Fighting a traffic ticket.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Hey so my buddy got a ticket here a month or so ago for doing 85 in a 70. For the record I think he is totally guilty but he is planning on fighting it anyways.
Here's the deal...He doesn't know if he should plea guilty with an excuse or not guilty.
I said he should go with not guilty because you never want to admit anything. Excuses are like ***holes and I think if he did guilty with an excuse, they are going to say ok that's nice but you admitted you were speeding and make him pay up. So not guilty is the way to go.

He also plans on saying that the cop singled him out or thought he was speeding because of how loud his car is. He has a Mustang GT with aftermarket exhaust. When he got pulled over he did not ask to see the radar gun. I have a feeling the officer will just say yea well I clocked you at 85, and the case would be over.
I told him he should question the radar gun. I said ask when it was last inspected. If it was not inspected when it was supposed to be or the cop does not have that info, the case can get thrown out. Because if the cop cannot provide evidence that the radar gun was in proper working order, it may not be accurate.
If he doesn't even have the radar gun it's the cops word vs his word. Generally the cop has the upper hand here but my friend has never had a speeding ticket, has never been convicted of a crime or been in any type of trouble, and has always paid his car insurance on time. He is a good citizen so his word should account for something.
Is my logic correct here? Is there anything else he could try? Or do you think this is just a waste of time?
Thanks guys

[vikesfankevin1986]

Damn this forum is dead today...He has court tomorrow morning lol

[IBCoupe]

So, he might plead guilty with an excuse and claim that the radar gun was faulty?

"Yeah, I did it, but I shouldn't be charged because you didn't know I did it!"

Does that sound convincing to you?

[vikesfankevin1986]

No, I said he SHOULD NOT plead guilty with an excuse, I said that is stupid. I said he should plead not guilty.

[IBCoupe]

I know, but you seemed to leave it as a possibility. If his plan is to say that he didn't do it and that it was a faulty radar gun, he should plead not guilty.

[vikesfankevin1986]

He left it open as a possibility and was going to say it was because of his exhaust. The radar gun was my idea. I told him you never admit to anything because in the end you are admitting to it. It's like when a cop asks if he can search the car...um no. You see this so much on cops. They ask if they can search the car and the person is like yea I don't have anything to hide...then the cop finds drugs. You were home free...drive away...

[IBCoupe]

One thing to note, the cop has to, as a matter of policy, single people out. He can't possibly pull over everyone that speeds. It doesn't matter if he singled out your guy because he had a loud exhaust. If he was speeding, the cop's still justified, and I think your friend is better served by not saying, "I was speeding and I have an ungodly-loud exhaust."

[vikesfankevin1986]

One thing to note, the cop has to, as a matter of policy, single people out. He can't possibly pull over everyone that speeds. It doesn't matter if he singled out your guy because he had a loud exhaust. If he was speeding, the cop's still justified, and I think your friend is better served by not saying, "I was speeding and I have an ungodly-loud exhaust."

I know, I told this to my friend also. That's why I said to fight the guns accuracy. It's like when people say "well everyone around me was speeding." Yea probably, but so were you, you were still breaking the law whether or not you were singled out.

[Crazyirish]

Why not just go for faulty equipment and get the ticket reduced like everyone else? Way less hassle. On a side note, for most people it is a huge mistake to represent themselves. Tell your friend to bite the bullet and send a lawyer. Let the lawyer figure out his best defense.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Ok he went to court and apparently there were a ton of people there for traffic tickets. The lawyer told him that he doesn't have anything that would hold up in court. He said that he can either pay 200 bucks today (for a 140 dollar ticket) and get it off his record in a year, or they could set up a court date and it would be him against the officer.
He decided to pay.

I don't believe in the laywer saying that defense wouldn't hold up. I think the whole faulty equipment thing was a great idea. I mean obviously if the cop has the info and proof it was in working order its no good, but I still think it could hold up.

Also on a final note...apparently the cop made a comment on the ticket or whatever that his exhaust was really loud. WTF does that mean? His exhaust is loud? So? I don't say "well the officer's mustache is really gay." What would that prove? Nothing...

