Speeding Tickets...

[Justme2]

Try this

SLOW DOWN



OK Baja isn't always right But he is right this time go to court. Don't hide nothing about getting either ticket they already know about both. And if you get points you might have to give driving up your insurance will go through the roof.

Explain to the Judge that you are here today to admit you are wrong and trying to not get any points. if you get points you might as well give up driving your insurance will go through the roof

You could get a really big fine and be done with no points or community service with a fine. But do your best to get away from them points they will haunt you for 3 years.

Good Luck

 

[nutz]

Always go the court appearance route. If the deputy/trooper doesn't show they automatically excuse the ticket (no witness for the state). Almost always, if you're honest and sincere, the fine will be paid and points waived. CS requires time and a fee but is generally looked upon favorably. Volunteer firehouses / animal shelters are a good choice, if available.

 

[awpitt]

think you have to go to court to ask for CS......

but you had a better chance with only having one ticket.... when they see you have two in that short of time... dont think they may help.

sorry.


I know even if you get CS .. you are placed on a PBJ..... (parole before judgement) .. and if I understood it right... in those two years you have to keep your record clean and if you get another ticket .. you get the points from the first and even the ones from the new ticket.

Actually, if you do CS, they put your case on the STET docket. PBJs are normally used for things like first time DUIs.

 

[awpitt]

Always go the court appearance route. If the deputy/trooper doesn't show they automatically excuse the ticket (no witness for the state). Almost always, if you're honest and sincere, the fine will be paid and points waived. CS requires time and a fee but is generally looked upon favorably. Volunteer firehouses / animal shelters are a good choice, if available.

Not in St Mary's. My wife was a witness in a case that went to trial so I went with her. We had to wait for her case and saw all of the other cases. There were cases where the deputy/trooper was not present and the Assist. State's Attorney basically said, "If officer ________ was here, he/she would state the following". That statement by Assist. State's Attorney was entered in as the officer's statement. I was surprised to see it handled that way.

 

[RoseRed]

Not in St Mary's. My wife was a witness in a case that went to trial so I went with her. We had to wait for her case and saw all of the other cases. There were cases where the deputy/trooper was not present and the Assist. State's Attorney basically said, "If officer ________ was here, he/she would state the following". That statement by Assist. State's Attorney was entered in as the officer's statement. I was surprised to see it handled that way.

Not necessarily, I went to court to contest a red light ticket. The deputy that issued me the ticket was there, but not the deputy that supposedly saw me run said red light was not present. Dismissed.

 

[awpitt]

Not necessarily, I went to court to contest a red light ticket. The deputy that issued me the ticket was there, but not the deputy that supposedly saw me run said red light was not present. Dismissed.

Main thing is that if the cop is not there, it's not a guaranteed dismissal. It can happen but it's not guaranteed.

 

[vince77]

going to court isn't voluntary by the cops anymore....not going to court is considered not coming to work these days in many jurisdictions

 

[BernieP]

Not in St Mary's. My wife was a witness in a case that went to trial so I went with her. We had to wait for her case and saw all of the other cases. There were cases where the deputy/trooper was not present and the Assist. State's Attorney basically said, "If officer ________ was here, he/she would state the following". That statement by Assist. State's Attorney was entered in as the officer's statement. I was surprised to see it handled that way.

Pretty much what I've seen.

going to court isn't voluntary by the cops anymore....not going to court is considered not coming to work these days in many jurisdictions

Officers have assigned "court dates" and the clerk has those dates. If they need the officer in the court room the case will be held over until his court date.

The days of getting off because the officer wasn't available are long gone. You get a ticket, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent. The officers statement (report) is considered first hand testimony (even if they weren't there to actually witness the event).

Their expert training learned at the _ academy... enabled them to come to that conclusion.

 

[RPMDAD]

Don't know if it has changed since then, but my son got a ticket in Calvert in 2010. I went to court with him and the police officer did not appear in court. The judge dismissed the case, luckily we saw many other cases called first and it put the fear of God in to my son, and i have never had to remind him to slow down again. He was ticketed for 7 mph over the limit.

