Fighting Speeding and Other Traffic Tickets
(Created 6/27/06; last updated 7/28/08)
Fighting Speeding and Other Traffic Tickets
(Created 6/27/06; last updated 7/28/08)
Introduction
First of all, let me say right up front that I am not an attorney, and thus could not give you legal advice even if I wanted to. It is recommended that you consult a competent attorney before any court appearance. This page is intended as a resource that citizens and attorneys alike may use to find sample motions, get ideas for strategies to fight traffic and vehicular equipment tickets, and generally fight back against a system that has become self-serving and abusive to its citizens. This site is not an authoritative source, but rather a growing respository of approaches, strategies and motion documents with empirical results. Your own state/county/city could have different laws, and will definitely have different judges and motion forms as compared with those discussed here. Keep this in mind; it is one reason why it's a good idea to retain competent legal counsel before trying to fight your own traffic tickets. Likewise, be aware that if you use this web site to advise another party, this may be considered the authorized practice of law. In any case, the author of this web site shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any party for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused by the use of the information provided herein. Let me reiterate that, by providing this information, I am not engaged in rendering legal services.
Why This Page?
When I was 16, I fought a ticket in New York using the principles laid out in a "How to Get Out of Speeding Tickets" article that appeared in a 1980's edition of the online magazine Phrack. The strategies failed miserably, and I lost. I later learned that the small town Claverack, New York court (led by a Justice Gibbon, the "Gibbon" part being far more representative of the man than the "Justice" part) had abused its discretion in a number of areas, including the judge writing in a corrected name, vehicle color, speed, and license plate number on the ticket at the time of trial! All were initially incorrect; years later, an attorney advised me the best strategy would have been to ignore the summons that was mailed to me, since my name did not equal the misspelled name on the summons, and my car was not the one described in the ticket; oh well, live and learn). Anyhow, this site is an attempt to provide tried strategies along with their outcomes. If there is a formulaic way to get out of any ticket, I have not found it, and I suspect anyone who says they have is trying to sell you something. There is no magic phrase that, when uttered to a traffic judge, will get you out of any traffic ticket. Each state has its own loopholes and technicalities that may be taken advantage of, and it will take some work to identify these. The strength of your case is up to you, and will depend on how much work you put into it. I am merely providing the tools and assistance so that you may work more effectively, whether you only have a couple of hours to spare fighting a ticket, or have many days to devote to the effort. All I ask from visitors is that if they use the information here to successfully get out of a traffic ticket, email me and let me know of your success. Likewise, if you filed your own motion with good results, send me a copy with your name/address/case number blanked out. This site will grow with member support, and hopefully we will all learn how to more effectively fight traffic tickets. Information on this site is catered to United States jurisdictions, but may have some relevance to other countries with legal systems based on common law.
Note that many of my examples here relate to Colorado. I chose this state because its state troopers are particularly abusive with regard to issuing massive numbers of speeding tickets, and because Colorado court rules are very unfriendly to motorists making it one of the most challenging places to fight a speeding ticket. If you can beat a speeding ticket in Colorado, fighting an identical ticket in a state like New York is a breeze.
Be Proactive
The best way to get out of a traffic ticket is not to get it in the first place. If you get pulled over, be courteous to the police officer. He might be pulling you over because he's looking for a missing kid or because a vehicle similar to yours was just involved in a hit-and-run accident, and he is using a trivial infraction (e.g., driving 8 mph over the speed limit, too much window tint, etc.) Be nice and he may let you go once he sees you're not who he is looking for. Be antagonistic in the same scenario, and he might decide to write you a ticket for that same trivial infraction. Of course, some cops do pull people over and write tickets for driving 8 mph over. Unfortunately, it's hard to differentiate the good guys from the jackasses until they actually hand you a ticket, so until that point, remain friendly and courteous! Likewise, prior to receiving a ticket, do not ask to see the officer's radar or laser gun reading, since this implies distrust of the officer. And of course, don't incriminate yourself; when asked if you know why the officer pulled you over, the correct answer is that you don't know, because in truth, you really don't. Incorrect answers include "Because I was driving 90 in a 25?", "I'm not sure, but please don't look in the trunk", or variants thereof. Do not apologize, and do not mention that you didn't know what the speed limit was, because both of these can be used to damage your case in court later.
If you're reading this after you were stopped, and you made an admission, be prepared to explain it away in court. For example, if you get pulled over for going 75 in a 65 and told the officer "I was going 70, tops!" then explain to the court that this was not an admission of driving over 65, but rather a reflection of the fact that any speed measurement over 70 was completely beyond your comprehension.
One dynamic that may affect traffic stops in your state is the "Click-It-Or-Ticket" program. This program awards federal funds to local police departments in the form of overtime pay which officers may earn by working extra hours enforcing seatbelt laws. Unfortunately, if you live in a liberty-minded state where failure to wear a seatbelt is not a primary offense (i.e., you can't be pulled over solely for not wearing your seatbelt, but can be ticketed for it if pulled over for a primary offense such as speeding), then you get an especially raw deal. Officers eager for more money will gladly take the overtime, and proceed to pull people over for trivial infractions just so they can check for seatbelt usage. Of course, even after they've verified that you are, in fact, wearing your seatbelt, you'll still sit there for 15-45 minutes while they run your license and registration. What you end up with is a feel-good federal program combining with state policy that values individual liberty, with the perhaps unexpected result that drivers are more likely to be pulled over for no good reason. Critics believe this program in its current form incentivizes police harassment. At the same time, officers in such jurisdictions who participate in this program are just as much to blame. In any case, you may get pulled over simply as part of a seatbelt check; no point in turning an inconvenience into a ticket by beginning the encounter with antagonism.
Also, be aware that the officer may confront you with some random, goofy stuff like "You don't look like this picture on your license" or some comment on your vehicle and its condition. If you look suspicious to the cop, chances are he is using these challenges to try to get you to do something suspicious or volunteer something incriminating so he has probable cause (called "PC" in the law enforcement profession) to search your vehicle. Just give terse answers until the cop stops fishing and the conversation advances.
The Ticket
OK, so you got a ticket, known in many jurisdictions as a "summons and complaint". The ticket is a "charging document" in that it charges you with an offense. It contains lots of blanks that the officer must fill in, and thus has lots of opportunity for error. If you find such an error, you can argue that the charging document was insufficient, thus violating your due process rights.