[heliochrome85]

Ok he went to court and apparently there were a ton of people there for traffic tickets. The lawyer told him that he doesn't have anything that would hold up in court. He said that he can either pay 200 bucks today (for a 140 dollar ticket) and get it off his record in a year, or they could set up a court date and it would be him against the officer.
He decided to pay.

I don't believe in the laywer saying that defense wouldn't hold up. I think the whole faulty equipment thing was a great idea. I mean obviously if the cop has the info and proof it was in working order its no good, but I still think it could hold up.

Also on a final note...apparently the cop made a comment on the ticket or whatever that his exhaust was really loud. WTF does that mean? His exhaust is loud? So? I don't say "well the officer's mustache is really gay." What would that prove? Nothing...

having picked up a hefty ticket in every city ive lived in since i started driving, i can tell you, deferment is a good thing. pay the tiny bit more now, slow the hell down, and keep your insurance premiums down.

ticket 1: almost got side swiped by a drunk driver in college, so i gunned it. 75 in a 45. he wrote it for 65 in a 45.
ticket 2: pulled over across from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on at 11:45pm on May 30th, a sunday, for going 38 in a 35.
ticket 3: Got ran off the road by an Indiana DNR officer. so i layed on my horn and gunned it to get away from him. he was texting. he pulled me over and gave me a 275 dollar ticket for going 70 in a 60 zone.

lesson 1: fast cars are bad
lesson 2: deferment can be a life saver.

[vikesfankevin1986]

That sounds more like a case of bored officers. They should be dealing with real problems...

[stebo0728]

Ok he went to court and apparently there were a ton of people there for traffic tickets. The lawyer told him that he doesn't have anything that would hold up in court. He said that he can either pay 200 bucks today (for a 140 dollar ticket) and get it off his record in a year, or they could set up a court date and it would be him against the officer.
He decided to pay.

I don't believe in the laywer saying that defense wouldn't hold up. I think the whole faulty equipment thing was a great idea. I mean obviously if the cop has the info and proof it was in working order its no good, but I still think it could hold up.

Also on a final note...apparently the cop made a comment on the ticket or whatever that his exhaust was really loud. WTF does that mean? His exhaust is loud? So? I don't say "well the officer's mustache is really gay." What would that prove? Nothing...

having picked up a hefty ticket in every city ive lived in since i started driving, i can tell you, deferment is a good thing. pay the tiny bit more now, slow the hell down, and keep your insurance premiums down.

ticket 1: almost got side swiped by a drunk driver in college, so i gunned it. 75 in a 45. he wrote it for 65 in a 45.
ticket 2: pulled over across from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on at 11:45pm on May 30th, a sunday, for going 38 in a 35.
ticket 3: Got ran off the road by an Indiana DNR officer. so i layed on my horn and gunned it to get away from him. he was texting. he pulled me over and gave me a 275 dollar ticket for going 70 in a 60 zone.

lesson 1: fast cars are bad
lesson 2: deferment can be a life saver.

Sounds about typical, at least paying the tickets were worth your life i guess ...

[C-Kwik]

I don't believe in the laywer saying that defense wouldn't hold up. I think the whole faulty equipment thing was a great idea. I mean obviously if the cop has the info and proof it was in working order its no good, but I still think it could hold up.

The faulty equipment argument can be a workable defense but there has to be good evidence that the radar was not working. I forget the legal term for it, but most, if not all courts have established a precedence that radar is effective and accurate. That said, simply stating the argument that the equipment was faulty will not be enough. He would need to show the court reasonably credible evidence of the faulty equipment. Don't make the assumption that a winning defense is trivial.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I don't believe in the laywer saying that defense wouldn't hold up. I think the whole faulty equipment thing was a great idea. I mean obviously if the cop has the info and proof it was in working order its no good, but I still think it could hold up.

