Got a ticket this morning! Ideas welcome

My turn to get pulled over for a ticket, 1st one in 5 years after purchasing the V1. My V1 didn't go off so I know he didn't use any radar device to clock my speed. The officer told me that I was going 70 mph on a 35, when I asked him to show me his radar he said that he eye balled it. So he wrote me up for (1). No front license plate (2). Unsafe speed Under that in the box section he put down: Speed approx. 70 Max speed 35 didn't put a check mark on radar, laser box. Any strategy to fight this one?

If your state has an unsafe speed violation, then he doesn't need to clock it. It's time to get a lawyer. What the lawyer does for you isn't stuff you could do if you did some reading, they just use their connections and get you a nice bargain. If you really don't want an attorney your best hope is prayer for judgement, if your state allows for it. Also, they don't have to show you the radar gun even if that is how they clocked you. You can ask, but you'll probably just antagonize him.

are you kidding?!!...they can really get away with eyeballing your speed? Take it to court, I doubt he'd show up to prosecute that one. If it's like here and the cop doesn't show, the case is automatically dismissed. Good luck.

I could be wrong, but IIRC everywhere is such that if he doesn't show it's dismissed, what with the 6th amendment and all. And no, they can't really eyeball the speed...the 70 thing is there for posterity. In California you have prima facie speedlimits for everything except the state maximum speed limit (70 unless otherwise posted in CA). So, prima facie basically means you don't even have to speeding, it just has to be unsafe. Now if you could somehow prove the speed you were going wasn't unsafe, even if you were speeding, you could get off and that's why some people like prima facie...good luck doing that on this one. The reason to dislike prima facie is if it's raining or foggy or snowy or what have you can technically get a ticket even if you aren't going above the posted speed limit if the cop considers it unsafe.

Don't ask how I know but in CA, the officer is considered an expert and his eyeball will mean a lot more in court than yours. You'll never be able to prove 70 in a 35 is "safe", why was the limit set to 35 in the first place? Your only bet is that he doesn't show. And that's "show" for the second appearance, first appearance is to just plead (unless you can do that one by mail now). Here in the Bay area, if the cop shows, the judge will question him regarding if he had a clear view of you while determining your speed. The gavel will fall fast after that. Let me ask this: were you actually speeding? Was it anything near 70 in a 35? I know it's cool to try to beat every ticket Mr Law hands out but if you're guilty, what are you trying to say about yourself by beating the ticket? I can understand an effort to *ammend* the ticket (to say 50 in a 35...) but if you did it, just own up and handle it. Let's say you had kids, how would you explain to them that one, you were speeding but, two, you think you should get off? Just think of traffic school as your own personal Breakfast Club episode. Having said that, I do mean it when I say good luck! :-)

I have to assume that the area you were in was a residential area or other area that dictates a 35 MPH zone for safety reasons. If you were in fact going close to 70, then you deserve the ticket and you should suck it up and pay the penalty. You know: "individual responsablity". You also knowingly did not have a front plate on. You have to pay to play. Good luck.

I had a similar incident a few years back on my bike. Messing around in an commercial area and got pulled over by a cop that heard and saw me from across the way. Said I was doing approx 75 in a 35 and wrote me for that speed and wreckless operation. I got a lawyer and fought and challenged the speed that he associated with my violations. I didn't play like I wasn't speeding...just not to the extent that he said I was (though I'm sure in reality 75 was probably spot on). I pled to 50 in a 35 and they agreed on the charge...since I plead to a speed that was not 20 over the limit there was no justification to making the Wreckless stick either. Long story short..get a lawyer...admit wrong in speeding but argue that you were not going over 55. You'll still pay the speed and the front plate and lawyer fees...but the costs associated with a wreckless operation will cost you much more in the long run. Andy

This is why I don't use radar detectors....they offer a false sense of security. Frankly, he very easily could just have used instant on and you would have been fried. That said, I would mail in the ticket after having check the NOT GUILTY box. Then, DO NOT hire an attorney for your first visit to the courtroom because all you're going to do is plead guilty or not guilty (the latter). If it looks complicated or you are nervous, you can hire an attorney thereafter. But, the key is, at the plea hearing, find the cop who pulled you over OR the prosecuting attorney (usually an asst DA) and see what you can negotiate BEFORE your name is called. They'll usually reduce the charges of you appear reasonable and respectful. Above all, and I don't care what anyone else says, WEAR A COAT/SUIT AND TIE (though don't look like a billionaire if you get my drift). It shows respect to everyone in the courthouse. Good luck. P.S. - what's with all this nonsense about desrving the ticket? You're telling me noone here speeds? And frankly, if you're not out of control, then why should you bear the brunt of a penalty that was not quantified by a detector of some sort? Frankly, I have gone to court a couple of times for traffic violations, and if I'm respectful, the court is might respectful too. It's never been a hassle or bad experience.

