Received Illegal Speeding Ticket from alleged officer Pacing

[army judge]

Only ONE of the parties has provided her/his side of the the alleged citation saga.

I'm sure the LEO would have a very different version of events insofar as what prompted the citation being issued, and that will be revealed in court.

One only has to check the statistics nationwide regarding traffic citation outcomes to GUESS how this saga ends.

 

[mightymoose]

I have seen judges dismiss basic speed citations without the defendant jumping through hoops and without attorneys... The officer simply fails to explain how the speed was unreasonable or unsafe for conditions. Granted this depends on the judge and their mood that day, but the OP's original question regarding this is on point. Despite the headlights and the pacing, it must be shown the indicated speed was unreasonable, and so long as not exceeding the maximum that remains possible. OP has plenty to work with if choosing to defend this citation.

 

[Zigner]

I have seen judges dismiss basic speed citations without the defendant jumping through hoops and without attorneys... The officer simply fails to explain how the speed was unreasonable or unsafe for conditions. Granted this depends on the judge and their mood that day, but the OP's original question regarding this is on point. Despite the headlights and the pacing, it must be shown the indicated speed was unreasonable, and so long as not exceeding the maximum that remains possible. OP has plenty to work with if choosing to defend this citation.

Fair enough.

 

[army judge]

I have seen judges dismiss basic speed citations without the defendant jumping through hoops and without attorneys.

Having set in judgment on such cases, I need only point to the nationwide statistics regarding traffic citations.

As a judge hearing such matters, I did there what I can't do here, ordered people not to babble on endlessly, ramble, rant, rave making some inane, irrelevant point.

I learned my mantra, "Obey their laws" from my first mentor, a cagey old, country jurist who became a lawyer by reading the law under another cagey old, country lawyer.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my $2 on the LEO over the driver any day.

 

[mightymoose]

If I were a betting man, I'd put my $2 on the LEO over the driver any day.

Me too, but if people are determined to argue their case they should have an idea of how to go about doing it effectively.
I believe most think they can simply show up and give a sob story excuse, or otherwise hope the officer fails to show.
For the rest, they need to be prepared to subpoena documentation, ask relevant questions of the officer, and be organized in presentation- and to do it all briefly.
The officer's testimony wins most of the time, but most of the time they aren't confronted with a competent defense.

 

[army judge]

I believe most think they can simply show up and give a sob story excuse, or otherwise hope the officer fails to show.

Even when they are informed, the sob story, the woe is me, I been screwed does make an appearance.

OTOH, I have yet to see a LEO, even a rookie fall apart in a traffic case, even a misdemeanor.

 

[flyingron]

He can assert all he wants, but unless this is a citation from the CHP the vehicle likely does not have speedometer calibration records and the officer likely does not have specific training regarding pacing.

That's not true. Perhaps some little departments, but the LAPD, for one, does calibrate the speedometers and train the officers.

Not necessarily as it does not exceed the maximum speed limit. Reviewing traffic surveys may find an out of date survey for that prima facie limit.

Such is not required in this case.

This does not mean the area was not well lit. It would behoove the OP to obtain photos of the area showing the lighting conditions at the same time of day of it is in fact a well lit area.

You'll have a hard time arguing that if it was night that any amount of street lighting or ambient light is sufficient in lieu of headlights.

Not necessarily true. Traffic court is informal and a well prepared person can do just fine sending out a subpoena and questioning the officer on their own, although an attorney would make it easier.

I didn't say he couldn't make a case without an attorney. I said with his rather incomplete information he would have a hard time coming up with a convincing case without one. He doesn't know anything about where the officer even observed him. All he has put forward were laughable (and in at least two cases incriminating) excuses for why he's right. That won't fly in court.

There's no point in subpoenaing the officer. If the officer isn't in court, his case is a slam dunk. If the officer is in court, then he can ask all his questions he wants.[/QUOTE]

 

[mightymoose]

The subpoena is not for the officer. The officer is already required to be there.The subpoena is for discovery.

 

[Zigner]

The subpoena is not for the officer. The officer is already required to be there.The subpoena is for discovery.

One does not need a subpoena for discovery on a traffic ticket in CA.

 

[mightymoose]

Try telling that to the agencies that refuse to release anything without one.

 

[Zigner]

 

[DOCwsun]

Someone has to do it, so bully for you, may all deceased individuals RIP, as you transport them safely to funeral home, crematory, or mortuary.

In the old west people who practiced your profession were known as undertakers for obvious reasons.

As noted above, there is no need for you to violate the traffic laws, because you probably aren't ready TODAY for someone to transport YOU to your final resting place.

You also seem like a person that doesn't want to hurt or harm other innocent travelers while you are going about your appointed rounds and professional duties.

That's just it, I was not speeding. I was just cruising along 35 mph. It doesn't make sense to chase down the only car on the road then attempt to pace a vehicle with lights off. making it harder to see the vehicle at 2:30 in morning, instead of using Radar.

 

[DOCwsun]

There is a specific violation for failure to use headlights. You can't transform it into a speed violation. One may be cited for both, but using it in the way you suggested is impractical, and I think would be embarrassing to admit in court.

never wrote citation for lights, he just made the comment " then I got you for speeding 55 in 35". complete lie. was during 35 mph just going home like always.

 

[cbg]

Would you boys please just put your rulers away and take it offline if you must continue this mines-bigger-than-yours argument? The rest of us are not finding it edifying.

 

[DOCwsun]

Yes, I agree.
I agree that it's not automatic. I don't agree that this is in the OP's favor unless the OP has an attorney.

I was during the speed limit 35. Its 2:30 a.m. in morning, no people walking around, no other vehicles around, no parked cars. Weather was clear, dry roads, nothing but street lights on. found it strange he made up 55 mph. If anyone was doing 20 mph. it was safe due to conditions described I think. .

 

[DOCwsun]

It is worth considering that not every police car has radar installed. I drove one for several years with no radar.
That the officer paced you is not suspicious. What will matter is if it was done correctly with a calibrated vehicle and the officer was trained.

OK! thanks everyone for the information given out.