The first thing you should do is look the ticket over. Is any information on the ticket, including the location of the offense, incorrect? If so, you have a great chance at getting the case thrown out. Even if the location is correct, is it outside of the officer's jurisdiction (e.g., a sheriff's deputy from County X gave you a ticket in County Y, or on some types of federal land)? Along similar lines, does the court of law listed on the ticket have territorial jurisdiction over the location (e.g., your ticket says Court of Town X, but the offense occurred in Town Y)? These are likewise grounds for dismissal. Also look at the law you were alleged to have violated. Is there a statute number? If not, you have a good shot at dismissal. Visit a local law library (you'll find them at law schools and/or your local county courthouse; many states also have their statutes online, Findlaw.com is a great place to start looking for your state's laws) and look up the statute to make sure the statute number/section/paragraph cited is correct. Did the citation on the ticket exactly match a statute? If not, you can motion for dismissal. (This is useful because older cops will often cite obsolete statute numbers out of habit, especially during off-hour shifts.) Did the officer sign the ticket? If not, it is arguable that you were never charged. If the officer used block letters instead of cursive in the signature, you can discover or subpoena his pay records to see if he normally signs things in block letters. This goes to prove intent; if the officer normally uses cursive but on your ticket simply wrote his name, you can often get the ticket dismissed.
Errors on your ticket represent procedural issues, and are a great thing to focus on in court. Why? Because procedural errors in your charging document don't require a lot of factual support (the ticket says what it says, you don't need witnesses or testimony or cross-examination to establish the content of the ticket), and the issues are usually relatively clear cut. Often the officer will simply admit the error, and then you're left only to argue the legal side of things. When dealing with factual mistakes on the ticket, it's important to remember that as a defendant in court, you need only show that you didn't commit the specified crime at the specified time, specified place, in the specified manner, and while driving the specified vehicle specified on the ticket. If any of those elements were recording incorrectly on the ticket, you've got a strong case for dismissal, or at least a verdict of Not Guilty. (Even if you committed a very similar crime several blocks away, or the next calendar day, or in a vehicle other than the one specified, that would be an entirely different matter, and not the specific offense you have been charged with.)
Note that more minor mistakes, e.g., listing your car as black when it is actually dark blue, are less helpful, but can still be of some use. See the section on cross-examination below.
The Aftermath
If you got a ticket, don't let it ruin your day. The average traffic ticket is simply a form of taxation of drivers which is randomly applied. If the government really didn't want you speeding, they'd require speed governors on cars or have criminal penalties for minor speeding infraction. In summary, your local government depends on traffic ticket revenue, and wants you to speed so they can continue to earn revenue from you. It's that simple. Don't take it personally, and remember that you don't need to take it lying down either.
TRAFFIC COURT
Just What is Traffic Court?
Traffic court is a strange mix of the two wings of the justice system, that is, civil law and criminal law. When you got your driver's license, you signed a contract with the state wherein you agreed to abide by the state's rules in exchange for the "privilege" of driving on its roads. Thus, when you violate that contract, say by exceeding the speed limit by 15 miles per hour, the state can come after you for a civil penalty in the form of a monetary fine. More severe violations, like exceeding the speed limit by 50 miles per hour, transcend your contract with the state and begin to approach doctrines of criminal law like reckless endangerment. Now you may be in the realm of misdemeanors or even felonies, with fines turning into jail time.
Okay, So What Does This Mean?
Traffic courts nationwide represent what many legal critics call "Supermarket Justice", geared more toward getting through a large volume of cases and collecting your money than dispensing justice. The fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused in other criminal cases fall by the wayside; good luck getting a public defender, a jury of your peers, or even a stenographer, in traffic court unless you're there for a felony (this policy would seem to reward felons for committing more serious vehicular crimes!) Fortunately, traffic courts nationwide have another thing in common: these systems all try to separate you from your money as expeditiously as possible, and in doing so rely on the average driver's ignorance of the law. In some states, it is easy to take advantage of this weakness; in New York, for example, you can request what is called supporting deposition (a statement of facts surrounding the violation that the officer must write before the court date). If the supporting deposition is not written, you can request that the case be dismissed. Likewise, if the officer does not show up to court, the state has no witnesses against you, and you can likewise ask the judge to dismiss your case. (In very small towns, the judge may have a vested interest in bringing your money the town coffers; in such a place, you must ask quite forcefully, although keep a civil tone as you can be jailed for contempt of court if you are openly disrespectful of the judge.) Most drivers who show up to traffic court are not aware of their rights, or do not stand up for themselves because they are afraid of getting in even more trouble if they put up a fight; I have seen many drivers be cowed into taking a plea bargain instead of motioning for dismissal, or even worse, agreeing to schedule a new court date to a time convenient for the absent officer! Remember, an officer who misses a court appearance or does not submit required paperwork is not only wasting your time, he is wasting the court's time; a sign of an objective traffic judge will be that he shares your consternation with the officer in question. Also note that some states have a legal requirement that charges be dismissed if the officer fails to appear (e.g., see Rule 10 of the Colorado Rules for Traffic Infractions). If any requirement like this exists in your jurisdiction, be sure to print out the relevant rule or statute and bring it to court so you can cite it with confidence to the judge. If no such rule exists, tell the judge "I respectfully motion to dismiss for lack of sufficient evidence." Be aware of your rights, especially your right to remain silent (said silence cannot be used against you to establish guilt).
Note also that you might have friends, relatives, or a spouse who can't understand why anyone would bother fighting a ticket. "Just pay it," they exclaim, "it's easier than fighting it and you'll just lose anyway!" This passive, "go along to get along" attitude is what allows the traffic fine system to thrive in its present state. In contrast, if even half of licensed drivers fought every traffic ticket they got, the police wouldn't bother pulling people over for trivial crimes, because it just wouldn't be a profitable endeavor. Remember, if the founding fathers had had such a passive "grin and bear it" attitude, America would probably still be a British colony.
The strategies enumerated on this page are equally applicable to urban courts with full-time, career judges as they are to small-town courts (I literally had one case in upstate New York where the court was in the judge's living room; his wife was the "clerk" and held the cashbox! The mockery of justice that these courts represent have been around for a hundred years... they are so old that FDR tried, unsuccessfully, to abolish them when he was governor of New York!) In the second situation, you'll just have to take a more active role in educating the judge on state law and your rights. Your rural judge or justice probably only serves this role for 1-2 hours a week, and has a day job which has nothing to do with the legal profession, and your pointing out a law might be the first he has heard of it. Note that just because you've got a career judge in a big courthouse does not mean you are guaranteed a fair trial. For example, Larimer County, Colorado, has a large number of career judges and is based in a $26 million facility, but its county and district courts are among the most corrupt in the state. I'll be posting documents related some of their antics as I get them, but they include magistrates blatantly lying to defendants, frivolous motions systematically filed by the district attorney to prevent defendants from appealing (behavior which the judges refuse to sanction), and a severe bias against defendants in all traffic cases.
