oregon speeding ticket, help with appeals, court corrupt

[oppresseddriver]

I received a traffic citation for speeding in Oregon, the police officer checked the box, "employed to drive." I was not employed by anyone to be driving, just going to the store with my family. I fought this in court and neither the judge, nor the officer could show me any law defining "employed to drive." The police officer said he marked that box if the driver had a valid license, and that he had trained his officers to do the same.

By all means I should have won the case as I put the officer's visual accuity in to doubt when he accused me of being on my phone as well (I entered into evidence my phone records showing my phone had not been used during the time in question, with a buffer of one day on either side, no less). This should have added doubt to his visual analysis of the situation.

He could not enter any evidence showing that the tuning forks he had used were the same ones denoted by the manufacturer as the appropriate forks for his specific device. He could not provide any proof that the telephone and power lines that ran the road where he had pulled me over did not cause any interference on his radar. He was also unable to provide tuning logs as evidence for his case (he said 'as a rule, i tune them at the beginning and end of my shift').

The judge did not give me an opportunity to make a motion to dismiss the case due to incompetent witness or lack of evidence from the prosecution (the only evidence the cop provided was his radar certificate, radar training, and serial numbers for the tuning forks (but could not show me in his documentation where the manufacturer stated those were the specific forks used to tune his radar), and two photos of the area where he pulled me over that just proved the telephone lines were there).

The judge then stated that the officer's (pure opinion, as the evidence he offered did not state any more than he had been trained to use a radar) testimony outweighed my evidence, and I lost the case.

I will be appealing it, and intend on fighting on the grounds that the officer did not understand the laws he was enforcing (employed to drive), that his visual testimony was put into doubt (cell phone accusation), and that his equipment had insufficient documentation to show his equipment had been properly set up to perform speed regulation.

Can anyone give me any advice for this case? I'm very frustrated at the incredible disregard for justice and evidence this court showed, as I had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was incompetent, and had no tangible evidence against me. The court ruled on the officer's opinion, disregarding the evidence and questionable state I left the prosecution's testimony in.

 

[army judge]

Did you expect fairness and justice insofar as traffic citations are nothing more than a government revenue collections scam?

This happens thousands of times each day in America's traffic courts.

Oregon is so crooked that your legislators don't even permit you to take a traffic school class to have the ticket dismissed.

This is all about confiscating more of your money to use the roads your taxes fund.

I wish you luck, but can offer you little more, when the system is designed to scam money from citizens!!!

 

[oppresseddriver]

At least now the proof is on transcript. This may turn into a lawsuit against the court or police officer if it the appeal does not end in my favor. The corruption is obvious (and now documented as well) and I intend on fighting for the truth.

 

[mightymoose]

Advice is to throw in the towel... know when you are beat.
Nothing you say here will beat that citation.

Having checked the "employ" box does not invalidate the citation. It is not unusual to have errors on citations, and they are correctable. You also can not provide any evidence that the power/telephone lines DO interfere with radar.

The evidence that you believe is inadequate has been accepted by the courts for many years. Radar is not new technology- in fact it is old technology and is quickly being replaced with LIDAR.


Your phone records mean nothing. Many people have more than one phone, and you could have had someone else's phone. You can not prove that the records you present are for the phone that was in your possession at that time, and that it was the only phone in your possession.

Unless you are able to prove that the tuning forks used are inadequate, don't expect that argument to go anywhere. You apparently are not able to prove that the WRONG forks were used.

It is your right to continue to appeal this, but you have zero chance of success with the argument given.

That isn't what you want to hear, but its the honest truth.

 

[john39]

I am not a lawyer,but recently started to explore and appreciate this forum.

Your phone records mean nothing. Many people have more than one phone, and you could have had someone else's phone. You can not prove that the records you present are for the phone that was in your possession at that time, and that it was the only phone in your possession.

So,according to you,oppresseddriver needs to prove that the records he obtained are for the phone that was in his possession at the time when the police officer alleged he possessed and used a phone?AND,you don't even stop there,but according to you,he needs to prove that he only had one phone in his possession?He wouldn't have a problem to prove that the records he present are for the phone that was in his possession ,and he allegedly was using,at that time,should the officer know "what phone".

Do you assume he has that problem to prove,because the officer failed to state what phone exactly oppresseddriver had at that time?Was it confiscated and used as an evidence?What phone?