 

[Baja28]

Officers have assigned "court dates" and the clerk has those dates. If they need the officer in the court room the case will be held over until his court date.

The days of getting off because the officer wasn't available are long gone. You get a ticket, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent. The officers statement (report) is considered first hand testimony (even if they weren't there to actually witness the event).

Their expert training learned at the _ academy... enabled them to come to that conclusion.

Not true Bernie. I got out of 3 tickets last year due to officers not being there.

The 4th was dismissed because the officers laptop had 2008 as the date of the ticket.

 

[Rommey]

Not in St Mary's. My wife was a witness in a case that went to trial so I went with her. We had to wait for her case and saw all of the other cases. There were cases where the deputy/trooper was not present and the Assist. State's Attorney basically said, "If officer ________ was here, he/she would state the following". That statement by Assist. State's Attorney was entered in as the officer's statement. I was surprised to see it handled that way.

I think if represented by an attorney, the word "Objection" would likely be heard, as that sounds like here say and shouldn't be admissible. If the evidence is part of the state's case then you have the right to challenge it directly, not based on what someone else says a witness would say. Since most people go to traffic court without an attorney, they usually don't do a very good job of representing themselves and things like that get accepted. Even when representing yourself, there's no harm in respectively objecting to the evidence being presented by the state. As long as your not being a total jerk, I think most traffic court judges will give you a little leeway with the legalese and procedures.

There are four things that can happen by going to court:
1. Plead guilty and mail in the fine...get the point(s)...take chance on insurance rates.
2. Go to court and plead guilty and ask the court to reduce/eliminate fines and/or points. May or may not affect insurance rates.
3. Go to court and plead guilty and see if the court will allow traffic school in lieu of fine and points. Once completed, there should be no affect on insurance rates.
4. Go to court and plead innocent. Make your case.
4a. The officer may not show up -- should be a dismissal
4b. The particulars of the citation may be incorrect and/not factual and are refutable -- could lead to dismissal
4c. You make a reasonably good explanation and the judge is in a good mood. -- could get dismissed or reduced
4d. You make a reasonably good explanation and the judge isn't buying it. -- you're screwed...but no worse off than mailing it in in the first place.

So there are better outcomes possible than just mailing it in, and worse case scenario is that you're no worse off.

 

[Baja28]

I think if represented by an attorney, the word "Objection" would likely be heard, as that sounds like here say and shouldn't be admissible. If the evidence is part of the state's case then you have the right to challenge it directly, not based on what someone else says a witness would say. Since most people go to traffic court without an attorney, they usually don't do a very good job of representing themselves and things like that get accepted. Even when representing yourself, there's no harm in respectively objecting to the evidence being presented by the state. As long as your not being a total jerk, I think most traffic court judges will give you a little leeway with the legalese and procedures.

There are four things that can happen by going to court:
1. Plead guilty and mail in the fine...get the point(s)...take chance on insurance rates.
2. Go to court and plead guilty and ask the court to reduce/eliminate fines and/or points. May or may not affect insurance rates.
3. Go to court and plead guilty and see if the court will allow traffic school in lieu of fine and points. Once completed, there should be no affect on insurance rates.
4. Go to court and plead innocent. Make your case.
4a. The officer may not show up -- should be a dismissal
4b. The particulars of the citation may be incorrect and/not factual and are refutable -- could lead to dismissal
4c. You make a reasonably good explanation and the judge is in a good mood. -- could get dismissed or reduced
4d. You make a reasonably good explanation and the judge isn't buying it. -- you're screwed...but no worse off than mailing it in in the first place.

So there are better outcomes possible than just mailing it in, and worse case scenario is that you're no worse off.

Excellent post. You can object and tell the judge that you have questions for the officer who is not there. They either need to produce the officer or dismiss the case. You have the right to face your accuser. I have seen people succesfully defend themselves, question the officer and were found not guilty.

 

[awpitt]

Excellent post. You can object and tell the judge that you have questions for the officer who is not there. They either need to produce the officer or dismiss the case. You have the right to face your accuser. I have seen people succesfully defend themselves, question the officer and were found not guilty.

