Does anyone know the usual cost for hiring a lawyer to fight a traffic ticket? I was cited for speeding in a construction zone. I was apparently going 44 in a 25 and thought it strange I didn't slow down as I am very careful about posted limits until I went back and re-drove my route and figured out why.
I was heading eastbound on 81st towards Mingo where there is construction going on. The speed limit on 81st is 25mph when you get in this zone by the intersection heading eastbound. When I turned right or southbound on Mingo, this is what the road looks like.
(http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9973/mingosk1.jpg)
As far as I could tell, there is no 25mph speed notice telling drivers the limit unless you knew this already heading southbound on Mingo from 71st. Its obvious that you are to go that posted limit until you see the END OF CONSTRUCTION sign. The problem is, what about those heading eastbound on 81st and turn on to this road?
From past experience, there is to be another speed limit sign for those drivers turning onto another road to let them know that it is in a construction zone. Just because I am heading eastbound on an entirely different road, how is one to know that the next road to turn on has a slower limit unless otherwise posted?
I have a perfect driving record and would have no problem paying the fine. I just find it unreasonable that when you turn south onto Mingo from 81st, there is nothing that tells you to SLOW DOWN. From the picture, I couldn't tell that there is anything going on to slow down or otherwise. There were several cops there too pulling others over although they were heading northbound and that is clearly posted 25.
Sure he didn't cite you for innatentive driving for reading the Tulsa World on your dashboard? [}:)][;)]
Probably would cost you more than the ticket to fight it, at best you'd walk out having to pay court costs and attorney's fees. It's been a long time since I've had a traffic fine from TPD so I don't remember where you pay it other than at City Hall, or if there is a municipal court system to protest it.
I suppose if you went downtown to the clerk's office which collects the fines, they would tell you the protest process.
I put the Tulsa World up there to take pictures for timestamping sake when I re-drove the area.
I got a ticket once for disobeying a yellow light? Confused me....
When I took drivers Ed back in High School I was taught to proceed through a yellow light with caution, and not to stop for a yellow light.
As I approached the intersection at 40mph, the posted speed limit, the light turned yellow.
What are you supposed to do, slam on your brakes and lock up your tires and skid to a stop for the yellow light?
I submit a long vehicle entering an intersection right when the light turns yellow may not make it through on the yellow light. At many intersections where there are four lanes with a center isle and a left hand turn lanes that most times a long vehicle such as a Semi pulling a 40 foot trailer cannot make it through the intersection completely before the light turns red. How about the time it takes a tandem trailer rig such as Wonder Bread or UPS to clear that intersection traveling at 20mph?
Is that considered disobeying the yellow light, or is it a fault of the traffic engineers not allowing proper time on the light to allow the longest DOT approved vehicle on the road to clear the intersection?
I got another ticket for excessive smoke, the statute states the Muffler has to be factory or equivalent to prevent smoke. I was driving an '06 F-450 Turbo Charged Ford Diesel Truck that had just started on a cold damp winter day. They produce smoke when first driven when the engine is cold.
I did not bother to fight either one, although I felt I could of won them both using logical arguments against the statutes as they are worded. I just paid them and went on.
Believe the U-Turn statute was amended due to a driver arguing in court regarding how a turn in a cul-de-sac was interpreted using the current statute.
Many laws are written not taking into consideration all the vehicles driven on the roads, and all the unusual traffic situations that occur during the 365 days of the normal year.
Drive over 80,000 miles a year coast to coast in heavy trucks and you get a very broad view of strange traffic laws, inadequate lighting and poor sign placement.
Next time I travel to Teaxas I will stop and take a photo of one of the most confusing highway traffic signs I have ever seen in my life.
You will enjoy this one.
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/914882/2/istockphoto_914882_confusing_traffic_sign.jpg)
This one is interesting:
(http://www.blogatclock.net/uploads/astyle.gif)
Does anyone know the usual cost for hiring a lawyer to fight a traffic ticket?