The faulty equipment argument can be a workable defense but there has to be good evidence that the radar was not working. I forget the legal term for it, but most, if not all courts have established a precedence that radar is effective and accurate. That said, simply stating the argument that the equipment was faulty will not be enough. He would need to show the court reasonably credible evidence of the faulty equipment. Don't make the assumption that a winning defense is trivial.

Well right but like any other piece of equipment, it needs to be inspected and they would keep record of that. If it was supposed to be inspected on the 10th and wasn't, and you were clocked on the 12th, I think that is a valid argument. However if he has proof that it was in fact inspected on the 10th, then that defense doesn't work. But who knows...maybe the officer does not have that info with him or maybe it was not inspected on schedule. This is all just an idea. I am not a law or criminal justice student and I have never actually been to court. I'm just brainstorming.

[C-Kwik]

From my experience (I fought 6 tickets and in doing so, you get to hear a lot of other cases while waiting for your own), most cops come prepared to present their radar evidence. Most cops have been to court many more times than an average citizen (probably even more than attorneys) and will have seen many arguments. I'd imagine they get training on what to bring to court and what they will need to present. Equipment maintenance is likely scheduled by the department and would be unlikely that it will be open to argument. Its certainly possible that there could be something that might undermine the officer's case, but it would be best to try and find out well ahead of the trial by requesting the documents ahead of time. Without getting into a discussion about ethics, if one were to want to get out of a ticket regardless of if they were actually guilty of the infraction or not, making this argument and having it shut in your face can close the door on a lot of other arguments. A good argument will be specific and consistent. If you tried to say the radar was off and you weren't speeding but the officer provided all the documents to show the radar was maintained properly and used properly, you lose access to other arguments. For example, in CA the law states that going over the speed limit is allowed if you can prove it was safe to do so. A radar argument would suggest that you weren't going over the speed limit. But if you decided to pursue the argument that your speed was safe, after making the radar argument, you're credibility would be out the window. The judge would probably not even let you provide any other arguments, find you guilty and close the case. Generally speaking, the best way to fight a ticket is to look at all possible defenses. Obtain documentation or evidence to support each potential defense and then decide which is the best course based on credibility. In many cases, different defenses will be contradictory as I gave an example of above, but in some cases, you might find complimentary arguments. But advising anyone to make such an argument blindly is foolish. To be fair, if he discussed this with you the day before, there isn't going to be a whole lot you can tell him that will help him. At best, for a radar inaccuracy argument, I'd approach it in a passive manner by understanding what the minimum maintenance and proper use is supposed to be and listen for potential opportunities. The office provides his testimony first, so he would have the opportunity to adjust his argument at that time, but it can be risky as he can trap himself in the argument if hes not careful. The best bet would still be to come up with a defense strategy and stick to it. Improvising an argument in court is not easy for most people. It can be nerve racking enough just being there, let alone making a solid argument.

[C-Kwik]

I'm gonna also add a recommendation. In the mid-nineties, my friends bought me a gag gift for Xmas (which was prompted by my propensity to get and fight tickets :P ). It was a book called "Beat the Cops" by Alex Carroll. Its a rather small book (less than 100 pages in a medium font) but easy to read and informative (in a general sense). Not sure if its still being published, but one thing is clear is that most cases require a good deal of legwork in preparing to win in court. Hell, even the suggestions on how to maximize the potential for the cop to not show up requires much up front work. Regardless, you might find it of interest or at the very least, informative.

[vikesfankevin1986]

It sounds like a cool read just for the sake of it. Like I said, I do not know much about the system because I have never had a ticket. I'm not sure whats involved and how hard something like that is to prove. I would imagine that any responsible cop could get that argument thrown out fast. I was just pulling this out of my a** while I was talking to him. Either way it makes more sense then "guilty with an excuse." The first thing I said is I thought he was guilty as s***. I mean he tore off from a stoplight and took his car up to 90 in a 55 for no reason. Like I'm going to race him? 1. My car owns him...2. It was the hottest cop spot within 5 cities. It was time for him to get a ticket. I can't say I have never broken the law and had some fun, but I'm at least smart and safe about it.