Oppresseddriver wouldn't need to prove anything.But the officer does,if he doesn't want more people to nick name them selves oppressed drivers.How about to do his job properly and provide evidence for allegations/citations he makes.

His phones records mean nothing?His word means as much as the word of the officer.If his phones record mean nothing,to you,so the officers claim about imaginary phone should mean nothing to you.

 

[john39]

oppresseddriver

He could not enter any evidence showing that the tuning forks he had used were the same ones denoted by the manufacturer as the appropriate forks for his specific device

mightymoose

Unless you are able to prove that the tuning forks used are inadequate, don't expect that argument to go anywhere. You apparently are not able to prove that the WRONG forks were used.

Well,IF oppresseddriver proved that the tuning forks the officer used are not the same as the ones denoted by the manufacturer for that device,I would be inclined to presume that the tuning forks used are inadequate,until the one who claims that they are adequate proves that they are.So,he shifted the burden of proof to the one who uses tuning forks not denoted by the manufacturer,to prove that work as good as the ones the manufacturer denoted.I would be inclined to presume that because I also presume that the manufacturer of the device knows which tuning forks should be denoted for the device

 

[mightymoose]

John-
It isn't a criminal trial.
While it is possible the officer could have been mistaken about the cell phone, his sworn testimony that it is true to the best of his knowledge goes a long way in a traffic court.
The OP can produce all kinds of records that mean nothing- police do not confiscate cell phones for these violations so there is no way the OP can prove by cell phone records that the officer is wrong. Besides, the OP could have been using the phone for other means, such as Internet access or use of other applications which is still in violation of the law. There is no way the phone records could absolutely defeat the officer's sworn statement, even if wrong. This is a pitfall to the system, but is very much the reason departments go to such great lengths to hire officer's with integrity. The standard would be much different in a criminal court.
As for the tuning forks, if the officer had presented tuning fork information the OP would be at task to explain how and why the forks are inadequate. Just because they might be from a different manufacturer does not make them inadequate. Different forks can meet the same specifications. The court heard the evidence and accepted the officer's training and maintenance of the equipment as sufficient. The OP was obviously taking a wild stab at an opportunity to defeat a citation and the court wasn't buying it. Anyhow, I highly doubt the OP handled the situation correctly and likely did not request any of this information until he was in the courtroom.
If he was serious about the matter he could have hired an attorney who would know more about court procedure and would subpoena the information in a timely manner before the hearing... and then he still would likely have lost the argument in court.

Bottom line- it is a traffic offense, not a criminal offense.

 

[john39]

Hi Mightymoose

...John-
It isn't a criminal trial.

+

...The standard would be much different in a criminal court.

There are only two standards of proof we need to deal with:

1. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
2. Preponderance of the Evidence

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:
This standard of proof is the higher of the two. This is the standard of proof in a criminal trial. This means that the case must be proven without any reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime against him/her.

Preponderance of the Evidence:
This is the standard of proof in a civil trial. This one basically states that if it is more likely than not that you committed the offense then you will be found guilty.
Both are very important issues one must consider when fighting a speeding ticket in court. In order to know which standard of proof is required in the courthouse OD will be contesting his ticket, all you have to do is know how his state regards speeding ticket offences.

Some label them as a criminal offense (also known as a misdemeanor) while others label them a civil offense.

But,either way,regardless of how Oregon labels the alleged offenses ,what evidence exactly the officer has except his sworn testimony?How about a video footage ...maybe a photo?Anything?You know,even with preponderance of evidence,one needs to show something other than his/hers word.

The OP can produce all kinds of records that mean nothing- police do not confiscate cell phones for these violations so there is no way the OP can prove by cell phone records that the officer is wrong.

You see,I didn't say they confiscate phones,or that they should confiscate them in such events.I said "did he".No? Well then any photos?Video?Anything?No way OP can prove by cell phone records that the officer is wrong,indeed,he needs no taking part in imaginary fantasy ,stories...proving absolute negatives.I for example can't prove that I didn't have 3 phones on me when I was driving back from work today....hard thing to do.How about you?Can you prove you didn't use someone else phone today in you car?Someone else we don't know who?...etc.