You don't need an attorney to fight a traffic ticket in municipal court. You can easily do that yourself. Take your pictures, making sure you take pictures of the entire area in order to give the judge a clear perspective. And make sure your pictures are current.
In fact, when you get to your court date, you might only have to talk with the prosecutor, who may decide to dismiss the ticket before it even goes to court.
On my ticket it shows the date and the time as being 8-5pm. Does this mean that at anytime during the day I can walk in and plea? I would think I need to stand in front of the judge that day but it gave me the whole day for a time.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
On my ticket it shows the date and the time as being 8-5pm. Does this mean that at anytime during the day I can walk in and plea? I would think I need to stand in front of the judge that day but it gave me the whole day for a time.
You would need to appear before the deadline to set a date when your case can be heard. You shouldnt need a lawyer. If you believe you have a case where officers were acting improperly by working an area lacking legal markings, an appearance before a judge is a good way to make this a matter of public record. You might also email some news operations asking that they contact you if there are similar complaints from other motorists.
ah, I see the boys in blue are taking a well needed vacation from the real crime in north tulsa and harrassing us working stiffs down in south tulsa again.
(and if you dont believe me just listen to a police scanner sometime. last night every call I heard was north of admiral.)
25 mph on a main road is really hard to do, unless its for a short distance like in a school zone.
This sounds like typical revenue collection by the TPD.
I got hit once for rolling through a stop sign turning right in a neighborhood. $90!! Worst part, a few days later I saw a police cruiser do the exact same thing.
Its not unsafe to slow-roll through a stop sign if no other traffic is around, but if if a patrol car is hiding nearby, its revenue collection time, just like it was today I guess on 81st street.
Just another way to tax. I got a hundred dollar pedestrian ticket recently. It really made me consider not leaving home anymore.
I was going to protest a ticket I got while in Tulsa, which was my very first, and instead of protesting it just took some hours of community service time. I told this woman next to me what had happened and ended up volunteering at her Hospice doing website work. Not a bad deal, volunteering, but I still had to pay court fees for a traffic violation I didn't commit.
Supposedly I was going 55 in a 40, uphill on Memorial in my tiny four-cylinder car... and I know that I wasn't (and had a passenger who could attest).
My dad has always told me about Tulsa police and yellow lights. The only ticket he's ever received was from a Tulsa cop who cited him for passing through an intersection as the light turned yellow.
I really, REALLY dislike Tulsa cops. Most of the things they do (traffic) do nothing to either serve OR protect the citizens of Tulsa; rather, they act as trolls under bridges who collect tolls as people pass.
On my ticket it shows the date and the time as being 8-5pm. Does this mean that at anytime during the day I can walk in and plea? I would think I need to stand in front of the judge that day but it gave me the whole day for a time.
You just need to contact the court any day prior to the date on the citation, between the hours of 8 and 5, and tell them you would like to set up a court date to plead not guilty. The court will give you a new date to appear, send out notices to officer(s), and everyone can stand before the judge.
25 mph on a main road is really hard to do, unless its for a short distance like in a school zone. This sounds like typical revenue collection by the TPD.
The police department has absolutely no control over the posted speed limits. Speed limits are determined by traffic engineers, who have to follow state law that regulates how speeds are posted. Many of the construction zones employees complain about speeders, which then is responded to by police.
I really, REALLY dislike Tulsa cops. Most of the things they do (traffic) do nothing to either serve OR protect the citizens of Tulsa; rather, they act as trolls under bridges who collect tolls as people pass.
Do you ever wonder way most people pay more for their automobile insurance then for the insurance on their house? Do you ever hear people complain about the 43,000+ people killed each year in automobile collisions (far more then the number of people murdered). Do you hear anyone complain about the 1400 wrecks per month just in Tulsa alone. Do you wonder why wrecks account for more property damage then all other crimes combined, 10-fold. That is why police enforce traffic laws.
Do you have any idea how many people call the police to complain about speeders in their neighborhoods, or about people who run red lights, or drive recklessly. I'm confident you never want to hear the police response to be "Sorry. We got better things to do." or "Sorry. Too many people on the TulsaNow forum don't think we should enforce traffic laws."