You needn't be nervous about making a court appearance. As long as you do not lie or insult the judge, the worst that can happen is that you have to pay the fine on your ticket, and possibly an additional $10 or so in court costs. And given the salaries of the judge, cop, clerks, and other court personnel, believe me, this $10 is a bargain -- by going to trial, you are easily costing the state most, if not all, of the money it stood to make from your fine. And remember, this is the worst-case scenario, because if your case gets dismissed, you pay neither the fine nor court costs.
One-Stage vs. Two-Stage Trials
Two types of traffic courts are prevalent in the United States. The first type uses a one-stage trial, wherein you show up to court, enter a plea, and if that plea is "Not Guilty", a hearing then takes place immediately after. New York has this type of a traffic court system. One advantage of this single-visit system is that most people who show up are just looking for a plea bargain, and so many times the police officers who issued the tickets will be complacent about showing up, thus giving you reason to ask for dismissal. A disadvantage is that you do not know how good a plea deal you will be offered until you show up to your sole hearing. So if you're not sure whether you want to accept a plea bargain, you'll probably need to prepare your defense in advance of the hearing in case the deal isn't worth taking. Note that in a two-stage trial, you may be offered a first plea bargain offer upon your first appearance, and a second, more generous plea bargain offer by the officer (who is not happy about having to be there on his day off!) upon your final hearing. In this case, it is advantageous to plead "Not Guilty" at your first appearance, however you want to be sure that this is the policy of the prosecutor or issuing officer's police department before relying on it. In some jurisidictions, may have to pay another $10 or so in court costs just for causing things to advance to the final hearing stage even though nobody was sworn in or gave testimony.
In a two-stage jurisdiction, it is generally advantageous to gather as much evidence as you can prior to your first appearance. For example, try to obtain speed studies (also called traffic engineers' surveys) prior to your arraignment. If you show the assistant district attorney evidence that the speed study was problematic, you are both demonstrating your willingness to aggressively defend yourself, and showing the DA that there may be problems with his case. In either case, the DA will likely want to be rid of you, and may offer you a more attractive plea bargain than he otherwise would have. Note that in some jurisdictions (where supermarket justice has been elevated to an art form), plea bargains are determined solely by a table of reductions used by the court clerks. If you are in one of these places, your sole opportunity for back-and-forth plea negotiation will be with the officer who issued the ticket. This puts you, the defendant, in a tough spot. You could plead not guilty and hope for a favorable plea bargain to be offered before the trial. But if the cop doesn't like you, or doesn't understand your argument (e.g., lacking legal training, he may not appreciate how much a given procedural error may weaken his case), you may not ever get a viable plea offer, and thus could be left at the last minute with no option but to go to trial.
Other states use a two-stage trial. In the first stage, you show up to the court on the date cited on the ticket. When you show up at court, you'll be given a chance to enter a plea, and probably be offered a plea bargain. This first court appearance is called an arraignment (also known as a "first hearing"). In some states, you appear before a judge for the arraignment, and thus probably ought to try and look respectable. In other states, you simply interact with a clerk at a walk-up window, and thus needn't bother with pleasantries like a tie or even bathing. Note that Colorado uses this type of traffic court system, and to maximize the inconvenience to you, the ticket-fighter, Colorado rules require a personal appearance by you or your attorney simply to enter a plea. Note that in most places, entering a plea can be done by mail.
Pleas and Plea-Bargaining
A plea is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as an accused person's formal response of "Guilty," "Not Guilty," or "No Contest" to a criminal charge. The Guilty and Not Guilty pleas are self-explanatory. However, be aware that it is perfectly legal to plead Not Guilty to a traffic violation that you really did commit. There is nothing wrong with forcing the state to present its case against you!
No Contest (a.k.a. nolo contendre) is a plea which neither acknowledges nor contests guilt. Advantages of the No Contest plea are that they may not be used against you in a subsequent civil case (e.g., if you are accused of running a stoplight and hitting somebody, pleading No Contest will resolve the case and allow you to be fined or sentenced without giving the victim ammunition against you in a personal injury case). No Contest pleas can sometimes be used to get a more lenient sentence from a judge than would be gained after fighting a losing battle in court. Another application for a No Contest plea is when you want to admit that you were speeding, but have a really good excuse (e.g., medical emergency) and want to throw yourself on the mercy of the court. To accomplish this, you would enter a plea of No Contest, and ask the judge for a right of explanation. You would then explain the extenuating circumstances, and ask the judge to withhold adjudication (or suspend sentence, depending on your jurisdiction) in light of the circumstances. Note that in some states (e.g., Colorado), imminent harm (such as a medical emergency) is an affirmative defense to speeding. In such states, you'll probably want to plead Not Guilty, and use the affirmative defense, rather than plead No Contest.
Plea bargaining refers to the process by which the state offers you a decreased fine, decreased number of points, or other break in exchange for pleading guilty to a lesser charge (e.g., a 4 point Speeding ticket may be plea bargained into a 3 point Failure to Obey a Traffic Signal charge). In some jurisdictions, the officer who issued the ticket offers the plea. In other jurisdictions, assistant district attorneys or their minions will offer the plea. View plea bargain offers with a high degree of skepticism! I once had a New York State Trooper offer to "reduce" a "Speed Unreasonable" charge into "Failure to Obey a Traffic Signal" charge in exchange for pleading guilty. It turns out the fines and points for the two charges were identical. Fortunately, I turned down the plea deal, and ended up getting the case dismissed because the Trooper forgot to write a supporting deposition (discussed above).&nsp; To frost the cake of that court appearance, the judge berated the Trooper for wasting the court's, and my, time. I drove (well actually, sped) home feeling gratified.
Beware of Police Intimidation Tactics!
Less honest police officers (especially state troopers) will try to deceive you in an effort to dissuade you from going to trial. Here is a sample script I've seen New York State Troopers use on people who show up to fight their tickets:
Trooper: (Friendly I'm-doing-you-a-favor tone) Hi, I'm Trooper Smith. Trooper Jones, who wrote your ticket, is running late. I just spoke to him on the radio, and he won't be getting to the court for another hour. He did authorize me to offer this plea bargain on his behalf...
Soccer Mom: Oh... I don't have that kind of time, I have to go pick up my kids at school. Darn, I wasn't even speeding, either. But I guess I'll just take the plea bargain, I've already wasted enough time on this...
(Soccer Mom accepts plea; Trooper Smith turns to me)
Trooper: So, you probably heard about Trooper Jones running behind. He authorized me to make this plea deal...
