Fighting A Traffic(Speeding) Case(Ticket)

Saturday March 10, I got my first speeding ticket. Yes, i'm fracking mad. So I told my co-workers about it and they gaved me some of their opinions. One of best i found was the "nolo contendere", but pleading "not guilty" seems like a better soultion than plea "nolo", and pleading "guilty" is the absoulte worst. I'm still researching on the "nolo" at the moment. (any help would be much appreciated about it)

So doing more research, i'm trying the find any possible solutions to win my case for speeding which is (64mph on a 45mph zone).While doing even more research i've found many solutions that can prove useful in my case. Even if i'm not represented by a attorney, but that would be horrible. Also from research, it's tough to win against traffic cases, because many of the arguments used for the traffic cases are already used and can be easily countered by the experienced cop.

LINK! FOR MY STATE I fall right inbetween the two age limit of under 18 and over 21. AHHH how aggravating!!.

THe sad thing is that I only learned all these information after i've gotten ticked by that FAAA****** officer.

I have questions, lots of them, since this is my very very first traffic offence.
- Do I not recieve my fine till the court?
- Are there any reasonable arguments i can use to win my case?
- Should i just plea "nolo", not guilty or just plea for a plea bargain?

These sites have some pretty convicing evidence that can be used, but there's too much for me to handle by myself.

-BackPage Forums
-Traffic Tickets Resource Center This was my favorite place.

There's so many options and the answers are too vague and complex. Any help would be much appreciated.:doh:

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Well i had two choices, I guess I made the wrong choice. No pun intended.

Crap, the officers hand writings deplorable.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Watts

I wouldn't recommend you try to fight it. That'll just make it worse for you.

If you plead guilty the judge might go a little easier on you then if you plead no contest. After all, this is your first speeding ticket. I did that my first time and the judge let me off with a stern warning.

A no contest plea would only work if you could cite an example that you were "keeping with the flow of traffic".

Hummm... I think I can prove a few points that may be able to lower my fine. Some of the stronger arguments is that the lower traffic and better visibility can permit a more stable driver as opposed to driving in the rain at 10pm on a foggy day going 85mph on a 60mph zone. Some other argument is that the speed signs have 3 different classification that can limit your speed, like absoulte, presumed or basic speed. Obvioulsy it's not absoulte where 1mph over is a federal offence. So it has to be basically presumed, which 10mph over is reasonable.

AND-Ahh come on, please do the math correct, it's 19 mph over not 20. Which isn't quite considered reckless driving yet. 24+ is reackless driving.

But thanks for all the information that you all gave me. But though it seems it's better not just to fight, eh?

PS: I hope i can just get a warning or something such as that.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

No one in this thread knows what the fuck they're talking about.

*ALWAYS* fight the ticket. Even if you're found guilty, your record shows that the ticket was contested in court - which actually has some weight because most people won't bother going to court over such a thing. The fact that you are means that the judge has to suspect mitigating factors.

The major thing to do is put on a production when you go to court. Suit and tie, slacks or khakis. You also need "props" - pictures of your car, a copy of the traffic ticket, your registration, proof of insurance. Also, some print outs on basic court proceedings would be good. Walk in that door, take a seat and wait for your name to be called. The state/town will attempt to plea bargain - this usually depends on how much you look willing to fight. I went into court once and I ended up paying nearly nothing because I looked the part. (Remember: whatever they offer - tell them you're willing to pay more in the form of a check if they can reduce the number of points)

Also - and this is VERY important - you have to find out is if the officer that pulled you over was the officer operating the radar gun or not. In most cases, if the officer who shows in court is not the one operating the radar gun but is the one who ticketed you, the court will throw out the case.

Heres some basic things to yell out in court to make you look like Sam Waterson.

OBJECTION, INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION When the officer begins his testimony, more than likely he's going to read from the copy of his citation. You should immediately object to this since the officer is required to testify from independent recollection. You should also ask to see what the officer is referring to even though you have received a copy of the citation through subpoena. More than likely the Judge will allow the officer to use his notes to refresh his memory, if the officer indicates to the court that he requires the notes to testify properly. This starts everything for dismissal because the sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees you the right to be confronted with the witnesses against you. In this case, the officer and his testimony, not the citation, are the witnesses against you. If the officer can not recollect the circumstances of your ticket, he may be consider incompetent to testify. You have to prove that the officer is unable to testify without his notes to make him an incompetent witness. If the back of the citation and the officer's notes signifies SB 124, then all he can testify to is SB 124, not Southbound on highway 124. As you'll soon see the notes on the back on the officers citation can hurt the officers' testimony and help you greatly.

OBJECTION, FOUNDATION A situation arises when any witness testifies to something that has not been previously established as evidence. For example, the officer states that the speedometer on his police vehicle read 70 miles per hour. It is inadmissible in court unless the calibration for the speedometer had been entered prior to that point in time.

OBJECTION, SPECULATION This type of objection occurs when a question is asked of a witness and they introduce evidence that they could not possibly know. For example, they introduce the fact that you could clearly see a street sign or a speed limit sign and there's no way that they could know that. Only you could be aware of that fact.

OBJECTION, CONCLUSION In this case the Prosecution would ask the officer to draw a conclusion based on an insufficient amount of facts. For example, the officer volunteered that you saw a stop sign and chose to ignore it. He cannot make that decision because he does not have the facts.

OBJECTION, NARRATIVE The officer is allowed to testify in the form of a story rather than a question and answer procedure. He has given a narrative. You have a right to decide if a particular question would have an objectionable response. If he tells the events without questioning, you have no opportunity to object.

OBJECTION, NOT QUALIFIED It's similar to the previous objection, but in this instance the witness testifies to something that they have no expertise in. If the officer were to testify that your muffler was defective, he doesn't have the expertise to make that determination since he's not a muffler mechanic.

OBJECTION, HEARSAY In essence this is anything said outside of the courtroom by someone who's not a witness. The officer may not state what a witness told him at the scene. The actual witness would have to appear in order for that testimony to be entered into the court record. If one officer wrote a speeding ticket for a radar violation for another officer, both officers must testify, only to the extent of how much they were
involved in that particular incident.

OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT These are events that may or may not have happened and have no bearing on the particular law that you are accused of violating. The officer may state that you have had a hostile attitude towards him, which has no bearing on the ticket. Your attitude is not relevant in the speedy fulfillment of the law.

OBJECTION, IMMATERIAL It's very similar to the previous objection. It may be closely related to the previous facts at hand, but it's really not close enough to remain admissible. Perhaps the officer would bring up your driving record. Your prior traffic convictions have no influence and should have no relevance to the ticket that you were fighting at the present. You cannot be judged on your past performances. If that were the case and you've had 12 speeding violations in the past three years, they would be assuming that you would be guilty of this violation.

THE PREEMPTIVE OBJECTION This is when you realize before the fact that the officer is going to drop some bit of information that could be damaging to your case. In this case, you would object prior to the officer even mentioning it, just to disrupt their rhythm enough so that it would throw them off. Be advised that you are only permitted to be able to use this once or twice during the course of the trial because you are going to aggravate the Judge. If you abuse this type of objection, when you have a real objection the Judge will just overrule automatically without hearing your case.

Thanks a lot for your long, descriptive paragraphs. So it seems like i should fight this case even if i have not even a winning chance.

ps: gotta go to class, i'll post some more later.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Ahhh court day time. I finally found out the fine, $243.00. Ahhh the Statham cops must be on a large budget cut this year. Hahaha ^_^. Hopefully so of those advices will come in handy.

I was speaking idiomatically.