Only one person is in control over how you drive. That would be you!
Rowdy -
I've fought "a few" tickets so here's what I have to share:
1. Talk to the D.A. (one of the assistants really. )You can plead your case with them before. I got a speeding ticket from Lake Patrol at I-244 and memorial from an officer with no radar. The ticket was lowered significantly by the DA's office. I believe Tulsa does this on a walk-in basis downtown. Just call the # on the ticket and say you want to talk to a DA.
2. Have a goal in mind. 44 in a 25 would normally be a 15-20 over ticket (construction zone worse). 0-10 tickets require about $100 in cash but do not count against you as far as insurance costs and points go. And keep in mind, even when not in construction, that intersection is 40mph.
3. Be honest. You can nitpick details, but don't pull the "I didn't know how fast I was going" line. Being an inattentive driver doesn't score points. Construction or not, you were speeding.
4. Take the picture below with you. Be clear that you knew you WERE in a posted 25mph zone, but you turned off of the road under construction and, given the absence of a single barrel or sign, assumed you had exited the construction zone.
5. Be firm, be cool. If they think you are a reasonable person who has no intention of speeding in a construction zone, before or now, they should treat you as such.
Example of how being calm can work:
I had a DA in payne (or maybe pawnee) county about 10 years ago that was tough to get in to talk to. I had gotten a ticket for 20 over in a rental car (I think the speedometer was bad.) When I did finally talk to the DA was the emotional one. He got upset that I was in there contesting the ticket. Finally he said "So, I know you were speeding, and you want me to reduced the ticket two pay levels (over $100) and not notify your insurance, even though you are guilty?" to which I replied "yes." After a long pause (stare down) he said "ok, but pay the fine before you leave."
If it goes to court, which hopefully it won't, I have more advice for that as well. At least trying talking to the DA personally before hiring a lawyer. You're usually paying for something you can do yourself for free. I represented myself in court once and won.
If the local police force wanted to gain more confidence with the public, they need to make extra effort to obey the traffic laws they enforce.
The local police force is most visible in their cruisers. This is when the public sees them the most.
By driving erratic, not using their blinkers, going over the posted speed limit by 10+mph, and most often TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONES (I have personally witnessed all of these things in the last week - and seems to be normal practice)-- this makes the public perceive them in a bad light.
Even as I see these traffic violations every day - I have never seen them pulled over on the side of the road receiving a citation. I can only assume they feel they are above the law.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Do you have any idea how many people call the police to complain about speeders in their neighborhoods, or about people who run red lights, or drive recklessly. I'm confident you never want to hear the police response to be "Sorry. We got better things to do." or "Sorry. Too many people on the TulsaNow forum don't think we should enforce traffic laws."
The average citizen would appreciate enforcement of traffic laws if the application were not spurious and random. It is like winning the lottery, and diminishes the important. The deterrant effect of current enforcement techniques is a joke, which is too bad.
My ider is to have dedicated traffic enforcement units, possibly privatized, whose sole purpose is to enforce speeding laws. No stupid domestic calls, no gas guzzling Interceptors, no college-education requirements.
I fought a speeding ticket and won but lost the roll-stop aspect and broke even. By the time I was done several assistant-DA's were in the court to observe.
The last time I got a ticket, I made a smart-alec remark about how the officer was just writing me a ticket because he had a quota to fill.
The policeman said, "You are right. Two more and my wife gets a new toaster."
quote:
Originally posted by ttownclown
If the local police force wanted to gain more confidence with the public, they need to make extra effort to obey the traffic laws they enforce.
The local police force is most visible in their cruisers. This is when the public sees them the most.
By driving erratic, not using their blinkers, going over the posted speed limit by 10+mph, and most often TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONES (I have personally witnessed all of these things in the last week - and seems to be normal practice)-- this makes the public perceive them in a bad light.
Even as I see these traffic violations every day - I have never seen them pulled over on the side of the road receiving a citation. I can only assume they feel they are above the law.