Me: No thanks. I can wait an hour.
(At this point, Trooper Smith disappears to his car, allegedly to check on how Trooper Jones is coming along. After several minutes in his cruiser, he comes back in)
Trooper: Actually, it's looking more like it's going to be two and a half hours until Trooper Jones can get here and your hearing can start...
Me: (Cheerfully) That's fine! I've got all day.
Upstate New York Justice: (Who has been watching this charade all along without interceding) Well, I don't have all day. We'll have to reschedule.
Me: Your honor, I don't have any room in my schedule for a further hearing. I'm afraid I have to motion for dismissal.
(Dismissal was granted; if Soccer Mom had seen through this technique, she too could have had her ticket dismissed!)
The moral of the story is don't take legal advice from the cops in the courtroom. Despite how friendly and/or helpful they may seem, they did not come to court to help you! They are there because they chose write someone in the courtroom a ticket, and now they want to make sure it sticks!
CLERKS (No, not the movie!)
The court clerks are your friends. If they are not, then they should be! The clerk's office is in charge of scheduling trials, processing motions and subpoenas, etc. If you are nice to them, they will often try to help you with scheduling flexibility, information, or advice. Take such advice with a grain of salt, of course, because clerks are not experts on the law. Nevertheless, whenever a clerk informs you of a deadline or a procedure, make notes on what you were told, by whom, and the time and date. Judges will often be more forgiving of a procedural error on your part if you can point to misinformation given to you by the clerk's office (I once had a motion to set aside a default judgement granted after the statutory limit for such a motion had passed because I was able to point to misinformation given to me by the clerk's office, and an unreturned phone call to the same office). If you need something from the clerk, and just aren't getting any cooperation, see if there is a Judicial Administration office to which the clerk's office is ultimately accountable, and consider seeking assistance there.
Whenever you file any document with the clerk's office, bring an extra copy of the document with you, and ask the clerk to stamp it. This stamped copy serves as your proof that you filed the document. If you file a document and do not get this proof, and the document is lost, so are your legal rights associated with that document!
PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS, AND IDENTIFYING YOUR OPPONENT
A motion is simply a request (usually written in the case of pre-trial motions, or oral if you're already before the judge) for the court to decide on something. There are a few important things you should know about motions. First, expect lots of back-and-forth on any motion you file. Your traffic court judge will probably resist any but the most customary motions you make. Unfortunately, your typical traffic court judge is more interested in facilitating the transfer of your hard-earned money to the local government than in justice or objectivity. In jurisdictions where the police officer who wrote the ticket represents the prosecution (instead of, say, an assistant district attorney), your opponent is probably the judge. The officer will likely know very little about judicial rules, important cases, and traffic case jurisprudence. You might think this would present a strategic advantage for you, but chances are, the judge will step in and do the cop's legal research for him. Try making a motion of any kind, and watch as the officer stands idly by; the judge will be left to come up with reasons why your motion should be denied on behalf of the cop, and then will proceed to rule on the objections the cop never made. As you might imagine, any justifications the judge comes up with on his own are probably more compelling to him than whatever you came up with!
If your motion gets denied and you think it unfair, or think the judge missed something, then file a Motion to Reconsider Defendant's Motion for X, where X what you motioned for initially. If the prosecution files a motion, you argue with it by filing a Reply to Peoples' Motion. You can argue with the prosecution's reply to your motion by filing a Surreply to the Prosecution's Reply, a Surreply to Prosecution's Surreply, and so on. If you'd like to bring up a motion for the second (or tenth) time, perhaps after new evidence or argument has been offered which strengthens the case for such a motion, then you can Renew your motion any time up through the end of the trial (because you can't generally make a new motion for the same thing).
Some motions must be filed pre-trial or you will lose your right to make the motion. Check your local judicial rules to be sure, but these types of motions usually relate to a lack of jurisdiction over you (personal jurisdiction) or the case (subject matter jurisdiction, such as errors on the charging document (a.k.a. the ticket/summons), or violation of your right to a speedy trial). Just to be safe, you always want to present these types of Motions for Dismissal right up front (personal jurisdiction first, followed by subject matter) before any testimony is offered!
Of course, you can also motion during your trial. If your issue is fairly complex and could involve harmful precedent the judge is apt to discover if he looks deep, it may be best to make such a motion during the trial so the judge has less time to dig around and do research! But if it's not advantageous to catch the judge and/or prosecution off-guard, then you might as well file the motion in advance -- you might succeed, and save yourself a trip to court!
DISCOVERY
Your Right to Discovery
As with any court case, pre-trial discovery can be a powerful tool in fighting a ticket. Discovery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "compulsory disclosure, at a party's request, of information that relates to the litigation". Generally speaking, pre-trial discovery is intended to give you access to the government's evidence against you. This access is necessary for you to prepare your defense. Practically speaking, a motion for discovery is used to gain access to pieces of evidence which may be used to find weaknesses in the opponent's case. Most states are obligated to comply with any reasonable discovery requests you make. Note, however, that there are some exceptions to this. For example, Colorado goes the extra mile in denying basic legal rights to motorists with Rule 8 of the Colorado Rules for Traffic Infractions, which disallows discovery prior to your hearing. But you have no actual right to examine the evidence against you before deciding how to plead! In such a case, you can go to the police agency that issued the ticket and try to request the documents. Do so well in advance of your hearing! Some jurisdictions will not allow you access to original documents, and you will have to wait for a government employee to find and copy the requested evidence. You may have to pay for these copies, which is unfortunate since you will be paying for document copies before you even know if the document helps your case. In some particularly abusive jurisdictions (e.g., Larimer County, Colorado) you can be charged $7.50 for something as simple as a one-page photocopy of the officer's copy of your ticket! Not only does this system help to dissuade people from standing up for their rights by denying them immediate or direct access to relevant documents in the case against them, but it also makes a tidy profit for the county sheriff even if you win your case. If course, if you're pretty sure you want to go to trial, and are comfortable examining lots of evidence quickly, you could file a subpoena duces tecum which, while not really pre-trial, force the officer to bring all the records you request with him to court for your examination (see below).
To further confuse things, Rule 216 of Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure does allow for discovery. What does this mean? Essentially, if your Colorado ticket was written within city limits, you have a right to conduct pre-trial discovery, but if the ticket was issued within unincorporated county land, you cannot. Determine what discovery rights are available in your locality before you spend time on any discovery requests. If you are unable to make this determination, then at the very least submit your discovery motion as early as possible so you are not surprised at the last minute by a lack of access to evidence.
