Discuss your traffic court experience

M

MyMRoadster

Member
 Bay Area, CA
I'd like to hear other traffic court experiences ... the good, bad and ugly.

I'll start with an ugly one: I went to traffic court a few months ago on a VC 22350 violation (55MPH in a 40MPH zone). My general defense is that going the posted speed limit is dangerous on this road because there is an entering roadway of 55MPH onto this 40MPH road and traveling 40MPH on this road with current traffic speeds is a risk of being rear ended or impeding traffic. The traffic survey is 4 years old (which is fine), but the road conditions as well as traffic density have changed drastically since that traffic survey. In short, my defense is that the posted speed limit is unsafe.

Violation occurred in Brentwood, CA heading southbound on Concord Ave south of Balfour Rd.

State: California | County: Contra Costa | Court: Pittsburg

Here is the outcome of my court appearance:

1. This traffic court was not a legitimage court (like real criminals get) --- it is just a cash machine for the county. There was no prosecutor and the judge kept objecting to my line of questioning of the officer (judge acting as a prosecutor). This is wrong on so many different levels. I have copies of case law that shows this kind of stuff getting turned over in appeals court all the time.
2. I tried to get the case dismissed quickly with the ole "his radar & tuning fork aren't calibrated" defense ... but that just pissed the judge off. I don't recommend it unless you KNOW the calibration records are not right. By now I'm realizing this battle is not going to go well - but I keep fighting because I am truly convinced that my defense is legitimate. Truth is, if I wouldn't have pissed the judge off here things might have gone differently with my real defense.
3. Now, on to my main defense - the posted speed limit is unsafe. The officer could not even state in general what VC 22350 was, and the judge did not care, in fact he objected to the fact that the officer needs to know this (see above where I already pissed the judge off). Now I'm pissed off and started verbally attacking the judge for the way he is running his court --- I don't recommend that either :o . Essentially the cop said that VC 22350 is based on obeying the posted speed limit, when in fact VC 22350 is the basic speed law and states nothing about posted limits: ( http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm ). The basic speed law is about safe and reasonable.
4. Bottom line: By the time the half-hour ordeal was over I had pissed off the judge so much there was no way I was going to get out of there with a not-guilty verdict. In fact, I was getting concerned about whether he was going to allow me to do traffic school. He did find me guilty and allowed me to take traffic school.

This particular court system for traffic violations is completely unjust and my constitutional rights to a fair trial were not honored. But, if I'm honest, I was trying to get an OJ style trial in traffic court and hoped that I could get it dismissed on a technicality. I paid my fine and attended online traffic school (which is a joke in itself). But every time I think about it - I get bothered by the cop not knowing the vehicle code that he charged me with.

Regardless of what happened, I still advocate going to court on traffic cases --- but if the officer shows up in Pittsburg, CA court with this judge, you’re guilty - just take your lumps. However, if it is going to put your license in jeaporady (because you have so many tickets) it might be worth the above tactics and then getting it overturned in appeals court.

In the past 2 years I’m 50/50 for the cop not showing up – that’s pretty good odds. It's worth a shot ... might as well show up to see if the cop is going to be lazy.
 
David, tell me you weren't aware of what municipal court is really about and tell me that you didn't realize that playing as if you were Perry Mason to a municipal court judge was going to get you somewhere.
Sure, this is a mechanism for revenue generation, are you saying you didn't know that either?

Look, you know the sign stated that the speed limit is 40 MPH, you violated the law by speeding and got caught, legally.

You went to court, got convicted and the court imposed a penalty. Done deal in my book.
 
Hang on....is this right?

1. Speed limit is 40MPH

2. You are caught doing 55MPH

3. You take it to court on the basis the speed limit shouldn't be 40MPH, and thats why you were going faster?

Thats certainly a new approach!
 
I have gone to court and won on more occasions than I would care to state. Actually - I have never gone and have always hired a traffic consultant.

Winning in my book means no points on my license BTW :thumbsup:
 
mikedav said:
Hang on....is this right?

1. Speed limit is 40MPH

2. You are caught doing 55MPH

3. You take it to court on the basis the speed limit shouldn't be 40MPH, and thats why you were going faster?

Thats certainly a new approach!
Click to expand...

(this is in response to 20 ducks as well)

Truth is ... one should challenge an inappropriate speed limit before getting caught --- but what is the process? Does anybody have time for it? Of course not, that is why California VC 22350 is worded the way that it is - it is supposed to prevent municipalities from posting unreasonably low or out of date speed limits. There is an anti-speed trap law in California (as in many other states) because there are hundreds of cases of municipalities using speed limits as a revenue generator - NOT for public safety.

