Damn cops! (first ticket!)

[sil80drifter]

let them worklet them live

(protect your neighborhood bees)

sil80

[fenrisx]

I doubt that your speedometer was off.

Why, you ask?

Because those machines at the side of the road show speeds lower than everyone's speedometers, they're just there to scare you. In fact, I've gone past them at 80 mph and been clocked at 60, and 100 and been clocked at 80, etc...

Check it out. Get a friend to drive past one and check the speedometer; then check the machine. If it says less then the speedometer, give me 20usd. If it doesn't, give me 20usd anyway.

Oh yeah, and I'm sure that my speedometer isn't 20mph off, it would be kinda obvious. I'd bet that he was right on when he said that you were going 58mph.

I've done this and my stepdad has done it when I was with him, they were accurate both times. Maybe they only put them to scare you in your state, but here in Gerogia they're right. :0 Then again he doesn't live here so I don't guess it matters.

[C-Kwik]

Originally posted by C-Kwik "]I'm very surprised that this hasn't been challenged. It sounds quite unconstitutional to me.

Yea, well, bigger legal minds than you say that it isn't.

It's like saying that if a police report says your guilty of commiting murder, then you are automatically guilty unless you appeal.

Except that murder is a criminal offense, and speeding is a civil offense. You have fewer rights regarding civil infractions, and the standard of proof is different.

However, I would probably use this to my advantage. I see reasonable doubt written all over this.

Unfortunately, "reasonable doubt" is not the standard of proof in civil cases. Go ahead and try, though; It'll be fun to watch the magistrate laugh at you for playing lawyer.

Not to mention that fact that Appellate courts are where case law is made. Only one person will need to prove that an officer needs to show in the first trial and that would stand as new case law.

Again, you're demonstrating a gross misunderstanding of the legal system in our country. First of all, it would only stand as precedent in the appellate district where the decision was handed down, not everywhere. Even then, it's just a precedent; That doesn't make it a law.

Second, as I said, we're talking about a civil infraction, not a criminal infraction. The standard of proof in a civil case is based on a preponderance of the evidence, which places the advantage squarely into the hands of the guys with the radar guns.

Third, you'll have no basis for a constitutional challenge to the magistrate's decision. The need for the officer to appear at your hearing is already addressed at the level beyond that where, per the case I cited earlier in this thread, the officer does need to show. If the officer isn't at the first hearing and you raise an objection about it, the magistrate is just going to find you guilty and tell you to appeal. Constitutional problem addressed, case closed.

Stick to cars.

Sorry, but civil law is between two parties where a legal tort or liability for damages is involved. Criminal law includes infractions, misdemeanors and felonies. An infraction can still be charged or dismissed by a District Attorney, and has the same legal proceedings as a criminal case. Most courts do streamline the process by putting the arraignment with the trial, or have you plead when you set up a trial without having an actual arraignment hearing. While the state in question may handle it differently(which is one reason I feel it's unconstitutional), when you are cited for a traffic violation, it is a criminal offense. It does not get considered to be on record aside from DMV records since most are infractions. You have the same rights for an infraction as you do for a felony. The processes may be a bit different and may vary from state to state, or even court to court, but none should jeopardize any of your rights under the due process and the constitution.

I have been cited for a misdemeanor and fought it along with several infractions. I've appeared before many judges and all have taken me seriously. Win or lose, I have no problem arguing a good case. I deal with the civil law process daily in my line of work. I argue with attorneys on a regular basis and trust me when I say lawmakers, judges and attorneys do not have bigger legal minds. Most talk big, but think small. The prosecution still needs to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If this is not happeneing, then that is another issue altogether. But again, this is not a civil case. Show me evidence of something different and I'll consider it.

As far as the appellate district comment, you are correct. But I was referring to that district anyways since that is the only place I've now heard of this. And case law does stand until someone else can prove otherwise. But as you said, only in the district it was appealled in.

A Constitutional challenge would take place in the court of appeals. My contention in court would be to prove that the officer has not proven me guilty. The judge can choose to ignore my argument, but if he finds me guilty, I would appeal it and raise the legal issues again and I would hope that the ruling would show this prima facie evidence to be unconstitutional.

There are two types of law. Case law and Legislative law. While Case law is a precedent, it is highly regarded and considered as it would be cited by any good attorney in court. To pass them off as just a precedent would be ignorant. I would be iin a whole lot of trouble at work if I didn't strongly consider case law on the files I handle. All laws can be changed. All I say is that we need to fight to change law when it jeopardizes our rights.

[C-Kwik]

It doesn't matter if his speedometer is off, and mentioning that will surely get him found guilty. The magistrate may cut him a break - they usually do if you go to the trouble of attending a hearing - but it certainly won't get the ticket dismissed.

Even if he didn't know he was speeding, he was still speeding.

He may get more of a break if he goes into the hearing with a notarized statement from a speedometer shop indicating that his speedometer was off by more than how far over the limit he was. He's still not going to get a dismissal, though.

The magistrate doesn't want to dismiss the ticket, but he also doesn't want his decision to be appealed. So, he's going to knock a few bucks off the fine, and hope that Mark doesn't bother to appeal it.

I wouldn't go as far as saying a ticket won't get dismissed. It really depends on the court and judge. If I were to use this argument, I would also affirm that I was driving at a reasonably safe speed and why you felt it was reasonable along with proof of speedometer inaccuracy. But it's still no guarantee. A judge might find you guilty just because he doesn't like your shirt.

[WhtTrshPunk]

I got a ticket on my way home from school today because my window tint is over 32%....i told him i just bought the car a few weeks ago and that i havent had a chance to get it taken off and he said "well your getting a citation anyway"...stupid jerk

[ninjak84]

Ok, this thread turned out exactly how all threads like it have in the past.Everyone gives what they "think" is the law, but no one knows for sure. I am telling you with certainty, that means 100% sure, that if you get a ticket in Canada with a faulty speedo (even by 1 km/h) the ticket is ripped up. You instead get a fine, but it doesnt carry demerits. I suggest you just walk into a cop shop and ask them if the faulty speedo law applies to your area.