Note that it is illegal to file a motion for discovery for large numbers of documents purely to inconvenience your opponent. Our goal here is simply to find out all the facts relevant to our case. You're going to have to miss work or sacrifice some family time to fight this ticket, and may have to pay a fine, so don't feel bad about standing up for your rights. The fact that a lengthy discovery request could cost the government a significant portion of the money they'll be collecting from you if found guilty of the traffic violation is not a legitimate reason for filing a discovery motion; rather, it is simply an added bonus. Note that whenever you file a motion, whether it be for discovery or anything else, always bring a second copy to the clerk's office and have the clerk time-stamp the copy. Without this time-stamped copy, you have no proof your motion was ever filed should the clerk lose it!
Each section of traffic code has its own associated factual and evidentiary elements. These elements might be something for which you should file a motion for discovery (e.g., battery replacement records for a tint meter unit), or simply something you should look up (e.g., state standards relating to paint and reflector types used to signify a no-passing zone; at least one California passing-in-a-no-passing-zone ticket has been defeated due to improperly spaced reflectors on the center line!)
What to Discover
With just about any type of ticket, it is worth filing a motion for discovery ofall the following:
What to Discover: Speeding
With a speeding ticket, it might be worthwhile to add some or all of the following to your motion for discovery:
What to Discover: Window tinting
With a window tinting ticket, it might be worthwhile to add some or all of the following to your motion for discovery:
Discovery: The Prosecutor's Response
The "People" (also known as the assistant or deputy prosecutor) will generally respond to your motion for discovery and employ two strategies to limit your pre-trial access to information. The first is objection: the prosecutor will often argue that one or more of your requested items is "irrelevant" and/or "unduly burdensome". You'll generally want to file a counter-response which argues that the information you've requested is absolutely relevant to some important set of issues or facts, and you'll want to cite those issues/facts. Likewise, argue against "unduly burdensome" objections by arguing that the "probative value" (the value of the evidence to prove something) far outweights the burden to "the People".
The other strategy the prosecutor will use is to not actually object, but to agree to do something which doesn't actually provide you with pre-trial access to the evidence against you. For example, you'll motion for discovery of records relating to the officer's training on a given speed measurement device, and the prosecutor will respond with something like "No objection. Officer will testify to these matters as part of the People's prima facie case." Don't stand for this; the purpose of pre-trial discovery is to have access to the evidence against you before the trial. The idea that the officer's testimony after the trial has begun somehow satisfies your discovery request is absurd. If the judge sides with the prosecutor, insisting that the requested data can only be transmitted via a narrative from the ticketing officer, then demand the right to depose the officer before the trial so you can know the evidence against you that will be presented in trial. During deposition, ask the officer questions just like you would during a cross-examination. Mix up the question ordering, and non-consecutively repeat inquiries using different phrasing to encourage contradictions or other slip-ups. And remember: every minute the officer is sitting in that room answering your questions, he's not out giving tickets, and thus the government is losing additional ticket revenue as a consequence of the prosecutor's lack of cooperation. (Note that the previous comment does not apply to cross-examination, since there, the judge and possibly a jury are observing, and if it appears you're wasting their time with meaningless or barely-relevant questions, they can and will punish you!)
No Right to Discovery?
As noted above, some particularly draconian jurisdictions (e.g., non-municipal courts in Colorado) forbid pre-trial discovery. If you live in one of these places, all is not lost! While you cannot conduct pre-trial discovery, you can subpoena the officer who issued your ticket and make him bring the evidence you seek with him on your court date! This has some obvious disadvantages over pre-trial discovery, namely that A) you won't get to see the evidence until your trial, B) the officer may be more likely to show up to court since you subpoenaed him, making a dismissal for failure to show up less likely, and C) you will probably have to pay for the officer to be served with your subpoena.
The reason for C) above is that, while process serving requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one common denominator is that the person who serves the document must be an adult who does not stand to gain regardless of how the trial goes. So barring additional restrictions in your jurisdiction, you can have a friend serve the officer with your subpoena, but you (or a family member) could not. Note that many sheriff's departments offer service of documents for a nominal fee (usually around $10), and that State Troopers are not affiliated with the sheriff and thus can served in this way!
Requesting that the officer bring evidence with him requires a special kind of subpoena known as a subpoena duces tecum (duces tecum means, literally, "bring with you"). Here is a sample subpoena duces tecum that one reader used to fight a ticket in Larimer County, Colorado. It has a different format than a discovery motion, but the list of documents being requrested is essentially the same. Check with your court clerk to make sure, but generally you'll need to make two copies of your subpoena. One gets stamped by the court and served to the officer, while the other is kept on file by the court.
In many jurisdictions, the courts have defined a subpoena duces tecum as " an order to produce documents or to show cause why they need not be produced." If the cop in your case shows up without the evidence you subpoenad, insist that he make a showing why they need not be produced!
THE TRIAL
The trial (sometimes called the "final hearing") is where all your preparation comes together. Here is where technicalities will be exploited, or failing that, you will cross-examine the cop who issued your ticket. Now, the question often arises as to where you draw the line when making arguments. For example, it's quite conceivable that you'll want to make an impassioned plea about your due process rights being tramped as a result of an incorrect license plate digit on the citation. But arguing for a trial-by-combat* is probably over the top. The standard that is taught to future litigators in most American law schools is that of the "straight-faced argument". More formally, the attorney has a duty to make any and all arguments on behalf of his client, only withholding such an argument if it is so patently absurd that he cannot present it to the court with a straight face. I think that is a great standard to use in traffic court; your medical, insurance, and consumer product bills are all higher as a result of this rule being taken to the extreme in tort cases, so you might as well use it to your advantage in this one case.
* Arguing for trial-by-combat, while certain to fail, does have a legal basis in some jurisdictions. For example, when Colorado became a state in 1876, it adopted the British common law as it stood in the year 1607 (see C.R.S. 2-4-211). However, trial-by-combat was not eliminated from British common law until the 19th century, and since it was never "repealed by legislative authority" as CRS 2-4-211 requires, technically you still have the right to challenge the prosecutor to an all-day quarterstaff smackdown wherein the last man standing wins his case. Remind you of Thunderdome? (Note: if you make this argument, please email me a full account and I'll post it here. I may try it myself next time I get pulled over by the Colorado Troopers just to watch the juducial wheels turn, although in this day and age I fear it may be construed as a death threat.)
Quick tip: if you're ever asked whether you have any more questions for the judge, any more exhibits to enter, any additional comments you'd like to make, etc., never say "no"! That's far too absolute an answer, and may lead to the judge ending your trial before you're done. Always use "not at this time" to keep your options open later.
