Boo. I got a speeding ticket.

[beckms]

And not even 15 minutes after I breathed a sigh of relief from successfully passing another speed trap. OK, so I WAS speeding (he clocked me at 62 in a 40), but it's one of those roads that really should be 55, and I was going the speed of traffic!

For fellow Metrowesters, beware the speed trap just over the hill after the Speen St. exit on Rte 9 Eastbound. Evil!

So my question is, if I go to court, will my fine be reduced? It's a $220 ticket! That's an entire week of pay for me! And the kicker is, I really did have an excuse...I really really had to go to the bathroom. I told that to the cop, but he didn't care and took his sweet time writing my ticket while I sat there and squirmed.:mad: Think that excuse will buy me some pity in court?

[sneezles]

Wow! I don't even think you could do Defense Driving in lieu of the fine here in Texas since it's more than 20 over the speed limit! Ouch!!!

[beckms]

I know, it sounds like I was driving like a bat out of hell, but like I said, I wasn't going any faster than anyone else. Lucky me.:rolleyes:

[jmarie]

Everything depends on your driving record. My son has a terrible driving record. A lawyer got him off, from one ticket, on a technicality. The Police Officer failed to calibrate his radar, when he got off work that night. They keep a log, so all the lawyer had to do was go and look. (Ad so far, that was my son's last ticket....OVER A YEAR GO!)
Lawyers are costly, though. So, depending on your driving record, you have to decide how important a lawyer is.

If you have a great driving record, I bet the judge will reduce if not drop the charges, if you are honest with him. Good luck. I hate speeding tickets! They take all of the fun out of driving!

[beckms]

I've had two speeding tickets before this one, the first one was 9 years ago and the second one was 4 years ago. I've never been in an accident. I can't justify hiring a lawyer, since that would probably cost more than the ticket, and my goal is to pay less than $220. But the courthouse is just a few blocks from my house, so I figured it would be easy enough to get a hearing to see if I could play the pity card.

[Leslie Ferguson]

Don't know how the Commonwealth up there is but this Commonwealth tends to reduce the fine if you go to court. I'm not very familiar with the rules up there but typically in excess of 20 over generally means that you can't go to Defensive Driving school but either have to pay or go to court. Be thankful that you weren't here because more than 20 over is typically hit with Wreckless Driving here.

If it were me - I'd go to court (especially since it is right around the corner).

Les

[jmarie]

Definately go to court and wear business attire. A friend told me that she heard a judge comment that he looks more favorably upon people who dress for the occasion than for those who come in in jeans and a tee-shirt. Take it for what it is worth.

[leebee]

MA is a 6-year state for motor vehicle records, so the only other ticket that should show up on your record is the one 4 yrs ago. Was that ticket a major or minor speed? States vary, but generally up to 15 over the limit is considered minor, over 15 is major. If nothing else, you may be able to get it reduced to a minor speed (important for insurance concerns as well). The father of a friend of mine was a judge for traffic court (not in MA, tho) and he told us that if he had someone fighting a ticket that clearly was speeding, he did better without the "whine" factor--he appreciated when someone said something like, "Yes, Your Honor, I was speeding. I didn't realize I was going so far over the limit, because I was keeping pace with traffic. I may not have paid as close attention as I should have, but I was distracted by an urgent need to reach a rest room. I will certainly be more careful in the future." I haven't ever contested a ticket, so I can't speak to how good the advice was!

[Gilgamesh37]

Boy, it just really depends on your jurisdiction and your judge. Leebee has the right approach & tone, I think--but be forewarned, there are some judges (at least in the jurisdiction where I had the most experience) who simply will NOT reduce speeding charges if they're over a certain level--on the theory that drivers shouldn't be rewarded for being flagrantly in violation of the law as opposed to just somewhat in violation. Also, I know 2 police officers who go balistic at the mention of the bathroom excuse (I realize it happened to be true in your situation, but....) and who will oppose any lowering of speed or other consideration when defendants bring that up.