Of course, I was trying to get out of a ticket ... just sharing my experience.
 
I guess I've been pretty lucky. My last three tickets were all reduced to "Blockading Traffic". I paid a fine and walked away with no points. The last ticket was 4.5 years ago, before my first Z4. I always heard the story that if the cop doesn't show up, the ticket will be dismissed but apparently not in Michigan. Only once have I seen the cop. There were about 30 of us in a small courtroom. The judge called the court to order and excused himself for the cop, who had apparently written tickets for all in the room, to address us. The cop told us that we were entitled to fight the ticket, but he would offer a deal to everyone to reduce the charge to blockading traffic, which would yield no points on my license. I think I may have been able to win my case, as my offense was violating a "no turn on red" where I felt the signage was inadequate. I took the deal. The other two speeding ticket cases I was alone in a room with some sort of adjudicator.

Anyone else had their case heard without the officer present?
 
mikedav said:
Hang on....is this right?

1. Speed limit is 40MPH

2. You are caught doing 55MPH

3. You take it to court on the basis the speed limit shouldn't be 40MPH, and thats why you were going faster?

Thats certainly a new approach!
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I have to agree there - it wouldn't be my first choice of defence :D
 
I couldn't turn up in court.... I'd run my mouth off in one way or another and end up with another charge LOL!
 
I recently got a speeding ticket going north to the Muskoka area (there are no cars on the frickin' road up there!) going 120km/h in a 90km/h zone. This is really no big deal normally since it's quite common for people to go 120-130 km/h in the left lane on our major highways w/o the cops caring too much.

Anyways, after some research, I find that most of us are misinformed as to what is important re: these tickets. Here are the main points (applies in Ontario, not sure so much elsewhere):

1) Insurance companies don't care about your points unless you accumulate so many that your license gets suspended. Points are something the ministry transportation keeps track of to determine when to send you a warning and when to suspend your license. You need quite a lot of points for that to happen. If I remember correctly, it's like 9 points to get a warning and 15 points to get suspended.
2) If you're worried about insurance premiums going up and you want to fight the ticket, only fight it with the intention of getting the ticket totally thrown out (which is not always easy to do). If you have a speeding ticket <50km/h over the limit, your insurance company sees it as a "minor" infraction regardless of whether there are points or not. They may or may not raise your premiums based on a single minor infraction. They also keep record of these usually for 3 years, though some companies keep track for 5 years. If you have a ticket >50km/h over the limit, that's a "major" infraction and your premium will either shoot right up or they will disown you.
3) Finally, even if you do get a ticket, your insurance company actually has to pay a fee to check your record in order to find out if you've had any new speeding tickets since they last checked. Most insurance companies do not do this for all their clients. Many will just randomly select a sample of their clients plus or minus the high-risk ones, and pay to check their records. This occurs at the time of renewal or when signing up a new client. So if you have new tickets, don't change insurance companies 'cause there's a good chance yours won't check your record, but the one you're switching to definitely will.
4) Finally, I don't know if this is true or not, but someone told me that it's better to get your insurance through a broker rather than the insurance company itself. This is because the brokers want your business and will be less likely to check your record again once you've signed on as a client.

Well, sorry for the long response. I hope this saves people some hassle and/or money, because if you're going to hire a traffic violation company to fight your ticket for you, better make sure they get the ticket totally off 'cause no points doesn't mean no increases in premiums.
 
Just one thing takedown8 - you are supposed to report any tickets you get to the insurance company. They do not have to check - you are supposed to own up. It is in the paperwork you signed :thumbsup:

Insurance companies want to make $$. They do mess with you if you get tickets. They do not ding you for non-moving violations....
 
takedown8 said:
I recently got a speeding ticket going north to the Muskoka area (there are no cars on the frickin' road up there!) going 120km/h in a 90km/h zone. This is really no big deal normally since it's quite common for people to go 120-130 km/h in the left lane on our major highways w/o the cops caring too much.
Click to expand...

I regularly do 130KMH+ on the way up to Haliburton area, as you say its dead quiet and slower moving traffic do not seem to care, they just assume you are from Toronto LOL. Though this is in the summer.... slightly different in winter! My Dad is over there at the minute and got stopped, first of all of us to do so...radar gun apparently. The cop said if he were my Dad (British with UK licence), he wouldn't pay...but we are over there once a month so I think for the sake of $120 and no points, its not worth arguing. He did mention it would come up if/when he applies for an Ontario licence though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom