytime and 65 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car, motorcycle, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer bearing a vessel, as defined by Section 31.003, Parks and Wildlife Code, that is less than 26 feet in length, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer used primarily to transport a motorcycle, or passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer designed and used primarily to transport dogs or livestock, on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road;

So you'd admit you were going over the limit with that argument, you're still speeding according to the definition as stated in the Transportation Code. You can talk to all the lawyers you want, all they care about it taking your money so you're out 500 bucks and you still think you won. Have at it. It's the same as saying I wasn't doing 80 your honor, I was only doing 75, regardless, you just admitted to speeding.

You can ask for the calibration log all you want, the officer doesn't keep that particular log and no, he doesn't have to log anything nor keep a book for it. The officers word that he checked the calibration prior to and at the end of shift is usually enough and if department policy doesn't dicate it, he won't be found of doing anything wrong.

You or anyone else can do or say anything you want in court, maybe you'll win, maybe you won't, maybe the OP will win or won't. Regardless of Jury selection, who do you think presides over the case? The Judge, and he can still get pissed off and put you in your place in his almighty courtroom (sarcasm). I've seen it time and time again, you asking the question what I was wearing, what was the weather out, what color are my eyes...they don't build up credibility, they don't show anything. The prosecutor will ask you the same kind of question: Mr Smith, what color tie or jeans or shoes were you wearing last year on May 10th.... you really remember? It works both ways and lends no extra credibility other than the fact that you signed the citation, set a court date and feel you weren't wrong. THAT is the basis of the case and that is what will allowed to be argued.

Either way, you got a 50/50 chance, some win, some lose, in the end the cop won't care.

 

[NY Muscle]

I just came from court today, this is from a speeding ticket from almost 10 yrs ago, how crazy. Well in NY (and I assume everywhere?) all tickets will get knocked down if you just show up. Make sure you plead guilty then you get the slip in the mail for your court date, you meet the cop and you negotiate. He gave me a parking on pavement - no points, $150 fee. In the past it was knocked down to no seatbelt, parking violations etc etc. I have never ever ever seen anyone get screwed unless they were doing like 100+mph but if you show up you will get it knocked down to some joke fine, happens to everyone. One tip though don't dress like a dirt bag or ghetto, wear slacks/shirt.

 

[S2N]

Just call a ticket lawyer

 

[Bigcuv]

Some of you are pretty naive.. like delay as long as possible b/c the cop won't remember? LOL.

I've been to court over a dozen times for speeding tickets. The cop has shown up EVERY SINGLE time except for once (which he fired/quit the force before my court date).

Every single time I've been to court the following has happened:
a) The police LIE through their teeth, every single time.
b) The judge always sides with the police.

If you get an honest cop or judge you will be extremely lucky.. I never have. The only way to actually win is to beat them on a legal basis, like a technicallity of the law.. many years ago I paid for TIPMRA and used that information.

I can tell you I have beat tickets where they measured my speed by PACE (aka used their speedometer to get my speed) and have never once won a case where they radar/laser'd me...

Something tells me if you've been to court over a dozen times, those cops werent lying on you. LOL

 

[cromespider]

Picked up a corvette in Utah on way home to WA 5 min after i got the corvette i got on the freeway and got a $400 ticket for going 125 lucky he did not take me to jail, never paid it just cant go back to utah any time soon no reason to. Got a $100 ticket in florida never paid it got a letter in the mail that said i would have my ID taken away if i did not pay it.

Have had a ton of local speeding tickets over the years get a lawer it will cost you 100 to 200 bucks it is the best way to go you can take a chamce of the cop not showing up but just pay the lawer most time it is less than the ticket

 

[csmith8]

Two Words- Laser Jammers. Works like a charm for those who drive a little to fast, or like to take the sports car for a real "Drive" !!!! Have to check your state laws to see if they are illegal or not.

 

[dragonfire101]

I forgot I did get one other ticket in y life about 15 yrs ago when I was about 17yrs old.

Went to Court and took a deal what they call a "charitable donation" to police department. They reduced the ticket in half because I told them I was a broke student and part of the deal was no points take off my license. Actually this happened a lot from others I have spoke to before I went so I knew to ask for that deal.

Other than that just the one the past year that I sent in not guilty, which I received letter from the Court it would be dismissed. I don't think any radar was used so probably be more of a hassle for them to pursue it.