That said, though--it's not like they can RAISE the ticket, so it's certainly worth your time going. The other thing is, sometimes emergencies come up and the police officer can't make it to court. Some judges will continue the case to another day; other times they'll just dismiss it since the State can't proceed.

[KathrynY]

((Rebecca)) No experience or advice to offer - just sending you a sympathetic hug - speeding tickets really suck. :(

[AmyO26]

Does your state put "points" on your licence for certain violations? Here in PA you can almost always get the points reduced or eliminated if you go to court. Can what the officer specifically wrote you up for be reduced? For example, I got a ticket last fall (my fault, wasn't paying attention to my speed...was going about the same speed as you were in this case), and I got a ticket for "disobeying a traffic sign" rather than "speeding" The citation I received was a lesser violation (fine was only $25 plus costs...of course it ended up over $100, and no "points") I didn't go to court because it was already the "minimum" fine I could have received. Good luck Rebecca, tickets do suck :(

[jmarie]

The other thing is, sometimes emergencies come up and the police officer can't make it to court.

I'm sure this is probably true...just not any of the times we have ever had to go to court. They have always been there with bells (and guns and radios and night sticks) on.

[little_bopeep]

I just got my notice to appear in court next month on a speeding ticket. I requested the hearing because the day I went to the courthouse to see the judge in an informal setting, there were at least 2 other people there who got tickets in the same "trap" on the same morning as me. And the trooper had marked on the ticket that there were construction crews presents, which doubles the fine! Turns out that the trooper was "mistaken" about that (translated, that means he got busted and suddenly changed his story), so the court officer called everyone who wanted to contest their ticket and tell them that the 2nd charge had been dropped.

But I want to go ahead and see the judge in the courtroom to make that trooper accountable for all the trouble he caused all of us. AND he says I was going 85 on the tollway, which I wasn't. I WAS speeding because I was late for an appointment, but not that fast. And if he'll lie about the construction crews, he's likely to lie about other things. And even if the judge does find against me, I will have at least tried.

Sorry to hijack.

[wallycat]

I was caught speeding in my late 20's :D
I WAS speeding....90+ on the xpressway which is 55 :eek:
I was coming from work during lunch to take a chemistry class downtown at the university and didn't want to miss it...so much for that theory :mad: :mad:
I went to court and it saved me points.
Didn't do anything for the $$ but at least I felt I didn't lose the points.
sorry to hear you were caught.
I HAAAAATE when that happens when I need a potty!!!

[Escher]

I honestly, sincerely, earnestly urge you to go to this site:

http://www.motorists.com/
(click on fight your traffic ticket)

First off, no matter what, go to court.

At the core of it, most speed laws nowadays serve as major money makers for the city they are issued in. By going to court, as opposed to just saying "guilty" and getting the maximum fine, you are at least making the city work a teensy bit for it.

If every single person made a court appearance, cities couldn't affort to issue as many tickets as they do....

Ok, here's my advice:

Plead not guilty.
When you get a court date, ask for an extension. (it's practically automatic)
when you show up for court at the extended date, there is a very high probability the officer won't show. No officer = no case.
At the very least, you'll get to plead the court for mercy.

But the site I referred to tells how to actually fight traffic tickets... Checking that the officer calibrated the radar both before and after is but one of the suggestions they offer....


Basically, I have a problem with any law that makes over half of it's citizens criminals.....certainly speeding falls into that category.

[tulip255]

It works a little differentlly here in MA. When you appeal the ticket you do not go directly to court. You will be assigned a time to appear before a magistrate who will listen to what you have to say. The police officer does not have to be there and wasn't there when I went. The magistrate can dismissed your ticket and then that would be the end. (That's what happened in my case.) If the magistrate does not dismissed it then you go to court (it would be another day) or pay the fine. The day I went, the magistrate did dismissed a lot of cases. I think it is worth a try since your insurance will go up quite a bit for the next 6 years. First tickets are oftened dismissed. Not sure how the other ticket will affect the results. Good luck. Be prepared to sit and wait for a long time. I think I was there, at the Lowell courthouse, for about 2 hours.

