How to beat that traffic ticket

[snopes]

Comment: Bankrate.com ran this story on Friday 3/30 regarding strategies
for fighting traffic tickets:

http://biz.yahoo.com/brn/070330/21532.html

Of particular interest is their stategy for fighting a red light camera
ticket, which sounds like an urban legend to me:

Contrary to popular belief, Carroll says that camera-issued tickets are
often the easiest to beat because a defendant has a constitutional right
to question their accuser. Courthouses will rarely go through the trouble
of bringing the video or picture to court, and even if they do, there is
no human subject to question other than the officer who viewed it.

"The minute he opens his mouth, you just object because it's hearsay and
the ticket will be dropped," Carroll says. "Most people just don't have
the courage to do this though. That's why some of these cities are making
millions of dollars per camera. They know you're not going to do that."

Hearsay?

If there is tangible evidence of a crime being committed, such as a photograph of someone running a red light, how is that hearsay? Perhaps one of our lawyer posters can shed some light on that.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

The link to Carroll's website shows he's peddling the tomes "Speeding Excuses that Work" and "Beat the Cops" for just $24.95 the pair. The site also links to another site selling "photoblocker spray" for numberplates, which I'm sure really does work.

What is it with people who routinely drive like idiots trying to weasel out of paying their speeding fines? They are without honour!

[RichardM]

In general, speed enforcement is for revenue enhancement, not safty. Cite: Dallas Mayor Laura Miller: If the police would start writing more tickets, we would have more funds.

[Brad from Georgia]

My wife found a sure-fire way some time ago. When our children were toddlers, she was stopped for speeding. The policeman leaned in the window and told her she'd been going over the speed limit by ten m.p.h. He had already pulled out his ticket pad when my little son said from his car seat in the back, "Are you gonna take Mommy to jail?" in a quavering voice and my frightened daughter began to bawl. The cop said, "Aw, get out of here, but keep under the speed limit."

Contrariwise, some years later I was driving with my then teen-aged son to an SF convention in Chattanooga, and I got stopped for not quite coming to a full stop at an intersection. The officer told me that I had almost but not completely stopped. I said, "I think I did come to a full stop!" I turned to my son and said, "Didn't I stop?"

And he said, "Actually, no, you didn't."

I turned to the officer and said, "This is my son. You may see him tomorrow walking home from Chattanooga" and accepted the ticket, the only one I have ever received.

Brad "her they get off, me they rat out" from Georgia

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by Stoneage Dinosaur

What is it with people who routinely drive like idiots trying to weasel out of paying their speeding fines? They are without honour!

While I agree that traffic laws need to be enforced, and I like the ideas of cameras catching people when cops around around, the problem isn't with the person who owns the car. It's with the person driving the car, and what I've seen thus far is that these cameras aren't quite able to identify the driver yet.

Yes, I once got a ticket for borrowing my car to someone who ran a red light. Fortunately, my buddy was the type who was willing to accompany me to court and take the blame. Not everyone will do that for a friend. At first, he was just going to pay me for the ticket, but the fact is, I'm more concerned about my driving record than the price of a ticket.

b "I know better than to run that particular light" john13

[UEL]

Originally Posted by RichardM

In general, speed enforcement is for revenue enhancement, not safty. Cite: Dallas Mayor Laura Miller: If the police would start writing more tickets, we would have more funds.

I would have to respectfully disagree. My sister works in prosecuting violations in the Highway Traffic Act in Ontario. As such, the whole system is geared towards safety. And it is very noticeable when they do a "blitz" of the streets, the numbers of serious accidents drop considerably. However, absence of accidents after a while give some people, mostly the more vocal ones, the belief that the police are doing little to nothing to earn their paycheque. So the demand is made to move these paid employees onto other areas. That is, of course, until the next major accident when these same people claim that the police should be stopping the speeders.

Originally Posted by bjohn13

While I agree that traffic laws need to be enforced, and I like the ideas of cameras catching people when cops around around, the problem isn't with the person who owns the car. It's with the person driving the car, and what I've seen thus far is that these cameras aren't quite able to identify the driver yet.

I've seen two separate systems at work. In the UK, the owner of the car is the one who is penalised by points on the license and the fine. If it was not him, then the owner has to get an affidavit signed by someone taking responsibility, then points and fine are shifted.

The other system was in Ontario. There, the penalty was purely financial. However, photo radar augmented a manned program. This prevented people who sped from obscuring their license plate. A real cop would be able to see them and deal with that separate offence.

Unfortunately, after a long time of relatively safe driving on the 401, Mike Harris followed through on his election promise to eliminate the photo radar. Three weeks later 4 dead in a 68 car pile up by Chatham.

[Dark Blue]

In general, speed enforcement is for revenue enhancement, not safty. Cite: Dallas Mayor Laura Miller: If the police would start writing more tickets, we would have more funds.

A quote from one politician from one city hardly makes a qualified cite for that large a generalization.

[Brad from Georgia]

Originally Posted by bjohn13

....
Yes, I once got a ticket for borrowing my car to someone who ran a red light. ....

HIJACK!

This is a fascinating dialect point to me. I've heard people say "I borrowed my --- to someone" before. Around here we'd say "I lent my car to someone" (or probably more often "I loaned my car to someone").

May I ask where you're from, bjohn? I'm not making fun, by the way. I love dialects, and I've never quite known where this use of "borrow" in the sense of "lend" is used.