As for the tuning forks, if the officer had presented tuning fork information the OP would be at task to explain how and why the forks are inadequate. Just because they might be from a different manufacturer does not make them inadequate

True,you are right.Just because they might be from a different manufacturer does not make them inadequate,BUT that shifts the burden of proof to them,not to OD,as I explained.

Bottom line- it is a traffic offense, not a criminal offense.

Ignoratio elenchi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Traffic offense can be criminal offense.Even if it is not,it is irrelevant is it or not,for the issue at question.Police officers word alone is not enough,by any standard

 

[mightymoose]

I'm not sure you get it... it is an infraction.. a simple traffic offense.
The fact that it occurred in the officer's presence makes his testimony all the evidence that is necessary here.

 

[john39]

I said,traffic offense can be criminal offense.

Even if it is not,it is irrelevant is it or not,for the issue at question.Police officers word alone is not enough,by any standard.

It might not be simple for OD one mans word be regarded more than his. Maybe that makes him feel like second class human being.Feeling that way,is no simple matter.

The fact that it occurred in the officer's presence makes his testimony all the evidence that is necessary here

I am sorry you feel that way.Perhaps you would change your mind ,if ever happens that all the evidence that is necessary that you get convicted,of anything,is officers claim that what is alleged you did ,happened in his presence.

 

[mightymoose]

An officer's word is sufficient for the vast majority of traffic citations with no additional evidence of any kind required.

Being ordered to pay a traffic fine is not a criminal conviction.

 

[john39]

An officer's word is sufficient for the vast majority of traffic citations with no additional evidence of any kind required.

Maybe sufficient for you.Maybe even for all of you here on the forum,and maybe even for the vast majority out there. Not for me.I don't state logical fallacies as arguments.Appeals to popularity are not arguments.I try to offer reasoning as arguments. The driver is presumed innocent, the citation cannot be used as evidence , the officer's word,in my opinion, is not enough to allow the judge to levy a fine against the driver.There is such thing as Constitution.If needs be amended,there is procedure for that.Until it is amended,should be the supreme law.

Being ordered to pay a traffic fine is not a criminal conviction.

Again,what that has to do with the subject?Appeal to consequences....it is not a criminal conviction...look,a statute of limitations for speeding tickets does not exist . Once the officer has issued the citation, the driver is obligated to either plead not guilty and appear in court, or pay the fine listed on the traffic citation. Failure to do either will result in a warrant being issued for their arrest (which never expires) and the revocation of their driver's license.

Again,there is only two standards of proof in the courts " Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" and " Preponderance of the Evidence".
"An officer's word is sufficient ................." does not meet the standard of neither of those two and it is appeal to authority,another fallacy.

on another note,what do you think about things like this:

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081118/METRO/811180402/1409/METRO

 

[mightymoose]

...the officer's word,in my opinion, is not enough to allow the judge to levy a fine against the driver.There is such thing as Constitution....

The protections in the Constitution are regarding rights of the accused in criminal proceedings.

The officer's word is sufficient, as has been so for decades. It is the norm for petty infractions of this sort.
It does not matter that you do not accept it. All that matters is that judges are satisfied.

Again,what that has to do with the subject?Appeal to consequences....it is not a criminal conviction...look,a statute of limitations for speeding tickets does not exist . Once the officer has issued the citation, the driver is obligated to either plead not guilty and appear in court, or pay the fine listed on the traffic citation. Failure to do either will result in a warrant being issued for their arrest (which never expires) and the revocation of their driver's license.

It has everything to do with the subject- we are talking about a simple infraction, not a crime... with possible exception of failure to appear in court, which could potentially be a crime depending on circumstances and state law.


As for the article you reference, I too think quotas are a bad idea, however police managers need information with which they can evaluate the performance of personnel assigned to various duties. For some agencies there is pressure regarding how many DUI arrests are made, or how many drug arrests. That pressure comes from the higher-ups making sure that the job is getting done. Regardless of police management, nobody is making people go out and break the law. Police are paid by taxpayer funds to serve the public, not to collect a check and look the other way. Those who are caught in violation deserve the consequences. I don't see that it matters if they are the 100th ticket/arrest of the day or the only one. Quota or no quota, an individual is responsible for their own actions.

 

[tpajet]

First of all, as far as the officer's word goes, you need not look farther than the recently passed law in Ohio which states that a properly trained officer is allowed to issue a citation based on their estimation of your speed. No radar or laser required. We will see how long that one lasts, but Mose is correct that while you may not accept it, the officer's word does go a long way in court.