[katygirl]

Massachusetts police officers must have been out in full force this week! I got pulled over Wednesday for going 44 in a 30 again it was one of those roads that should have been at least 40. Anyway, don't hate me but I flirted like crazy and just got a warning. Just kidding on the flirting part, he must have just been in a good mood so I did just get the warning.

[tamawrite]

Thanks, Escher. I'll keep that in mind for the ticket I'm bound to get someday.

[Mlasley]

Just my two cents - I would never, ever even think to walk into a courtroom without a lawyer.

[beckms]

Originally posted by Mlasley
Just my two cents - I would never, ever even think to walk into a courtroom without a lawyer.

Have you ever appealed a ticket? Because I would think the lawyer fee would exceed the ticket fine, which to me seems silly. But to each her own. I don't think they can actually increase my fine (unless I have to pay a court fee), so I don't see a reason to shell out more money for a lawyer.

But for sure, if I were going to court for anything but a traffic violation, I would absolutely hire a lawyer. Hopefully, I won't ever have to!:eek:

[seathyme]

Ugh Rebecca, I know exactly where you were, and the traffic *always* exceeds the limit there. The cops know it too.:mad: I wish I had more hope for you, but I guess there's no harm in trying to appeal. What a drag!

[tulip255]

You certainly don't need a lawyer in Mass. when you go in the first time to appeal the ticket. As I said before, its a two step process. If the magistrate does not dismiss the ticket the first time you go in, another court date will be set for you. The second time is when the police officer will be present. I've been told that they do it this way to lessen the court load.

[jmarie]

Forget the general notion that traffic courts are in place to dispense "justice." Traffic courts were invented to process as many defendants as possible, maximizing income generation while minimizing due process protections for defendant.

This said, an even bigger secret is that most of the people who seriously contest a traffic ticket either win or are offered an attractive plea bargain arrangement that significantly reduces their fines or points.

[Escher]

Originally posted by Mlasley
Just my two cents - I would never, ever even think to walk into a courtroom without a lawyer.

As long as you aren't disrespectful, the worst that can happen is that you will lose the case and get the maximum penalty (which is what you get if you plead "guilty" anyhow...

[akairo]

Ok folks, wait a minute...please allow me to play the devil's advocate for just a moment. If you are actually guilty of speeding, aren't you lying when you say "not guilty"? Does this bother you in the least?
Also most officers will show up for court because they are either on duty, or they get paid overtime to go to court. The only time you get lucky is if they happen to be on vacation.
I am so tired of a society that has no morals or ethics and thinks that it is just fine to lie if it saves them a little money. Just what exactly are you people teaching your children. I went on a ride-along once and the man berated the officer for pulling him over in front of his children, profanity and all. (He was very guilty.) It's no wonder we have so many dilinquents.

Okay, you had you use the bathroom. Were there no available bathrooms anywhere? You were clearly able to "hold it" while getting a ticket, therefore you would have been able to reach a bathroom while driving the speed limit.

Laws are laws, and they are there for a reason. Perhaps you would prefer to live in a country without laws?????Deal with it. Irregardless of your reason, you have already admitted that you are guilty. Are you prepared to lie to the Judge and say that you are innocent? Do you have any understanding of how this lie may affect your eternity. Is it worth spending who knows how long in purgatory for a ridiculous lie that saves nothing except a little money.

Moral of the story should be "Go pee. Don't speed."

BTW before you all send me nasty notes, I've had a couple of margaritas.

Tamara

[badunnin]

Tamara - in my experience, just by showing up to court and pleading guilty, a judge will lessen the sentence/penalty. I've had to pay a fine, but because I cared enough to show up to court, I didn't get points. Or, as someone else mentioned, you can plead guilty to a lesser charge.

[Escher]

Originally posted by akairo
If you are actually guilty of speeding, aren't you lying when you say "not guilty"? m while driving the speed limit.