...or continue the case which means coming back at a later date.

 

[teacherhm]

Well, I mailed two forms today requesting a hearing for both tickets to plead guilty and hope that either the cop(s) don't show or I can at least get off without points on my license. Oh, and I was that car in the right lane going 60 on cruise control up and down 2 & 4 today that you tailgated and then flew by...

(By the way, if you have an iPhone, I recommend downloading the "Waze" app... pretty useful!)

 

[Baja28]

...or continue the case which means coming back at a later date.

They're not going to continue a traffic ticket.

 

[vince77]

if you plead guilty or guilty with an explanation the cops don't have to go to court....as far as dismissing traffic cases, it's totally up to the judge...depends on the seriousness of the offense....

 

[royhobie]

I'm sure this is one of many past threads on speeding tickets, but I'm looking for some advice... any would be greatly appreciated!

About two weeks ago, I got a speeding ticket going southbound on Rt. 4 right before the Cove Pt. left turn at 8am on my way to work. I was going 70 (I know, my fault here, not making any excuses), but he reduced it to 64 in a 55. It's an $80 payable fine and a point on my license if I choose not to request a hearing. I've had the ticket and envelope in my car to mail it since then with every intention to request a hearing, plead guilty, and hope the judge waives it for me. (I'm 23 and have a totally clean driving record.)

Today, driving down Adelina Rd. towards Sixes Rd., I was caught in a speed trap while going down hill, right when it shifts from a 50 MPH zone to a 30 MPH zone. I was going 52. In my defense, I had a 4 year old pitching a fit in the back seat and didn't realize I had just passed into the 30 zone. Nevertheless, I was unintentionally speeding. He ticketed me, reducing it to 39 in a 30. Another payable $80 fine and a point on my license if I don't request a hearing to plead guilty.

Now... what to do? Should I pay the first ticket and take the point and request a hearing for the second ticket? Pay both and accept both points? Request a hearing for both? I'm leaning towards either requesting a hearing for both or paying the first one and requesting a hearing for the second one... With my luck, I'd request for both, and it'll be the same judge...

Advice/thoughts please? Thanks in advance!

Years ago I did radar operation and instructed radar to other officers. You should never keep the points. Insurance will tear you up. Some places will allow you to double the fine, or community service. I recommend that you talk to the State's Attorney well before any court case.

 

[Justme2]

Well, I mailed two forms today requesting a hearing for both tickets to plead guilty and hope that either the cop(s) don't show or I can at least get off without points on my license. Oh, and I was that car in the right lane going 60 on cruise control up and down 2 & 4 today that you tailgated and then flew by...

(By the way, if you have an iPhone, I recommend downloading the "Waze" app... pretty useful!)

Good deal, Good luck. By the way I don't go over 55 or 60 much and then end up with a line of traffic behind me too. People going and then Baja flipping me the bird and then paying the cops not to show for court.

 

[Crow Bait]

How long does the court have to produce the officer?

I went to traffic court in Calvert a couple of years ago and there were no county sheriff's deputies present. Since my ticket was written by a county mounty I thought I was golden.

The judge heard a few of the state police cases and then started calling tickets that were written by county deputies. He explained that if we intended to plead not-guilty that he would summon the deputy. The way it was stated, it seemed more like a threat than anything... I assumed that the deputy had the same responsibility to be in court that I did. It seemed like a "don't make me call dad"... threat.

Anyway - I watched a few cases before mine and the visiting judge was giving everyone that plead guilty PBJ and the fine. I ultimately decided to plead guilty, and got the same PJB/Fine, but it bugged me that:

1) The court wanted you to plea before the accusing deputy was present.
2) The threat of calling the officer to court forced me to plead guilty.

I always wondered what would have happened if I had objected before making a plea and requested that the case be dismissed. I also wondered how long I should have had to wait for the officer to show.

Anyway - the whole thing seemed like a scam.

 

[teacherhm]

The ticket DID say that, at a waiver hearing, the officers will not be present...