Back to the OP - You have to remember that a simple error on a ticket does not invalidate the ticket. It has to be some error about an element of the actual offense. In other words if the officer cited you as going 65, but you were only going 45 then that would be something to fight. Some people will try to get a ticket dismissed because the color of the car is listed as green instead of blue or the like. That won't work.

Secondly, the officer does not need to provide proof that the power lines or phone lines would cause interference. This is something that would have long since been established. It's kind of like asking the officer to provide proof that the radar is capable of clocking speed.

The only part of that you might be able to go on is showing that the forks are approved for that radar and the tuning logs. But even that is a stretch.

As for the part of being on the phone, you could have been in the process of making a call or sending a text, but when you saw the officer you stopped and never hit send. So the phone logs are not going to be of use.

 

[john39]

The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

Presumption of innocence comes from this legal maxim

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

You want to study law?Study the Roman Law first.The development of Roman law comprises more than a thousand years of jurisprudence and it is the foundation of almost all legal systems.

Many countries expressly provided in their constitutions that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The U.S. Constitution does not expressly state this maxim. Rather, scholars propose that it has been implied from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantee of due process of law, and the Sixth Amendment's general guarantee to a fair trial.

The protections in the Constitution are regarding rights of the accused in criminal proceedings.

Nevertheless,call it as you wish,even if a traffic offense is charged with a traffic infraction, the case is heard before a judge under the rules of criminal procedure.Ask a Judge.Therefore,the driver IS presumed innocent.How can you possibly think otherwise?What do you teach,I am curious?

Nevertheless,that not all states consider minor traffic offenses to be criminal matters and those states do not require the stringent beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The preponderance of the evidence standard is not met by simple accusation without proof .Regardless of the standard, the burden remains on the government to show that you indeed committed the offense charged.How can you possibly think otherwise?

The officer's word is sufficient, as has been so for decades

hmmm,... the officer's testimony is not "proof,". ...is it?Or is it not? Please answer.

For decades? OK,it is your Argumentum ad numerum...or Argumentum ad populum....and I will not comment on it.

 

[john39]

tpajet hi

First of all, as far as the officer's word goes, you need not look farther than the recently passed law in Ohio which states that a properly trained officer is allowed to issue a citation based on their estimation of your speed. No radar or laser required

On what thing,if anything, the officer is basing his citation,or is "allowed" to issue a citation is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because,being "allowed" to issue citation,is not the same to being allowed to automatically win your case,just because you wrote citation.He was "allowed" and he wrote citation.Then with that "thing" the state will try to prove their case,in a Court of law,under the rules of criminal proceedings.

Those two things,are different.

 

[tpajet]

OK, but you need to look at a different angle on this. In criminal cases you have to prove your case beyond a shadow of a doubt. In a civil case it's beyond a reasonable doubt. In a case like this the burden of proof is not a strong. In the case of Ohio do you think they would allow an officer to issue a citation knowing that in court they would be required to have more than just that?

 

[john39]

Yes,a fortiori

And what did they have with the use of phone while driving?Why would this be a problem?

I don't need to look at and bring angles.

 

[mightymoose]

On what thing,if anything, the officer is basing his citation,or is "allowed" to issue a citation is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because,being "allowed" to issue citation,is not the same to being allowed to automatically win your case,just because you wrote citation.He was "allowed" and he wrote citation.Then with that "thing" the state will try to prove their case,in a Court of law,under the rules of criminal proceedings.

Those two things,are different.

It is not a criminal proceeding.

The court indicated that an officer's judgment in such a case is sufficient to support the charge without any additional evidence from any measuring device. The officer simply issues the citation based on his observation, appears in court, then testifies as to his observations. Done.
It is no different for a cracked tail light, illegal turn, or talking on the phone.

With your reasoning, how do you propose that a police officer produce evidence regarding a citation he issued for someone failing to signal properly?

 

[mightymoose]

Nevertheless,call it as you wish,even if a traffic offense is charged with a traffic infraction, the case is heard before a judge under the rules of criminal procedure.

No it isn't.

Traffic court is entirely different from a criminal court... although some traffic offenses are misdemeanors and felonies, and those can be handled in a criminal court.