This one's easy. Technically, there is no such thing as a "speed limit" IE, legally, the sign you see on the highway is merely a presumption of the safe speed. In actuality, you are charged a crime of "speed of a reckless and dangerous manner" or some other such legalese. In fact, numerous examples exist in case law where people have been cited for breaking the "speed limit" when in fact they were going less than the posted speed.... Ice/rain storms, heavy traffic, and emergency vehicles on the side of the road come to mind. So, when you are charged with "speed of a reckless and dangerous manner", one can in clear conscience say "not guilty" if you don't feel you were reckless or dangerous.

If the weather was clear and dry, and there were no other cars on the road, and your car just had it's brakes inspected, well, clearly all those factors indicate that a higher speed could still be considered safe.... if it was raining and lots of traffic, and your tires were balding....well, then lower speeds are in order. The judge must decide. There is no set limit. So in effect, legally it's a judgement call, and the speed "limit" is a suggestion of what is safe in average conditions.

Oh, and by the way, speed limits (a third parties judgement of a safe and reasonable speed on an average day) were often set decades ago, and they are supposed to be reviewed every so often. So that's another way to get out.... if the road hasn't been reviewed in the past X years, the posted sign (which is a suggestion anyhow) is obsolete.

[jmarie]

Tamara, I read your post and felt a lottle guilty. But then I thoight of the affluant who know the judges and get off. In my town an officer doesn't even give a ticket to someone affluent.

The alcohol check points aren't set up on the road coming out of the Country Club, but rather on the road coming out of the poor section of town.

The speed trap isn't in the very affluant part of town but rather the middle class part of town.

In other words, they do not play fair, They aren't the least bit concerned about our safety, but rather meeting their quota. If the reverse were true, then I would agree with you.

I went to court one time and told the truth, but my employer lost the case because the woman was friends with the magistrate. I live in a small town, so anyrhing like that is just common knowlwdge. So, the way I'm thinking is that I am owed one....and by golly, if I get a ticket, you better believe I am going to lie. I pass through the same check points daily and I don't speed....but if I am not observant one day and they pull me over, Yup. You got it. My past history is going to count for something.

I drive a school bus and if we get one ticket in our private vehicle, we are on pins and needles because the 2nd ticket in a year means dismissal. A ticket in a schoolbus means automatic dismissal. (The schoolbus one, I totally agree with, but I think the private vehicle is unfair to us, but I don't make the laws.)

Anyway. I agree that truth is important and I would tell the truth in every other case, EXCEPT this! It is a racket for the jurisdictions and also the insurance companies!

Your thoughts were well thought out and noble. But I am deaf to them because of what I just said. Everyone is not equal under the law.
Joyce

[beckms]

Instead of trying to get yourself off the hook by admitting you had a couple margaritas, next time why don't you just wait until you're sober before clambering up to your moral high horse.

You know nothing about me or my situation, and I resent the implication that you do. FYI, even if it's TMI, I didn't have to "go pee." That wouldn't have been a problem. I have bouts of IBS and happened to have a flare-up on my way home. The reason I didn't stop to use a bathroom was because a)I was coming home from work (a farm) and was wearing pants that had streaks of dirt and manure on them. Which restaurant along Rte 9 would you suggest I stop in at wearing that? b)rather than risk being turned away at a business and wasting even more time, I thought it better just to get home, which was just a couple miles farther.

Excuse me, but were you there when I got the ticket? Because I don't recall seeing anyone standing at my car except the cop, who was very polite and efficient, and to whom I was also polite. I did not try to weasel out of my ticket, because I wanted to get it over with ASAP. AND FYI again, I almost DID have an accident while sitting in the car waiting for the ticket.

Yes, I was speeding. So was everyone else around me. No, it's not an excuse. But for me, $220 is one week of pay for the summer, which leaves me almost nothing to buy food with or pay for electricity once I've paid rent. in addition, the ticket will likely raise my insurance premiums, which, BTW, I pay myself. So you may, in your alcohol haze, understand why I'd wish to give an appeal a try. It's not like I get tickets every day and try to milk the system for all it's worth. I don't plan to walk in and say I wasn't speeding. I plan to explain the situation and hope for the best.