 

[PeterBobJohn]

Well, those things dont hold true evidentally in Ohio. See my post up the page a bit. Now all the police had to do is eyball your speed in our state and it will hold up in court. Its your word against theirs. If the police officer says you were speeding in Ohio, you were speeding and its as simple as that.

no offense intended here but his word, meaning he saw you speeding, will not meet the state's burden of beyond a reasonable doubt
I am telling you a jury won't convict and can't based on someone thinking someone was speeding.
that burden is a heavy one and hard to meet, all state's have this standard when it comes to criminal matters.
read some jury trials pertaining to criminal matters in OH, google "beyond a reasonable doubt" you will see

 

[PeterBobJohn]

Something tells me if you've been to court over a dozen times, those cops werent lying on you. LOL

Jury trial, ask for a jury trial its your constitutional right, a bench trial? no way bro, never let a judge determine your innocence, ask for a jury trial

 

[PeterBobJohn]

I'm well aware of what Prima Facie is, it means on the face of, or at first sight, and if you read the transportation code, you'll see that it's still speeding. Here you go:

Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, Sec. 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1 (b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;(2) 70 miles per hour in daytime and 65 miles per hour in nighttime if the vehicle is a passenger car, motorcycle, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer bearing a vessel, as defined by Section 31.003, Parks and Wildlife Code, that is less than 26 feet in length, passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer used primarily to transport a motorcycle, or passenger car or light truck towing a trailer or semitrailer designed and used primarily to transport dogs or livestock, on a highway numbered by this state or the United States outside an urban district, including a farm-to-market or ranch-to-market road;

So you'd admit you were going over the limit with that argument, you're still speeding according to the definition as stated in the Transportation Code. You can talk to all the lawyers you want, all they care about it taking your money so you're out 500 bucks and you still think you won. Have at it. It's the same as saying I wasn't doing 80 your honor, I was only doing 75, regardless, you just admitted to speeding.

You can ask for the calibration log all you want, the officer doesn't keep that particular log and no, he doesn't have to log anything nor keep a book for it. The officers word that he checked the calibration prior to and at the end of shift is usually enough and if department policy doesn't dicate it, he won't be found of doing anything wrong.

You or anyone else can do or say anything you want in court, maybe you'll win, maybe you won't, maybe the OP will win or won't. Regardless of Jury selection, who do you think presides over the case? The Judge, and he can still get pissed off and put you in your place in his almighty courtroom (sarcasm). I've seen it time and time again, you asking the question what I was wearing, what was the weather out, what color are my eyes...they don't build up credibility, they don't show anything. The prosecutor will ask you the same kind of question: Mr Smith, what color tie or jeans or shoes were you wearing last year on May 10th.... you really remember? It works both ways and lends no extra credibility other than the fact that you signed the citation, set a court date and feel you weren't wrong. THAT is the basis of the case and that is what will allowed to be argued.

Either way, you got a 50/50 chance, some win, some lose, in the end the cop won't care.

lol

 

[maldorf]

no offense intended here but his word, meaning he saw you speeding, will not meet the state's burden of beyond a reasonable doubt
I am telling you a jury won't convict and can't based on someone thinking someone was speeding.
that burden is a heavy one and hard to meet, all state's have this standard when it comes to criminal matters.
read some jury trials pertaining to criminal matters in OH, google "beyond a reasonable doubt" you will see

Well, I guess then you need to challenge the supreme court of Ohio then. If you read that article I posted you would see how the supreme court ruled on that. The local court found him not guilty but then somehow the Ohio Supreme court got ahold of it and reversed the decision and found him guilty. Now that has set a precident for the state of Ohio. It was on all of the news channels here, I know because I watched it. I am not speaking out of my ass here, but am just stating the facts as they are now in Ohio.

You really need to understand that the law doesnt always work the way that it is supposed to. I can say for certain that in the state of Ohio they can convict you on just the officers word that you were speeding and they dont even need radar or laser.
Here is part of the article:
"(June 2, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled 5-1 that a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient to support a speeding conviction without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization, and experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.

In 2008 motorist Mark Jenney was convicted of speeding based on testimony by Copley police officer Christopher Santimarino that he observed Jenney’s SUV driving in the left lane “at a high rate of speed” which he visually estimated to be about 70 mph.

The 9th District Court of Appeals affirmed Jenney’s conviction on the basis of Santimarino’s visual estimate of his speed. Jenney sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 9th District’s decision.

In an opinion authored by Justice Maureen O’Connor, she noted that a majority of the appellate districts that have considered the issue have held that an officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding.