You may file a complaint with the Chief's Office when you see this type of behavior. That is why there are those great big car numbers on three sides of a police car.
But don't complain about talking on the cell phone. No law against that.
Grizz,
Small correction- I believe the proper venue for citations written by TPD is Tulsa municipal court, DA has no jurisdiction. I believe it would be whomever the city prosecutor is (go to city hall). If the OHP writes you a ticket then it is district court and the DA would then have jurisdiction (go to county court house).
Just trying to get Rowdy to the right building.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Do you have any idea how many people call the police to complain about speeders in their neighborhoods, or about people who run red lights, or drive recklessly. I'm confident you never want to hear the police response to be "Sorry. We got better things to do." or "Sorry. Too many people on the TulsaNow forum don't think we should enforce traffic laws."
The average citizen would appreciate enforcement of traffic laws if the application were not spurious and random. It is like winning the lottery, and diminishes the important. The deterrant effect of current enforcement techniques is a joke, which is too bad.
My ider is to have dedicated traffic enforcement units, possibly privatized, whose sole purpose is to enforce speeding laws. No stupid domestic calls, no gas guzzling Interceptors, no college-education requirements.
I fought a speeding ticket and won but lost the roll-stop aspect and broke even. By the time I was done several assistant-DA's were in the court to observe.
So are you saying you want more enforcement, less enforcement, only enforcement in certain sections of town, all over town, certain times of day, ........? What do you mean?
On the flip side, the police would love to see everyone obey traffic laws. Would be much easier on everyone and eliminate those 17,000 crashes each year in Tulsa.
Your idea of dedicated traffic units is already in place and has been for many years. As far as privatization, you would need to contact your state and local elected officials for a change in several laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Grizz,
Small correction- I believe the proper venue for citations written by TPD is Tulsa municipal court, DA has no jurisdiction. I believe it would be whomever the city prosecutor is (go to city hall). If the OHP writes you a ticket then it is district court and the DA would then have jurisdiction (go to county court house).
Just trying to get Rowdy to the right building.
I go to the wrong one every time. I gotta figure it out before april 2nd (jury duty)
Either way, yeah, talk to the prosecutor.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The policeman said, "You are right. Two more and my wife gets a new toaster."
I think a rewards system would be great. Further, I think a sliding-scale fine structure would be a good thing. Consider: Nokia's chairman was given a $100K speeding ticket. The way we go about it now is unfairly harsh on those without deep pockets.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The last time I got a ticket, I made a smart-alec remark about how the officer was just writing me a ticket because he had a quota to fill.
The policeman said, "You are right. Two more and my wife gets a new toaster."
And how did that 'smart-alec remark' work for you?
Sorry.... no quotas. But, I do expect traffic officers to write tickets. Wouldn't you?
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The policeman said, "You are right. Two more and my wife gets a new toaster."
I think a rewards system would be great. Further, I think a sliding-scale fine structure would be a good thing. Consider: Nokia's chairman was given a $100K speeding ticket. The way we go about it now is unfairly harsh on those without deep pockets.
I'll hope you're just kidding about a sliding scale with the rich paying a higher fine for the same violation as someone else.
Lets do this. How about a sliding scale based on your prior driving history? If you're poor and drive like crap all the time, thus you get stopped and cited all the time, you pay more then the rich guy who just got his first ticket. Or vise versa.
Believe it or not, the idea of traffic tickets is to correct behavior, not raise money.
My ider of dedicated traffic cops is not in place. I envision unarmed glorified meter maids on wheels just raising mad grip [$] on speeders until the market falls out. In the meantime, all Tulsans would benefit from lower insurance costs and increased revenue. No Bachelor's needed there, either.
I should contact some elected official, but who do you think would oppose this ider? Any guesses?
Sorry for the crossposts.
No joke about the sliding scale, and I like the idea of graduated fines for exceptionally poor drivers but the point system should take care of that, no?