My soul's fine. How's yours?

[beckms]

By the way, it's regardless, not irregardless. Before you start sending nasty PMs, I've already had a couple glasses of milk.

Skim.

[Gracie]

Rebecca I PM'd you with my own experience quite recently.

Loren

[akairo]

I don't feel that it was a nasty response. Is it wrong to not feel sorry for you when you got a ticket? The margarita aside I still feel that this is an open forum. It has always been my understanding that it is open to all different viewpoints, not just those people who agree with you. Isn't that what makes it worthwhile? Isn't that what makes our society free? The ability to freely speak. If you didn't want different viewpoints you probably shouldn't have shared.

I do just fine up on my high horse. The only ticket that I have ever fought was one where the officer did make a mistake. The judge decided the same. Every other tickets that I recieved in my youth I paid the consequences for. Fine, traffic school, insurance and everything. I couldn't afford it, I finally stopped doing it. I hear all too often the complaints that "woe is me I can't afford a ticket." One has to wonder after awhile if people are able to put two and two together and say "hmm, I can't afford to get a ticket, therefore I shouldn't speed or break the law." I don't see it happen all that often.

I used to live in a town where that "locals" would get all riled up at the thought of getting a ticket. They truly thought that they shouldn't get a ticket because they were locals. Officers should only ticket those who visit their town. It was amazing. They wouldn't just yell at the officer they would call and yell at the dispatcher. What exactly did she do?

It's always the other guy that deserves the ticket.

I also know all about having to "go pee" excessively. I suffer. When I have to go, I have to take 4 small children with me. What a treat. I deal with it. Life is just too short ti get riled up over a bump in the road. I would be more irritated at not feeling that I could stop and use a bathroom on Hwy 9. I have never been afraid to go into an establishment and use the facilities. Of course people in all of the places I have lived are used to seeing dirt and grim on work clothes and thinking nothing of it. Even in the ritziest areas. "You gotta go to the bathroom? Hey that happens to me sometimes, sure, go ahead." I don't know, if I was refused, that might just be a pretty fun fight. A fight worth fighting. If I ever get your way I would be happy to handle it for you.

I will preface this with "In my state..." there aren't quotas. Period. I know this for a fact. An officer does not have to get a certain amount of tickets every day. He only has to keep track of what kind of tickets he writes, and what kind of contact he had, ie disabled motorist, accident etc. Of course they have to keep track of your race and sex now too. I'll illustrate why with a true story. One minority citizen said to a minority officer,"You only pulled me over because I'm black." Uh....okay. The fact that you were doing 90 had nothing to do with it? The other side is really amazing. I'm suprised that officers ever give warnings myself.

I have gotten a ticket even though I "know" somebody. Actually lots of somebodies. I ran in to the officer a while later and thanked him. He slowed me down and potentially saved my life. He didn't give breaks to anyone and I respected that. An officer I know recently gave a warning to another member of law enforcement. That person then went around and insulted him to others. Officer #1 won't be giving breaks anymore. It's just not worth it.

They go through so much training to learn how to do their job and you know what?...they are lied to more often than not. There are no safe traffic stops. Around here officers are always wearing the black ribbon across their badge that signifies that another officer has been killed in the line of duty. Their back-up could be 45 minutes away. I listen to people complain that they are doing their job when they are handing out tickets and then complain that they aren't doing their job if it takes too long to rescue them from the side of the road. Officers have the highest mortality rate, lowest life expectancy and higher rate of divorce than the average American. They work odd hours under high stress for what? This?


I am sorry that you had such an uncomfortable experience, but let me share and perhaps you will understand why I feel as I do about the "guilty" thing. Although I will say that I don't expect you to particularly care.

My first born son was murdered and the b*st*rd that did it had the audacity (in my mind) to plead "not guilty." I know he did it; he knows that he did it. But he says he is "not guilty". It made me physically ill. I am a firm believer in the death penalty for people that hurt children. He beat the cr*p out of my baby and he gets to live. That is not justice.