“The Eighth District stands alone in holding that an officer’s visual estimation of the speed of a vehicle is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, and we agree with the courts that have found the opposite,” Justice O’Connor wrote. “Rational triers of fact could find a police officer’s testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by OPOTA or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s speed. Independent verification of the vehicle’s speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding. The officer’s credibility remains an issue for the trier of fact.”

The Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court judgment and upheld Jenney’s conviction and fine.

Justice O’Connor’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.

In his dissent, Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote that a police officer’s credibility – just like that of any other witness – is to be determined by the jury or other fact-finder, which can believe all, part, or none of the testimony. “Thus, I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority that a trained, certified, and experienced officer’s estimate of speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding eclipses the role of the fact-finder to reject such testimony and thus such testimony, if found not be credible, could, in some instances, be insufficient to support a conviction.”

Chief Justice Eric Brown did not participate in the Court’s deliberations or decision in the case."

 

[thebrick]

All this hair splitting over a ticket. Bottom line, it comes down to what kind of mood the judge is in that day.

 

[Thebigone]

All this hair splitting over a ticket. Bottom line, it comes down to what kind of mood the judge is in that day.

This is true and its sickening that one man can make a decision on someone based on their mood. I'd like to have a pic of his wife and kids in a basement and when he give the ticket show it to him and say "change of mood at all?"

 

[PeterBobJohn]

hey no problem, you went to law school as well, no problemo bro
I believe you, your interpretation is spot on

Well, I guess then you need to challenge the supreme court of Ohio then. If you read that article I posted you would see how the supreme court ruled on that. The local court found him not guilty but then somehow the Ohio Supreme court got ahold of it and reversed the decision and found him guilty. Now that has set a precident for the state of Ohio. It was on all of the news channels here, I know because I watched it. I am not speaking out of my ass here, but am just stating the facts as they are now in Ohio.

You really need to understand that the law doesnt always work the way that it is supposed to. I can say for certain that in the state of Ohio they can convict you on just the officers word that you were speeding and they dont even need radar or laser.
Here is part of the article:
"(June 2, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled 5-1 that a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient to support a speeding conviction without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization, and experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.

In 2008 motorist Mark Jenney was convicted of speeding based on testimony by Copley police officer Christopher Santimarino that he observed Jenney’s SUV driving in the left lane “at a high rate of speed” which he visually estimated to be about 70 mph.

The 9th District Court of Appeals affirmed Jenney’s conviction on the basis of Santimarino’s visual estimate of his speed. Jenney sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 9th District’s decision.

In an opinion authored by Justice Maureen O’Connor, she noted that a majority of the appellate districts that have considered the issue have held that an officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding.

“The Eighth District stands alone in holding that an officer’s visual estimation of the speed of a vehicle is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, and we agree with the courts that have found the opposite,” Justice O’Connor wrote. “Rational triers of fact could find a police officer’s testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by OPOTA or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s speed. Independent verification of the vehicle’s speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding. The officer’s credibility remains an issue for the trier of fact.”

The Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court judgment and upheld Jenney’s conviction and fine.

Justice O’Connor’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.

In his dissent, Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote that a police officer’s credibility – just like that of any other witness – is to be determined by the jury or other fact-finder, which can believe all, part, or none of the testimony. “Thus, I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority that a trained, certified, and experienced officer’s estimate of speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding eclipses the role of the fact-finder to reject such testimony and thus such testimony, if found not be credible, could, in some instances, be insufficient to support a conviction.”

Chief Justice Eric Brown did not participate in the Court’s deliberations or decision in the case."

 

[ericraven2003]

Picked up a corvette in Utah on way home to WA 5 min after i got the corvette i got on the freeway and got a $400 ticket for going 125 lucky he did not take me to jail, never paid it just cant go back to utah any time soon no reason to. Got a $100 ticket in florida never paid it got a letter in the mail that said i would have my ID taken away if i did not pay it.

You know these will eventually catch up with you and it will always happen at the worse time in your life. I would take care of that shit if I were you.

 

[maldorf]

hey no problem, you went to law school as well, no problemo bro
I believe you, your interpretation is spot on

Ok Mr. Lawyer, go fight the Ohio Supreme court. Challenge their decision! Go right ahead! It is not my interpretation of the law, it is the Ohio Supreme court's. I am just reporting to you what they decided. If you do not like it and think it is unconstitutional then you should challenge the decision.