First I was speeding, and I did admit that to the cop that pulled me over. I argued that there was no way that I was going 70, the 35 mph zone believe or not is in an industrial zone. After he wrote the ticket I asked about the judgement for 70 mph, he said that he had to drive 70 mph to catch me that's how he determined that I was goign 70.

You admitted to speeding to the cop who issued the ticket? Well good luck, I recommend getting a lawyer ASAP.

Try to get the ticket ammended, ie changed from 70 in a 35 to say 55 in a 35. You can easily (and respectfully!) argue that it took him to go to 70 to catch up with you but that you were not doing 70. It was about 6 years ago but last time I went to court for this in Palo Alto, to me it looked like a lot of people were trying that "cop won't show up" pipedream (Cops here have scheduled court days and are required to show up). Almost all of them had the violation reduced without a problem. It does help if you can talk to the cop/ADA before entering the courtroom. Some good ones not only had the violation reduced but the fine also and got traffic school to boot. Good luck Robin!

I have no problem accepting the fine and responsibility for violating the law, I was speeding. But just wasn't 70 mph. I am happy to pay my legal portion of the fine for no front plate and a speeding infraction, but not at 70 mph.

I think V1 offers to pay your ticket if the citation is received within 1st year of purchase. You defense is probly based on how speed is determined. Eye ball is not accepable. It's either thru radar, laser, bumper pace or landmark clocking. If he said he eye balled, this should be your strongest defense. At least, you should be able to get a good plea or maybe a dismissal. I'd get a lawyer if it's not too costly. Defending yourself in a court of law can be deadly. Judges are crooked and will always side with the cop unless it's obvious the cop messed up. 90% of trials are against the defendent. The minute the judge sees the ticket, s/he'll think you're a speedster that deserves a big fine. Never mind the fact how speed was determined. When judge sees a lawyer, s/he is reminded that s/he has to make a judgement based on facts and technicality, not prejudice or opinion.

You don't need a lawyer. Just show up early, show some cleavage, talk to the cop outside the court and before asking him if he'd consider ammending the ticket, apologize for having him show up to court for such a minor issue. Wink or laugh seductively a few times. :-) Unless you were a complete a-hole when you got the ticket, I'm sure you'll be able to talk it down to 55 in a 35 at least. I don't have any cleavage to show and am just some silicon valley engineer but when I was in court 6 years ago, I talked a 120mph down to 75 in a 65.... Yes, it was a male cop and no I'm not gay. Plain and simple, I was respectful and explained my situation. The key was, I was not an a-hole when I got stopped nor when I talked to the officer outside the courtroom.

if he drove 70 to catch you, you couldn't have been going that fast because he would have stayed a constant distance behind you. Admitting to speeding has sealed your fate as to some kind of violation. Get a lawyer, get the speed down to 55 or so and work from there..... you lose your position to argue the veracity of the violation, once you admit to speeding

No they don't. RMR does, which is a scam company, sells a product that doesn't work, and I dont think has ever paid the ticket (if you look at their list of tickets they won't cover basically everything is an exception).

HA! Eyeballed! I'd take that to court just to see if he'd say that again in front of the judge! Where the hell did this occur, Hazard County, WV? If he isn't pacing you or using a speed measuring device then he should have just checked the "speed greater than reasonable" box. The very reason there are speed measuring devices is because of BS like that!

Wow...if all it takes for a traffic conviction in court is a cop's eyeballing proficiency, then why would they ever need speed-detecting equipment? Every traffic cop can just shut off their equipment and write up any perceived offenders with impunity. While they're at it, why not pad the speed as well for revenue since the burden of proof lies with the offender to provide evidence to the contrary? If I were a cop, that right there gives me a carte blanche to write up anyone I'm in the mood for at any given time regardless of their actual speed.

No radar or LIDAR? Sounds like he just wanted to jam you because you were driving a P-car. I used to hear traffic cases as a pro tem judge and in "he said, she said" cases such as this, you're much more likely to get a favorable ruling. Remember, the cop has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and if he was doing his job properly, he should have at least paced you. While you should not have admitted to anything, he also made a mistake telling you he had to accelerate to 70 to catch you, as common sense distates that to quickly catch up to a moving car from a low speed or standstill, you'd have to accelerate to a higher speed that the car was going or the gap would never be closed between both cars. If you decide to go to trial, which I would with these facts, then raise these issues. Your cop should be embarrassed to present his case before a judge and may not even show.

I know if he paced you thats one thing, but eyeballing, thats just bull****, If that were me i would have said something stupid like " Please sir can you get your eyes off my *****"...What a jealous dick. If you were not doing 70 i would fight it all the way, This to me is just a hugh joke, who is policing the police?

Guys, it's a prima facie state. He's not ticketed for 70 in a 35, he's ticketed for driving at an unsafe speed.