And no I do know that a ticket is minor in comparison. However, it is a symptom of the same thing. I admire the people that stand up to the Judge and say "Yes sir I am guilty, but could you reduce my fine or allow me to go to traffic school." I wasn't accusing you personally of whining. I didn't even look to see who started the post. Just wondering...was it worth not stopping? Would you do it agin, or would you find someplace to stop? I'm not being that way, I'm just curious.

Just an otter pop tonight, but I look forward to reading your response.

I do just fine. Thank you very much.

[beckms]

Akairo, you clearly have beef with someone or something that is not me, since nearly everything you've said does not apply to me, if you would actually read my posts. Sorry for your losses, and good for you for being a much, much better person than everyone else in the world.

You don't know me, I don't know you. We could each continue to jump to conclusions about each other to fit our prejudgements, but honestly, don't we all have better things to do? Perhaps your words have affected someone who actually fits the descriptions you've outlined. Vent away, that's what these forums are for. Glad I could provide you with a launching pad.

[akairo]

I re-read your post and mine only so as to be clear of the individual issue. I still stand by what I said. Even if the road was re-surveyed to 55 mph, the accceptable speed in you mind, you are still speeding when you can ill afford it. I am sorry that that happened to you, but a spade is a spade. It's the age old parental statement. If everyone else was jumping off the cliff, are you going to jump with them?

Glad to see that you calmed down today. You were very angry yesterday.

Good luck with your schooling.

[MKSquared]

Originally posted by akairo
If everyone else was jumping off the cliff, are you going to jump with them?

If, indeed, everyone were jumping off the cliff, in order not to be run over by the mob, you'd have to follow them off the cliff, no? Same idea when following in traffic. Sometimes, it's even more dangerous to be the slowest one when everyone else is speeding by you, or coming up behind you so quickly that you risk being hit.

[gertdog]

Akairo, I'm sorry for your losses and I do understand what you were asking about feeling guilty when one pleads "not guilty"- but is. I can't address some of the other issues in your post, but I did want to say something about the way the court handles fines for misdemeanors.

I got my first ticket ever last fall, for going 40 in a 25 zone (or something like that). I knew I was speeding, but also knew that it is common occurrence for a fine to be reduced for some traffic violations. I called the court to ask how that works. In our area, you *must* enter a plea of not guilty in order to have a court date or speak with the DA. I asked the clerk explicitly about pleading not guilty when I was in fact willing to plead guilty. She said that's how the system is set up. Plead not guilty to get a date set, then discuss changing your plea with the DA. I thought that was weird, but I did it, and showed up at court not knowing what to expect. Basically, there were about 100 people there and the DA spent about 2 minutes with each. If you had no previous tickets and your ticket was for a minor offense, you pled guilty and they reduced the fine. I should note that the speeding violation carries a "maximum posted fine" which is what you would pay if you simply sent in a check after receiving the ticket from the officer. The court has the discretion to charge a lesser amount, and that's what my jurisdiction chooses to do for first-time offenders. I still paid a fine, and I still pled guilty. I just didn't pay the maximum fine, and I don't feel bad about that, as the system is set up (locally, anyway) to show lenience in certain cases.

So- around here you can't say "I'm guilty, can I see the judge?" for a traffic infraction. You have to enter a not guilty plea to get that far, and then you can say exactly what you suggested.

[Escher]

Murder <---> Traffic violation.
Not even in the same league.

Drawing on that terrible experience to make a point was ill-advised.

[JenniferJJ]

Traffic tickets...unfortunately I have experience in that area.

I just like to speed.

