Speeding Ticket

I have a question regarding a speeding ticket I recieved in Missouri (violation of 320.030: http://www.clarksonvalley.org/Chapter320.html).

The officer who ticketed me was parked at the top of a hill and as I approached the hill I remember commenting to my freind about how the weather was rather chilly and we both noted that it likely seemd worse because we were moving. At this time it just so happened that I glanced at my speedometer and saw I was below 40 mph (don't remember the exact speed distinctively). My cars a little 1.6L and when I went up the hill it noticiably slowed down. As I reached the top of the hill, a police officer pulled me over and gave a speeding ticket for going 46 in a 30 zone, up the hill.

I asked to see the radar and he agreed and it did in fact say 46. However, I strongly believe that there is no way I could've been going at that speed especially up the hill. My car requires notable effort to accelerate up a hill and to have accelerated while going up the hill without noticing would've been something new for that car.

My question is, can I argue the validity of the measurement? I didn't get a good look at the type of gun used, but both radar and laser models rely on reflections and as such I was wondering if I could argue about us raising our windows or some other external object (like another nearby car) could've caused that measurement. My freind would back me up in this case, but the unfortunate thing is that we'll both be back in college by my assigned court date so I'd have to send my (or our) statements through a lawyer.

It would be easy to have it reduced to a non moving violaiton or a no points violation, but I strongly feel that the measurement was either intentionally or unintentially made in error. Whats my best course of action. I'm willing to fight it on principle alone (I had a speeding ticket before and I knew I was at error and had it bargained to a parking violation, but this time I feel I wasn't in error), but I don't want to lose it and have pts added to raise my insurance when I could have it bargained to a lesser offence.

Can I call any factors into question (for example, the gun was opperating through a windshield and was nearly perpendicular to the direction in which I was traveling). Also, am I entitiled to learn information on when the gun was calibrated or anything else that may help? Thanks in advance.

My understanding regarding radar measurements concern the law enforcement officer's ability to show that the radar gun was working properly and that there is sufficient information to prove this (e.g. calibration report.) You should ask for all the information. If there is no calibration report, you have a pretty good idea where to strike with your defense. Without being cynical, it also depends upon where the case is being held -- you may find that you'll have a great deal of trouble in small counties, who may have their own idea as to how to (and sometimes incorrectly) apply the law.

The City of Clarkson Valley tickets are handled in the Ballwin traffic court. Rene Lasser is the Judge and Richard Fox is the Prosecutor. Both are full time practicing attorneys who work part time for Ballwin as Judge and Prosecutor.

It has been my experience there as an attorney that "pro se" (unrepresented) defendants charged with speeding rarely win at trial of their own case. Generally, the Judge gives mouch more weight to the officer's testimony as compared with the defendants testimony and evidence. Attorneys rarely try these cases because it is much earier, cheaper and certain that the spedding charge may be amended to a non-point violation.

The amount of time, effort, and expense in having the ticket amended to a non-point, non-moving violation alwatys is substantially less than that to try the case. Also, an overwhelming percentage of pro se defendant (and lawyers) who try speeding ticket cases lose.

If you really feel strongly about fighting the ticket as a matter of principal, its best to do right and retain a lawyer. Even with an attorney, though, you are waging a costly, uphill battle with profound uncertainty as to the outcome.

thelawprofessor said:

My understanding regarding radar measurements concern the law enforcement officer's ability to show that the radar gun was working properly and that there is sufficient information to prove this (e.g. calibration report.) You should ask for all the information. If there is no calibration report, you have a pretty good idea where to strike with your defense. Without being cynical, it also depends upon where the case is being held -- you may find that you'll have a great deal of trouble in small counties, who may have their own idea as to how to (and sometimes incorrectly) apply the law.

Click to expand...

Thats well said. It is said that law varies from state to state. Incorrect, it varies from county to county.

Without being cynical, it also depends upon where the case is being held -- you may find that you'll have a great deal of trouble in small counties, who may have their own idea as to how to (and sometimes incorrectly) apply the law.

Click to expand...

It also has been said that the law changes from judge to judge. I am not sure that the size of the county matters at all in that respect.

Clarkson Valley is not in a small county. It is in St. Louis County, Missouri. It is the largest Missouri county by population, with a population in excess of 1,000,000. While the City of St. Louis geographically is within St. Louis County, it is not part of St. Louis County. The City of St. Louis is its own entity as an "independent city" with its own judicial circuit. It is the only independent city in Missouri to have its own judicial circuit.

The problem with defendants' representing themselves in traffic cases usually is not the Court having its own idea of how to apply the law, but the defendant having no idea of how to practice law.

Most people (even most lawyers) are not well-practiced in criminal procedure, the rules of evidence, criminal discovery, direct and cross examination, trial advocacy, etc... Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying that a man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer.

Attempting to represent oneself at trial is analogous to performing surgery on oneself. Representing oneself at trial in traffic court probably is more analogous to giving oneself stitches: It can be done, but it certainly is not as easy as it looks on TV and generally turns out pretty badly.