Standards of Proof
In many jurisdictions, the standard of proof for civil violations (e.g., lesser speeding tickets where jail time isn't an issue) is a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the judge need only be 51% certain of your guilt to convict you of the charge. The right to this higher standard of evidence is another area wherein your basic rights have been thrown to the wolves to make traffic court a more efficient and profitable endeavor for the state. For felonies, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, wherein the judge or jury must be approximately 90% certain of your guilt. Here we again see that those traveling at feloniously high speeds are rewarded with additional rights in court!
Of course, it would be naive to think that, in a matter of your word versus that of the police officer, that the judge will not believe the officer over the defendant. This is why bringing in police records, your own photographs, affadvits from friendly witnesses, and printouts of statutes is so crucial as such documents often have an inherent credibility that you, as a nervous first-time defendant stammering before the podium, will not.
But I Didn't Know the Speed Limit/Didn't Intend to Speed!
Saying one of the above phrases to the judge is probably the most common error I have seen defendants make. Why is it a mistake? Well, first, it doesn't help you at all! Speeding is generally a strict liability offense. This means that you may be found guilty of it regardless of whether the offense was intentional, and regardless of whether you committed the offense knowingly! Second, bringing this up in court (or in front of the officer when you get pulled over) is a very bad idea because it implies guilt. It can obviously be challenging to confidently present a defense that you were not speeding, when at the time you were pulled over, you weren't even aware of the speed limit.
The police will tell you that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." However, this isn't completely true. Ignorance by itself won't get you out of a ticket, but but many state DOTs (Departments of Transportation) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (adopted by many jurisdictions) require a speed limit sign matching certain specifications to be present when, say, the speed limit is reduced for a section of roadway. As a result, if the signage is improper or completely missing, you can argue that the reduced speed zone did not meet the notice requirement of the regulation and is thus not legitimate. The same signage requirement may exist for whatever you are accused of, be it speeding, loud mufflers, or having your dog off its leash.
Coming soon: Dirty tactics by judges, including:
1. Presenting a weaker, strawman version of your argument during his ruling and attributing it to you, so it's then easier for the judge to shoot holes in. Often accompanied by "Quiet, I'm ruling" if you try to correct him. Tough situation, but one approach is to interrupt as soon as the judge will let you with "Your honor, with all due respect, that's not the argument I was making today."
2. Magistrates who will block your objections and procedural motions with a weak explanation that this is an informal trial, but who then turn around and invoke formality whenever it suits them, generally to stifle you, the defendant.
One important note: Always assume that the judge has access to your driving record, and has reviewed it prior to your hearing. It goes without saying (but I'm saying it anyway) that you should be completely truthful if asked about it.
Cross-Examination
Once your hearing starts, the officer who wrote you the ticket will give a standardized spiel about how he observed you speeding, passing illegally, or whatever. By "standardized spiel" I mean just that; the cop will look at the checkboxes on the back of your ticket (containing such information as traffic volume, road conditions, weather, etc.) and your information on the front, and give a scripted (and usually at least somewhat inaccurate) narrative of what happened. After this narrative, you will get a chance to question the officer.
Police officers who dedicate much of their time to writing tickets have a lot of standard scripts they use, and a lot of times those scripts reveal just how divorced from reality they really are. For example, a couple of months back I had a State Trooper in an unmarked car tell me "I was concerned when you passed me going 78 [in a 75 zone], but when you then accelerated to 81 I decided to pull you over." Now honestly, did seeing somebody going 78 in a 75 (3 miles per hour, or 4 percent over the speed limit) actually cause him concern? Maybe he is a fruitcake and the answer is yes, but more likely, this is just a standardized line he uses on everybody, and he simply fills in your numbers as he says it. When the officer starts using standardized descriptive language like this on the stand, you can often use it to attack his credibility as a witness. So if you heard anything inaccurate or improbable during this narrative, be sure and ask some questions about it.
For example, in a speeding case, the officer nearly always says "I observed (your car description here) going approximately (your clocked speed here) miles per hour, and then confirmed that speed with my radar unit." They will say this even if they were traveling the opposite direction as you, it was at midnight with a new moon, and it was snowing. But in reality, it's nearly impossible to estimate the speed of an oncoming car at night, since all you've got to judge it by are how fast the headlights are converging. And whether you're driving the speed limit, or twenty percent over, that rate of convergence is going to be pretty similar. So if you hear something like this, drill down into it. Ask questions about what exactly the officer saw that led to his estimation. In the above example, you'd get him to admit that all he could really see was your headlights and not much of the surrounding terrain. Wrap it up with an "Officer, are you telling this court [the officer can lie to you all he wants, but lying to the court is perjury, thus the choice of grammar here] that you can tell whether a car is going [your accused speed], versus [the speed limit], simply based on how fast the headlights are converging?" If he sticks to his story, then ask some even more detailed questions, e.g., "How fast to the headlights on an oncoming car converge at x mph? How about y mph? How about z mph?"
Likewise, ask questions about details the cop did not write down (you'll know what was, and was not, written down after you get a copy of the front and back of the officer's copy of the ticket from the court clerk). If the cop only wrote down a vague description of where he stopped you (e.g., on x road between y road and z road, as opposed to 20 feet forward of mile marker 162 on Highway 6), then drill down into this by asking a couple of specific questions about your orientation relative to certain landmarks in the area. The checkboxes on the back of the ticket may simply say that traffic volume was "medium". In this case, ask about the car immediately ahead of you, or next to you. What color was it? How far away from your vehicle was it? What speed did you estimate that vehicle was going? (Chances are the cop won't remember, and you can perhaps then build a case that this other vehicle is what the radar unit locked onto, and not yours.) This is also where you want to bring up minor descriptive errors on the ticket, such as saying your car is dark green instead of dark blue. This type of error can be used to create doubt as to the officer's observational capacity, and/or to conditions at the time (such as darkness) that would make observations difficult even by a professional trained to make them. Alternatively, if there a car near you that was the same color as the one incorrectly stated on your ticket, perhaps the officer confused the two vehicles at some point during apprehension?
Obviously, everybody in the courtroom knows that the cop doesn't remember your specific traffic stop because it happened months ago and was probably just one of hundreds. And yet highlighting inadequacies in the officer's recollection will still tend to create a perception of unreliability of the witness. Just a reminder that this is why it's a bad idea to do anything memorable during your traffic stop, like go on a tirade about how you're just an honest tax-payer trying to get to work, or complain that it seems like you get a ticket on this road every other week. Comments like these will be written on the back of the officer's copy of your ticket, and used to refresh his memory prior to cross-examination!
If you're asking the cop to confirm something that's obviously a bit of a stretch, it may help to preface your question with "Reminding you that you are under oath, officer,".