Anyway, it was under control for many years until I finally ammassed 14 points in the span of two years. In Michigan, that means loss of your license. That also meant that I now have insurance with a high-risk agency and pay 2K/year for that. All of my ticekts were well justified, except one: I was driving one Saturday night about midnight with no traffic area with very safe driving conditions. I had forgotton to turn on my signal and got pulled over. The officer asked if I knew why he pulled me over and I truly did not. First he asked where I had been that night. I told him I was at a going away party for a friend who was going to be a missionary for 3 years in Romania (truth). My thinking was that he knew he was unlikely to get my for DUI. Just my hunch. Then he wrote me up for my turn signal issue, which still bothered me because there was no other traffic around. It also bothered me when I would have friends who drove drunk and suffered nothing and here I was. So it wasn't fair, but I accepted the fact that *I* did brake the law several times, so I did deserve the consequences.

If you aren't married and don't live in an area with stores/work within walking distance or with mass transit, let me tell you, it is not easy to get around with no license. (But somehow, I managed to get rides to work, every place I really had to go and to social things, too - and my parents never found out!) After one month, my suspension was lifted and it went to restricted for three months, meaning I could drive to an from work. They took down my work address, too.

You would think I would learn with that experience. Unfortunately, since that time, I've received 5 warnings and two tickets. One time, when I was stopped, I told them I was probably not paying attention because I was thinking about some health issues (true). The officer then told me that maybe I shouldn't be driving. However, my ticket amount is less and I think I am finally learning. I use my turn signal (although I am still not at 100%), I count to three when stopping at a stop sign and when people going faster than me, I just get in the right lane and let them. Sure they may get mad at me, but I'd rather they just get mad than me get a ticket. (And if everyone else is speeding, yes, I still am concerned since I knew someone who had an officer pull over her and her four friends who were speeding around her.)

So, with my experience, I feel I need to just admit my guilt, concentrate on driving and just obey the traffic laws.

[Escher]

You are not required to answer where you are going or where you came from.

The officer was fishing.

The very first thing out of the officer's mouth should be "I pulled you over for X" If they say anything else, ask why you were pulled over.

Another common trick, the officer will ask if you know how fast you are going. Don't answer with a number or Yes/No. Try "I travelling at a speed consistent with the conditions"

Remember, everything you say at the stop can and will be used against you.

If the officer asks to search your car, say No. People waive their right to search all the time, just because they think they can't say no. If the officer is asking, you can say no. If the officer has probable cause, he won't be asking you.
But if he just asks out of the blue, and you say yes, well, you have given up your rights voluntarily.

[Gilgamesh37]

And in some states, if you are pulled over for speeding, the officer is ENTITLED to search your vehicle if he so desires. I know this because that was the case in the state where I went to law school and it came up every year and was argued about endlessly--but it was still the law, at least when I moved out of hte state several years ago.

[Vicanddi]

Hmmm...I do believe this has gotten blown out of proportion...just a tad. Rebecca was simply stating her experience, and looking for support and some answers.(at least that is what I got from her post)
I do believe everyone has the right to express their opinion...however, must they attack the person who is looking for nothing more than a place to vent, a shoulder, and some answers?

Dianne (expressing her views :) )

[Escher]

Hey, I didn't attack anyone! (in this thread)

[akairo]

Originally posted by Escher
Hey, I didn't attack anyone! (in this thread)

I'm positive that that was referenced to me!;)

I wasn't trying to equate murder to speeding, merely explaining why I have a "thing", however irrational and over-blown it may become, about not-guilty. I thought that more information would help people see where I was coming from on that specific issue.

I certainly wasn't attacking Rebecca personally. She wasn't trying to get out of the ticket. It was the way the general conversation was going so I thought I would put forth guilt question. I did, however, forget about the court situation in regards to guilt od innocence. So ad nasuem I am sorry. Public flailing accepted.

I have been suitable scolded for opening my mouth and from here on out shall stick to the "fluff" on this board. So terribly sorry to have insulted all members of this forum.

Politics anyone?????:D (really, I'm kidding.)

[beckms]

Originally posted by akairo


I'm positive that that was referenced to me!;)

I wasn't trying to equate murder to speeding, merely explaining why I have a "thing", however irrational and over-blown it may become, about not-guilty. I thought that more information would help people see where I was coming from on that specific issue.

