Traffic Fine

Hello everyone, I wanted to ask a question about a speeding ticket I received about 2 weeks ago. I noticed the policeman signed but he didn't ask me to sign it. Is this fine still valid even though I don't have my signature on the paper? or did I get lucky?( btw I seem to have Luck on my side ) I am in Florida I know the laws are different in each state but has this happened to anyone else?

Yes, you are still responsible. It's not an admission of acceptance or guilt as you are not required to sign it.

Quotes source post: 8845696

+1

As you noted, laws differ by state, but in California, if the officer didn't make a note about you refusing to sign it, you could get this dismissed. Your signature acknowledges only that you received the citation, so your claim would be that you weren't present, have no knowledge of the violation, etc. In Cali we have the option of a trial by written declaration, meaning that you write a letter to the court. Doesn't cost you anything to fight the ticket and no time off work etc. Don't know if you have that option in FL or how much it's worth it to you to fight it if you don't.

It must vary by state. I've had a "few" speeding tickets here in Michigan and have never been asked to sign a citation.

I find it hard to believe that any state would allow somebody to get a "pass" on a ticket if they didn't sign it. If you really want to play that game, then your ONLY play is to not show up. If you do show then you are admitting to having received the ticket. Not sure how they would dismiss it if you defense is...."Yes, your honor, I broke the law but I didn't sign the ticket so I should get a pass."

Yes, it will vary by state. Call the court you got the ticket at. I've had incidences where officer didn't take signature so called the court. No record of citation = no ticket. Court told me officer has x amount of time to turn in citation after issued. If citation isn't turned in by x amount of time, basically ticket doesn't exist. This was at one county where I used to live in but you never know. Call court to verify.

Quotes source post: 8846384

I'm sure you're aware that the law is full of technicalities and the only way it works is if those charged with enforcing the laws follow all the rules, including the technicalities. As an example, I recently was found not guilty via trial by written declaration for a speeding violation in a nearby city. The officer had me on radar doing 52 in a 35 zone. My defense was that there was not a current (last 5 years) speed survey done on that section of road that established that 35 was the appropriate speed. In the absence of a valid speed survey, it was a prima facie speed trap. Case dismissed. So - no, you wouldn't say "Yes your honor, I broke the law but I didn't sign the ticket so I should get a pass". You would say "Your honor the officer has not presented competent evidence that I was present at the violation and I ask that my case be dismissed in the interest of justice". At least that's how we'd do it in Cali.

And you wonder why your state is in the toilet. Justice would be paying your fine when you broke the law instead of asking for speed surveys, calling a technicality because your signature wasn't on the ticket, etc.. If you were concerned about speed surveys you would have followed the law and talked to those responsible to about conducting a speed survey. It's like not paying your taxes and telling the govt you are allowed a free pass because they need to overhaul the tax code. Never ceases to amaze me how some rationalize their behavior. Unsubscribing.......

Justice cannot be obtained if those who enforce it do not do what they are required to do. To let them get away with something that seems small, such as failing to have the violator sign a citation, only creates, what we call in the legal world, a slippery slope. If we let them get away with this mistake, why not let them enter a home without a warrant, after all we "knew" they were breaking the law in there. I have been on both sides of the issue, prosecution and defense. We require officers to follow the rules. All of the rules. If they don't then they should look for another profession. As a prosector I would have no problem dismissing the ticket under these circumstances. The signature is evidence of service of the citation. You need to be served with a citation (or complaint in civil court) and the state must prove they served you. Making the officers accountable for thier mistakes makes them better officers in the long run. If that cost is letting some individuals who are guilty but get away on a "technicality," then it is worth it.

Quotes source post: 8846634

Reluctantly, I have to agree. It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not, it's the law, and you knowingly broke it and got caught. Suck it up and pay the ticket. If you think the law is unjust and unfair, the right avenue is to take it up with your state/local government to get the law changed. US is a democratic government, and if we all petitioned, we may just make a difference. (My biggest bone right now is VA's automatic reckless driving for doing 80mph in a 70mph zone which is just pure and unadulterated bull****.)

^^I don't see much of a difference between fighting a speeding ticket (valid or not) or using a radar detector. In either case, you are trying to avoid getting convicted for exceeding the speed limit. I'm pretty sure that all posters on both sides of the discussion are using radar detectors.

I agree that if you do the crime, you should be prepared to pay the fine. But here in MD, the courts do expect traffic citations to meet the test of technical correctness, otherwise the case will be dismissed. I believe this is the Judge's way to insure that the cops are doing their job correctly, and not developing sloppy habits. I once got a ticket for rolling through a Stop sign late at night. I objected to the frivolity of the ticket, and threatened to not sign. Apparently, at least in MD, if the driver doesn't sign, then they must be brought to the police station for additional processing. When the cop then said to me "You don't really want to waste our time at the station for this, do you?", I said "Thanks. I'll remember that". I signed the ticket. But when I appeared in court, the officer was a no show, and the ticket was dismissed.

The Baretta tv show theme song says it all!