I highly recommend you check out
The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination. It's got some great examples and cross-examination strategies.
Rules of Evidence
Depending on how formal traffic court is in your jurisdiction, you (and the prosecution) may be bound by the Rules of Evidence. These rules dictate how and when evidence is admissible, how witnesses may be questioned, and so on. Personally, I'd rather argue in a court run by a judge and bound by the Rules of Evidence than before a magistrate in an informal hearing. Why? More rules = more potential for technicalities that may help you.
Additionally, the Rules of Evidence are mandatory for effectively cross-examining a witness. For example, you can use the rules to demand that the officer you are cross-examining limits himself to a response of "Yes" or "No" when answering one of your questions. In an informal hearing before a magistrate, the magistrate will generally allow the witness to give as many explanatory qualifications to such an answer as the witness cares to give, which really undermines your control of the witness.
Note that most states have adopted rules of evidence which are almost identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Even if your jurisdiction's traffic court doesn't strictly adhere to these rules, you should still familiarize yourself with them. Some concepts, like hearsay, admissibility of evidence, and whether a witness is qualified to make technical or legal arguments can serve you well even in the most informal of courts. For example, if key evidence against you is inadmissible, or if an officer tries to present a verbal account of the contents of a record (hearsay) when the actual records could simply be produced, or if the officer attempts to wax nostalgic about vicissitudes of Doppler radar despite having received only minimal training on the subject (not an expert witness), even the most informal courts will generally sustain your objection.
Judicial Notice
In case this comes up in court: judicial notice is when the court takes a well-established and well-documented fact for granted, thus removing that fact from contention in the courtroom. For example, if I argue that Main Street runs north/south, but the prosecution argues that it runs east/west, and the judge knows this is a matter of common knowledge, he can take judicial notice of the fact that it runs north/south and thus prevent the parties from wasting any more time debating the topic. Sometimes, the prosecution will ask a judge to take judicial notice of the fact that radar is an accurate way to measure vehicular speed. If this comes up, be sure and argue for a more limited version of the notice, e.g., "Under proper operational circumstances, radar can be an effective way to measure vehicular speed." Obviously, you would then proceed to argue that these operational circumstances (often as defined in the manual of the radar unit) were not met in your case.
Closing Arguments
In your closing argument, you should summarize all the facts and legal points that help your case. Since new flaws in the prosecution's case may arise during cross-examination of the officer, it's wise to reserve some space in the portion of your notes devoted to your closing statement so that you can add these new items and avoid forgetting them in the heat of the hearing.
Some ticket-fighting references suggest that, if the cop is the one who presents the case against you (and not a district attorney), that you should object if the cop attempts to give a closing argument. The grounds for this objection would be that the cop is not an attorney and thus would be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by giving a closing argument. This argument does have some legal merit. After all, you can represent yourself because you are a defendant in a criminal proceeding. But the cop isn't representing himself, he is representing another (The People of your jurisdiction), and you can't represent another party unless you are a member of the bar.
However, depending on your judge and jurisdiction (and whether you're dealing with a magistrate in an informal setting), this may just piss the judge off. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, because I have often seen judges offer cops the opportunity to make a closing argument; were you to then object, you'd be implying that the judge suggested one of the parties do something improper. This is fine if you have something significant to gain, but I have never seen a police officer give a compelling closing argument. Besides which, there won't be a jury to hear it, so there is much less chance of the outcome being swayed by an emotion- or drama-packed summary. Finally, many jurisdictions are set up such that the district attorney never shows up and the trooper, deputy, or whomever is customarily allowed to make a closing argument, and objecting to this custom may just look like last-minute desperation to the judge.
More on cross-examination will be added soon.
What If I Don't Show Up To My Trial?
(Failure to show up to a scheduled court appearance is generally a bad idea. I'm only covering it here because lots of people seem to have this question.) If you miss your hearing (either preliminary, or final) for whatever reason, a default judgment of "Guilty" will be entered against you. A judgment of the non-plea-bargain charge, points and fine will likewise be entered against you. Generally, you will also have your license suspended because you weren't there to pay the resulting fine (although you'll typically receive a letter warning you about the default judgment, and giving you thirty days or so to pay the fine). Depending on your jurisdiction and the nature of your infraction, you may also have a bench warrant issued by the court for your arrest (a consequence of the contempt of court resulting from your failure to show up). With a bench warrant, the police will not seek you out and arrest you. However, if you happen to run into any police officers (e.g., because you called the police to your house for some reason, or because you get pulled over for a broken taillight), the officer may legally arrest you. If you've got a bench warrant out for your arrest, try to resolve the root cause as soon as possible, and drive cautiously in the mean time. Also be aware that missing a court date will generally result in a forfeiture of bail money, if any, and if you are subsequently arrested you will be held without bail!
The Non-Resident Violators Compact: What Is It, and Why Do I Care?
The Non-Resident Violators Compact (NRVC) was formed several decades ago by the northeastern states and allows states to assist each other in enforcing traffic laws (perhaps more accurately, it allows states to assist each other with increasing revenues). When an out-of-state driver violates certain driving laws of a member state and fails to appear for trial or pay the fine imposed for the violation, the state may send a non-compliance notice to the driver's home state motor vehicle agency. The driver can subsequently lose his license for a violation in an entirely different state! Currently, all states are NRVC members except Alaska, California, Michigan, Montana, and Wisconsin.
Note that under NRVC, the jurisdiction that issued the ticket cannot not transmit a report on any violation if the date of transmission is more than six months after the date on which the traffic citation was issued. What does this mean? Well, if you get a ticket in another state, and manage to keep that ticket pending in the courts of said state until six months have passed, you may be able to ignore the ticket without worrying about your license being adversely affected back home. You will want to avoid driving in the state where you got the ticket, however, since you will likely be arrested if pulled over there again. Not a desirable situation for most people, but you should be aware of your options nonetheless.
Be aware that Connecticut and Arkansas have already joined the Driver's License Agreement (DLA), a more comprehensive version of the NRVC. The DLA is much more far-reaching, and allows court orders from other states to follow drivers back to their home state (often with absurd results). Likewise, moving violations from foreign countries can make their way onto your driving record back home. There has been some support for joining DLA from some of the other states, but the AAMVA (the mastermind behind the DLA) will not reveal which ones.
Coming soon: A discussion of international driving permits (which aren't actually a driver's license), foreign driver's licenses, and whether you can use the latter to dodge points.
Strategy: What if I'm Not a Lawyer?
Warning: this section will probably come across as me telling you how to "work the system". But if you're not a lawyer, it's important to try to turn your status as a non-legal-professional into an advantage, or at least to mitigate its negative effects. If you are a lawyer, skip this part, as it may make you barf.