On a similar note, I once strolled to a neighboring teaching assistant's cubicle and asked, "Could you lend me the borry of the rubric for English 101 finals?" A wild-eyed linguist erupted from another office and roared down on me, inisisting that I had to tell him where I was from, since he had heard "Lend me the borry" only once before and had to have a second informant before he could validate the phrase as a dialectical peculiarity.

Alas, I had learned the phrase from the "Pogo" comic strip, so mine didn't count.

ETA: I just found that in the Cumberland dialect of England the opposite occurs: "Kin ah loan five quid off you 'til Tuesday?" means "May I borrow five quid from you until Tuesday?"

I think a quid is a small cuttlefish.

Brad "I'm kidding, I'm kidding" from Georgia

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Class Bravo

If there is tangible evidence of a crime being committed, such as a photograph of someone running a red light, how is that hearsay? Perhaps one of our lawyer posters can shed some light on that.

If the only evidence presented was from a clerk who didn't witness the infraction take place and didn't bring any photographic evidence of it to court, but who simply testified that he had viewed a photo captured by a red light camera, I can see that such evidence might be classified as hearsay.

- snopes

If the only evidence was someone saying "Yeah, he went through the red light and we have a picture of it, I swear, but we didn't bring it with us" then I can also understand how that could be considered hearsay. The part of the article that confuses me is this:

Courthouses will rarely go through the trouble
of bringing the video or picture to court, and even if they do, there is
no human subject to question other than the officer who viewed it.

"The minute he opens his mouth, you just object because it's hearsay and
the ticket will be dropped," Carroll says.

That led me to believe the author is saying that even if a photograph is present and you are questioning the officer who viewed it, it is still considered hearsay, which I didn't understand.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Class Bravo

That led me to believe the author is saying that even if a photograph is present and you are questioning the officer who viewed it, it is still considered hearsay, which I didn't understand.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/431.asp

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by snopes

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/431.asp

Wow, somebody appealed his traffic ticket. That takes a set of brass ones! Is it really that hard just to pay the fine and take your two points (and maybe not even that much!)?

Photographic evidence can be hearsay just as much as any other evidence. You have to lay a foundation for it, and you have to be able to cross examine the person who created it. Otherwise, there would be no way to challenge it.

Originally Posted by Class Bravo

That led me to believe the author is saying that even if a photograph is present and you are questioning the officer who viewed it, it is still considered hearsay, which I didn't understand.

That's right. It doesn't matter if you're questioning an officer who viewed it. You can question a thousand people who SAW something, but none of them can authenticate it. You have to question the person who created it.

From the article (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/431.asp):

"As the photographs generated by the system do not show the signal light, the system must be proven reliable in order for the People to meet their burden of proof," the court wrote.

When I got a ticket from an intersection camera in CA last year, the traffic light in all its red glory was indeed shown in the picture. The citation that came in the mail showed a rear shot of the intersection showing my license plate and the red light, a side shot showing my car over the limit line, and a front shot showing my front plate and my car in the intersection. I assume these are all changes that have been made since that 2004 ruling.

[RichardM]

In Texas, a citation from a red light camera is not a criminal citation. Rather, it is a civil citation. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Nor does it appear there is a criminal penalty for not paying those citations.

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by RichardM

In Texas, a citation from a red light camera is not a criminal citation. Rather, it is a civil citation. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Nor does it appear there is a criminal penalty for not paying those citations.

Being held in contempt of court isn't a crime?

[FloridaGirl]

Originally Posted by Brad from Georgia

My wife found a sure-fire way some time ago. When our children were toddlers, she was stopped for speeding. The policeman leaned in the window and told her she'd been going over the speed limit by ten m.p.h. He had already pulled out his ticket pad when my little son said from his car seat in the back, "Are you gonna take Mommy to jail?" in a quavering voice and my frightened daughter began to bawl. The cop said, "Aw, get out of here, but keep under the speed limit."

That is what happened to my mom one time she got pulled over. I just said "Is mommy going to jail?" *insert crying here*

I'm almost 19 and I haven't gotten pulled over yet. Now, almost 3 years may not seem long, but I know of no one else that can claim this feat. If I can make it to 20, I think I may be the first to go through their teen year without getting pulled over.

Of course, now that I've said it, I'll get pulled over tomorrow.

[ds_40]

Originally Posted by FloridaGirl

If I can make it to 20, I think I may be the first to go through their teen year without getting pulled over..

I've already done it , of course I got my license just before I drive on average once a month and only for short distances.

[CSGirl]

Originally Posted by ds_40

I've already done it , of course I got my license just before I drive on average once a month and only for short distances.

I'm 21, got my license 5 months after I turned 16, have put 70,000 miles on my car, and have never gotten a ticket.

My sister, however, got 2 tickets in her first 6 months driving, has replaced her battery 3 times (from leaving the lights on) and had to get a new engine- she never got the oil changed. (Drove for a week with the oil light on).

My friend who's 18 got a ticket for talking on her cell phone about 3 days after she got her license, and a speeding ticket a week later.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by Brad from Georgia

May I ask where you're from, bjohn? I'm not making fun, by the way. I love dialects, and I've never quite known where this use of "borrow" in the sense of "lend" is used.

I've noticed people from around these parts using "borrow" in the sense of "lend" in the last few years. Only in the last few years, though, it's not something I ever recall hearing while growing up. I did once have a snotty know-it-all college classmate say to me "You should borrow me that when you're done." I couldn't help but reply "I could lend it to you. I'm afraid I don't know how to borrow something to you, only from you."