I certainly wasn't attacking Rebecca personally. She wasn't trying to get out of the ticket. It was the way the general conversation was going so I thought I would put forth guilt question. I did, however, forget about the court situation in regards to guilt od innocence. So ad nasuem I am sorry. Public flailing accepted.

I have been suitable scolded for opening my mouth and from here on out shall stick to the "fluff" on this board. So terribly sorry to have insulted all members of this forum.

Politics anyone?????:D (really, I'm kidding.)

Thank you for clearing that up, akairo. I was angry because your first post really did come across as a personal attack on me, accusing me, albeit indirectly, of lots of things I did not and would never do. Actually, I believe there was a direct attack on my soul, for whatever that's worth, but hey, water under the bridge, right? :cool:

So thanks to all who have publically and privately expressed their support of me on this thread, and thanks to akairo for coming on to say she doesn't think I'm a hardened criminal. ;)

And BTW, gertdog pointed out something I should have earlier...there is no option on the ticket for "yes, I'm guilty, but could I please offer an explanation?". It's just guilty or not guilty, with guilty carrying the maximum fine. Which exactly why I wanted to appeal so I could talk to a judge and explain the circumstances (I challenge anyone out there to have a bout with IBS and NOT speed :o ).

[beckms]

Originally posted by MKSquared


If, indeed, everyone were jumping off the cliff, in order not to be run over by the mob, you'd have to follow them off the cliff, no? Same idea when following in traffic. Sometimes, it's even more dangerous to be the slowest one when everyone else is speeding by you, or coming up behind you so quickly that you risk being hit.

HA!!! Good freakin' point, MK. I've been driving at the speed limit on that stretch of road since I got my ticket, and it's so bad that I've seriously considered whether or not a judge would waive my first ticket if I were to get rear-ended going the speed limit.

[aggie94]

Originally posted by akairo
Ok folks, wait a minute...please allow me to play the devil's advocate for just a moment. If you are actually guilty of speeding, aren't you lying when you say "not guilty"? Does this bother you in the least?

No, and no.

FWIW, "not guilty" is a legal phrase. It doesn't carry the same meaning as you might think. By pleading "not guilty," you are simply requiring the prosecution to prove its case against you by whatever standard (typically "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, although not all traffic violations are criminal) applies. It is not the same as saying, "I didn't do it." By pleading "guilty," you waive all the rights you are entitled to under the Constitution as a defendant. If you're not willing to do that and you want to make sure that the prosecution can sustain its burden against you (because it is, after all, THEIR burden to prove you did it, not yours to prove you didn't) and have the opportunity to confront your accusers and cross-examine witnesses (as well as preserve your rights to appeal), then generally your only choice is to plead not guilty.

It's the way the legal system is set up. It's not intended to create a bunch of liars out of otherwise respectable people.

[gertdog]

New rule: Rebecca and Eva must not make adjacent posts. I love Bucky cat but I keep mistaking you two for each other! :p

Sorry for the OT.

[Escher]

Originally posted by aggie94

It's the way the legal system is set up. It's not intended to create a bunch of liars out of otherwise respectable people.

Which is a little odd.

I mean, you are innocent until proven guilty.

But it doesn't make sense to drag an innocent person into court.

In truth, a cnyic might argue the courts are there to process the guilty.

There was an Star Trek, Next Generation episode that touched on the concept....
I also think bald men are terribly appealing:
http://www.hypertrek.org/tng/img/picard.jpg

[doggerham]

http://www.toptiercakes.freeserve.co.uk/men/bald.htm

[MrsReber]

Originally posted by Escher



There was an Star Trek, Next Generation episode that touched on the concept....
I also think bald men are terribly appealing:


Escher, for some reason, this made me laugh out loud at my desk.

I have always been fascinated with the legal system, which is one reason why I have a paralegal degree. Eva is right on with what she said. I see the point of bringing an innocent person into court, but it's done all the time with things much larger than traffic violations. Although the system seems pretty messed up to many people, it's really there to protect us. Unfortunately, sometimes it works in favor of guilty people, but I like to think, from my own experience, that most of the time it works.