My turn to get pulled over for a ticket, 1st one in 5 years after purchasing the V1. You have a clean driving record, so chances are excellent that you should get PBJ, Probation Before Verdict. You'll have to pay court costs and avoid getting another ticket for a specified period of time that varies by State. If you are convicted of another moving violation within the probation time, then both violations are shown against your driving record. Be courteous and respectful to the Police Officer and Judge, and you should do fine without a lawyer.

You're right, but how can he prove he was driving unsafe and at 70?

That's an interesting idea, not sure if the judges here in CA grants that. The truth is that all the cities in California are so money hungry they want to use every possible reason to make more money. The previous ticket I received was in GA caught by lidar from behind, 62 in a 45 zone at the toll plaza speed pass. Who would have thought even with the speed pass you have to slow down. The ticket was for $300, I admitted fault and asked the judge for fine consideration, the judge waved the point and gave me a 50% discount. The court date is set on 7/5, thanks for everyone's input. I will take the polite approach first to see what the judge will do, if possible I would also talk to the office who wrote the ticket prior.

Here is something more to add to that. Here is a map where the incident occured. I was heading north on Fullerton, made a left turn on Rowland street, and this is where I think the cop saw me. There is a stop sign at Dawson st, which I made a full stop, and it is less than 2000 feet from where I made the left turn. From the stop sign it is another 2000 feet to Radecki where I made a right, which at this point the cop was about 200 feet behind me. He pulled me over right at the entrance of my office at the end of the Radecki. BTW, this happened at 7:00am this morning, there were very few cars on the road.

With that many intersections you can forget about getting any help from prima facie. Just get a lawyer, pay him a couple hundred dollars, do some community service and pay the state a fine and be done with it, chances are no points.

Well, the angle I was going to use was to show the distance that I had to accelerate after the left turn and after the stop sign to show that it was impossible for me to go that fast. FWIW, I was in my 993 this morning, a 10 year car with 90k miles.... not nearly as fast as my 996 :P

Bring that map to the Judge and explain it just as you did ,you'll get off!

You already admitted you were speeding, so I still think it's a no go. To be speeding in such a tight route at all means you were gunning it. The your word vs. their word thing works in their favor, partly because there is no reason to trust you and partly because police are "trained" to identify speeding vehicles.

I don't think anyone mentioned the fact that, since your record is clean (no tics in 5 years)....you could always go to traffic school, and depending on the county you live in, you might be able to do the school "on-line" in the comfort of your own home, while enjoying a few cold beers. :-) True, you have to pay the fine and pay for the traffic school costs....but sometimes that is less painfull than doing the lawyer thing and wearing a tie to court. Just my 2 cents....fwiw.

I intend to do traffic school regardless of the out come. Living expense is way too high in California already, the last thing I want is higher insurance rate. Again, I violated a law and I have no problem paying a fine. I wasn't trying to get out it completely, would be happy to some acceptable fine and get on with it. Not at the jacked up speed the cop wrote me up for. When I told my wife of the speeding ticket news she wasn't even mad, she said "They should have caught up with you a long time ago! You have been lucky so far....." as she thinks based on the way I drive I should have gotten a lot more tickets. FWIW.... she have gotten 3 tickets in the past two year....

Robin, Call the court where the hearing is to be held (prior to the hearing even tomorrow). Ask for the clerk that handles speeding tickets and ask if they have any type of "safe driver" "deferral" "probationary period" or "judgment before verdict" program or whatever that county/city is calling it. In most states the program and the terms and conditions vary by county (make sure to read the specifics of the program you are dealing with). Usually the program involves paying a �fee� and then waiting a period of time without getting a ticket (period varies according to the program). If you successfully do not get another ticket during the period then the ticket is not put on your driving record and not reported to the insurance companies (basically you pay for the your infraction but not penalized for the next 4 years by your insurance company). If they do offer a program, ask how to get information about it and what qualifications you must meet. Many times they will send you the paper work prior to the hearing and you can sign mail and include your check without showing up at the court date. One potential issue you have is the ticket is 70 in a 35. 35 mph over the posted limit is usually considered reckless driving in most states and carries much heavier fines, points and usually precludes you from participating in any type of deferral program. Ask about the program without giving the ticket information. If the speed is something that disqualifies you then either speak to a prosecutor and/or assistant DA and/or inquire to local counsel about the ability to have the ticket speed dropped and qualify for the deferral program. As you indicated most counties/states use tickets for revenue generation so usually they are willing to work with you to get the most bang for the buck. Good luck.

In Ct, you can sometimes make a "charitable contribution". They get their money, but you get no points. It does help to know a lawyer with connections to the court. If you are facing high points and increase in insurance rates, ask around for a lawyer. Preferably one who used to be a prosecuter.

what vehicle code was cited for 'unsafe'? 22350?

Pay up