Not being a lawyer hurts you, but can have some positive aspects as well if you adjust your strategy accordingly. First, the good. You can often get lots of help from clerks and judges (this assumes your judge isn't just trying to rake in revenue for his town). Also, judges will usually be more willing to forgive procedural errors (e.g., making a mistake on a form or a motion, or missing a deadline for filing something). Now, the bad. Judges will be far more skeptical of any legal arguments you make as a non-lawyer. Why? Because lawyers are "officers of the court" and thus have certain obligations that don't directly apply to you. For example, a lawyer has a duty to cite negative legal authority. He can't only mention a 1977 case that helps him, when he knows the case was overruled by another case in 1981. Likewise, a lawyer must make arguments in good faith (e.g., he can't file a motion purely to delay the proceedings in a case). If a lawyer does these things, he is subject to sanctions as laid out by the bar in his state. You, as a non-lawyer, are immune to these sanctions. The main power the judge has over you is contempt of court. What does this mean? It means you should absolutely avoid bad faith arguments (I would define this as arguments you are 100 percent sure have no legal merit; it we're only talking 99 percent sure, then go ahead and make them!) Like I said, you get the benefit of the doubt on a lot of stuff. It's harder for you to do legal research, so maybe that's why you didn't list an important negative authority in the motion you just filed.
Ever see the Saturday Night Live skit Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer? When confronted with legal complexity that hurt his case, our hero would say something like "I am but a caveman, and I do not understand your ways. But one thing I do understand is (whatever fundamental point he was trying to assert)." This is the card you want to be ready to play at any point that you need a little flexibility in a procedural rule, or need a procedural error forgiven. Let's say you're standing before a judge and have to enter a plea, and you've only got one real argument to rely on but you don't want to go to trial and then find out the judge isn't receptive to it. You might say something like "I'm sorry, your honor, I'm not a lawyer and I've never done this before, but I had a question about (your main argument). In light of that, should I even have gotten this ticket?" What this often does is get the judge to reveal a little about how heavily he would weight that kind of argument before you decide whether you want to go to trial. If he shoots it down right away, then you can take the plea bargain and save yourself some points on your license without going to trial before an unreceptive judge. If he indicates that your point would certainly be something that would be taken into consideration, then maybe it's worth going to trial. Just about everywhere, you have the right to talk to a judge or magistrate before entering a plea or accepting a plea bargain. If this option isn't offered to you, then ask for it!
Now let's say you missed a court appearance, a filing deadline, or filed a motion on the wrong form. You get a notice in the mail advising you of a default judgement, dismissal of an appeal, or rejection of the errant motion. Fortunately, Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer works by mail, too! Type up a motion asking for forgiveness. Cite the constitution, and remind them that you're not a lawyer. The phrase "All I want is my constitutionally-guaranteed day in court" is a good one. Once you've got the motion (to set aside a default judgment, to reconsider dismissal or denial, or whatever) exactly the way you want it, grab a blank motion form and neatly hand-write in the content you just typed up. Nothing screams "lack of legal sophistication" like filing a hand-written motion in a trial!
Coming soon: Speed studies, cross-examinations, an exemplary outline, and how the rules of evidence can work for/against you...
Also coming soon: Appeals, including exemplary appeal forms and an appeal brief
Also coming soon: Motioning for post-conviction review, including an exemplary successful motion which lead to the granting of a new speeding trial
Note regarding school zones: I know more than one person who has been ticketed for speeding in a school zone on a holiday, because the speed zone sign was still flashing. However, it is important to note that many states make the lower speed limit contingent upon the conditions requiring the lower limit, and not upon the sign flashing. E.g., Colorado drivers see CRSA 42-4-1102, which relates to speed zones and state requirements for them.
Links of Interest
September 2007: Speed legally in Sunriver, Oregon
Reason Magazine reports on an interesting experiment in private road ownership. This followup article also provides some coverage.
August 2007: Police Arrest a Man for Taping a Traffic Stop
Pennsylvania police recently arrested Brian D. Kelly for simply videotaping his own traffic stop. Police officers will customarily videotape you during any traffic stop, but in some states, those same officers will throw you in jail if you try to create your own tape. If you expect an abuse of authority, and do decide to record your encounter, check your local laws first; you may be legally obligated to make the officer aware that you are recording, which may make him less likely to say career-limiting (or at least, ticket-defeating) things.
October 2006: The Kangaroo Courts of New York State
Last month, The New York Times did a 3-part story on the corrupt and out-of-control "town and village courts" of upstate New York:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Not registered with the New York Times, and don't want to be? Yeah, me neither. Visit Bug-Me-Not for a free log-in you can use to view the stories.
June 2006: More Washington drivers are fighting tickets - and winning
(Washington has absurdly expensive traffic fines, so this trend does not surprise me!)
Click here
Frequently Asked Questions
What about DUI offenses?
It's been asked a lot, so I wrote up a quick explanation of why I don't cover DUI and DWI defenses on this page along with a bit of advice for those falsely accused.
Is it true that you can be "too intelligent" to be hired as a police officer?
Yes. Obviously, each municipality will have its own rules, but some police departments will not hire people who score too high on an intelligence test. It may sound crazy, but the courts have affirmed this practice. A Connecticut man named Robert Jordan brought suit against the New London Police Department for discrimination because he was excluded for having an IQ of approximately 125. Sadly, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since all applicants with an IQ of 125 are similarly excluded, Mr. Jordan was not discriminated against. Given the recent eminent domain abuses in New London, perhaps this IQ cap applies to all government employees in that city.
Is it legal to flash your headlights to warn other drivers about a speed trap?
I haven't researched the issue thoroughly, but I have come across several state cases where headlight flashing was held to be free speech protected by the 1st amendment. While it's hard to imagine how encouraging others to obey the law could be illegal, I believe this is the case in the United Kingdom (not sure about Canada, though).
Are we becoming a police state?
I wrote a brief essay on the psychological and economic trends of traffic enforcement to memorialize some of what I have learned from conversations with citizens and law enforcement officers.
Do I have to obey those yellow speed limit signs on curves/exit ramps?
In most jurisdictions, and persuant to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, these yellow signs are only advisory in nature, and thus merely exceeding the yellow posted limit is not, by itself, illegal.
Email the Author
The author of this page can be reached at webmaster-at-freeexistence.org. Replace "-at-" with "@" in the "To:" line.
Note that all downloadable documents have had the defendant names, dates, and other identifying facts changed to protect the contributors from any potential retaliation.
Reminder: All content on this site is automatically copyrighted by virtue of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.