I'm seeing apples and oranges here. One side is saying Law Enforcement should be and is required to be accurate. The other side is saying "Man Up" and take responsibility for your actions. I agree to both but maybe we need to split this thread in two?

There should be repercussions if officers do not follow the law and do not follow their mandated procedures. If that means someone does not get a speeding ticket so be it. It protects all of us from being the victims of arbitrary actions, ticketing, and arrest. Cops are good, but they still need to follow the law. Sorry.

I checked with a friend in Florida(police officer) he say that unless there is a mandatory court appearance for the violation no signature is needed.

Quotes source post: 8845634

Thank goodness I have no direct experience with FL tickets but I have enough experience elsewhere. They generally work about the same... You sign a ticket as a promise to appear. If you refuse you can be required to post bail/bond. Even though you didn't sign the ticket almost certainly a notice will be mailed to you or more likely to save money there is info printed on the back of the ticket that tells you what you should do to resolve the ticket to the court's satisfaction. You can plead guilty and pay the fine, or negotiate perhaps for a fine and traffic school, or challenge the ticket. Regardless you should not count on the ticket being dropped simply because you didn't sign the ticket. Other info about you is on the ticket...IOWs the court knows who you area, where you live, and so on. If you ignore the ticket, after a while even if you don't get a visit by LEO's with a warrant for your arrest, when it comes time to renew your car's registration, renew your license, and so on... somewhere alarm bells will sound and you'll be in deep doo doo. Also, as for mistakes on the ticket, almost always the citing officer has the right to amend the ticket so if he spelled your name wrong, put down the wrong license number or otherwise made a mistake. If you challenge the ticket he'll show up at the appointed time and fix the ticket, and I don't mean make it go away...he corrects his mistakes and the hearing/appearance before the judge proceeds. If you feel the ticket was issued in error, is bogus, unwarranted then read up on challenging tickets in your area. Consult with an attorney who specializes in traffic tickets. Get one that has office as close as possible to the courthouse. He knows the system. I fight every ticket (not that I get that many) and would rather pay an attorney rather than a fine. It is not the fine amount that bothers me (often the attorney costs more), it is the points that go with the fine. With points if you receive a bogus ticket it makes it very hard to fight and win because with points you're considered a habitual traffic law violator and therefore guilty, guilty, guilty. Sometimes the ticket is dismissed because the citing officer failed to appear: Citation dismissed due to lack of prosecution. I love that phrase! Or the ticket is reduced to a non-moving violation. Sometimes the court will agree to probation before adjudication. IOWs, behave yourself for a time and the ticket is dismissed though you still have to pay court costs which can be nearly as much as the fine plus there is often an attorney involved. But not always. The last ticket I received (in TX) had PBA option as a do it yourself option on the back of the ticket. Or you can work out a deal with the PA and while he (or she) won't dismiss the the ticket outright the severity of the ticket will be reduced (maybe not to a non-moving violation though) and the fine drops and the number of points drops. Sincerely, Macster.

We don't have police over here. Just one big happy family with some of them carrying guns telling you to go see the judge and pay big money.

As has been noted ... in FL it is NOT required that the violator sign the citation. As for the moron who thinks Cali is "in the toilet" ... Cali poops more wealth on a daily basis than the state of NC is WORTH. LV

As has been noted ... in FL it is NOT required that the violator sign the citation. As for the moron who thinks Cali is "in the toilet" ... Cali poops more wealth on a daily basis than the state of NC is WORTH. LV

Quotes source posts: 8853422, 8853424

LV~ What is it with your posts? It seems like half the time you post it's a double post. Do you have twitchy finger syndrome? Sure hope you don't own a gun! Did you graduate from the seminar "How to Make Friends and Influence People?" Disagreeing with Dell's Cali comments is fine but dissing him by calling him a moron is uncalled for and you'll find yourself being shown the exit door, metaphorically speaking, by about 99% of the RL family.

were you speeding????? were you breaking the law? did he catch you fare and square? do the crime be ready to do the time.

Don't say someone's state is in the toilet then. Nobody ever called Carolinians inbred. LVDell gives great advice, but "in the toilet," really. He threw the first stone. I'm done. This thread should be closed because it's pointless and just leading to name calling.

Dell gave his opinion of a state. LV did the personal name calling.... Big Difference! BTW, as a Californian I can tell you this state is "in the toilet" as far as I'm concerned. YMMV But I am getting OT so that's all from me... Respectfully,

Speaking of tickets, I went through a speed trap today with lasers being fired and the laser detector never went off. Anyway you'll probably pay if that's the current trend for the court. If you really are interested in getting off then a lawyer could be tried. They do have little paper tricks. Around here to get off from a ticket the policeman has to be present in court. Before going to court you pick without or with policeman in court. Only way to be found not guilty is if the policeman is in court. Picking having the policeman in court during trial means you pay the policemans pay and court fees for him to be there. You still pay those fees even if you are found not guilty. So you pretty much pay more than a ticket to be found not guilty. The wonderful world of making laws to make money. Welcome to the convicted if it goes that way Paid $500 last time and that's without paying for the policeman.