Robin 993DX

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?

marlinspike

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.

pongobaz

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.

marlinspike

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.

Joe2000C4Cab

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! :-)

1999Porsche911

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.

AudiOn19s

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

nycebo

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.

Robin 993DX

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.

marlinspike

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

Joe2000C4Cab

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!

Robin 993DX

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.

djantlive

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.

Joe2000C4Cab

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.

johnnyiv

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