Hey, if we are going to do sliding scales for tickets lets do sliding scales for other crimes too! If a person that has fun a lot gets in trouble they would only have to go to jail for a little bit, but if a chronically depressed person gets in trouble they would have to spend more time in jail (not much punishment if you are already miserable!). Also, if you are on welfare you can use government money to pay a government fine, jail time costs to much money, so just flog welfare recipients in public! Perfect.
Realistically, its been tried and struck down. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime, not the individual. You cannot punish one person more than another simply because they are more financially successful. You cannot beat a poor person for a crime (because jail would be a hotel stay) nor can you fine a rich person obnoxious amounts of money. Plus, if some idiot wants to get ticket after ticket and fork over thousands in fines for speeding - that's fine with me.
-------------------
Per enforcement, it is certainly random and contrary to many people's belief not a priority for most cops. They have other things they should be or would rather be doing. A traffic division would be a great idea (speaking of which, I saw the motorcycle cops on a speed trap yesterday).
However, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a cop fly by me on the BA on his way downtown for a shift change or roll thru a stop sign or blow off a yellow light. All crap he would surely ticket me for.
In my observation, there is no difference between the driving pattern of a marked patrol car and the average driver in Tulsa. If nothing else, the police are worse. Instead of the 5 over, I usually see them doing 10.
I have often thought calling in to report this, but what good would possibly come from it? Having every cop in Tulsa know that I ratted them out - knowing they all have access to what vehicle I drive, my plate number and information about where I live and work? Surely they wouldnt retaliate! My guess is nothing would be done anyway. While their word is good enough to cost me hundreds of dollars or imprisonment - they arent likely to believe a lowly citizen. Maybe I can nab one with my phone as a video recorder cruising by me and then show my speedometer.
Shouldnt they be examples?
-----------------------------
Per your tickets. Notify you want to contest it. You will be given a court date and time range (usually 3 hours). Most other people wont show up, so if you are lucky it will be on the front side of that time frame.
Bring whatever evidence you can muster - go back and take more pictures. Calmly and rationally explain your point of view - that for the safety of the community there should be better markings here if a lower speed is needed. Point out your clean driving record and that you understand the officer knew the rules and was doing his job - but you had no way of knowing the rules so you could not reasonable be expected to comply.
Hope the officer doesnt show up. Hope the judge actually listens. Hope he cares about a just outcome. Hope you dont have to waste a full half your day before you get to speak.
There is a 50/50 chance even if you are right. Its a crap shoot, sorry.
[/quote]
You may file a complaint with the Chief's Office when you see this type of behavior. That is why there are those great big car numbers on three sides of a police car.
But don't complain about talking on the cell phone. No law against that.
[/quote]
I thought there was a law about distractive driving. I'm sure that only having 1 hand on the wheel had nothing to do with the WIDE turn with no blinker I saw- Oh well- typical.
And funny you mention that - been there done that and what a joke! -- I once called the Mayors Action Line, due to a police cruiser going about 20 mph over the limit with no warning lights on. I jotted down the cruiser number -- and reported it. I received a call from the Chief or whoever was over the South Precinct about a week later. He told me that they could verify that they had a cruiser on the road at that time with that vehicle # that I reported. But I would have to come down to the precinct and visually identify the patrolman. I explained that it was dark outside and the patrolman zoomed by me. He then proceeded to say that they can't do anything about it since I couldn't visually identify their cop. – Plus the person that called me had horrible attitude and treated me like I was the bad guy for saying something about it.
So you can say report it all you want. It doesn't make a difference when the higher ups are looking out for their own kind.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The last time I got a ticket, I made a smart-alec remark about how the officer was just writing me a ticket because he had a quota to fill.
The policeman said, "You are right. Two more and my wife gets a new toaster."
And how did that 'smart-alec remark' work for you?
It wasn't a Tulsa police officer. I laughed...I thought it was a great comeback.
It's tuff to win a traffic case alone. With a lawyer your chances are better. Just paying the ticket is fine if you just get one or two a year, but after that they add up to points and you risk losing your drivers license for having too many points and your car insurance goes up. It's really best to at least try and fight every ticket you have... You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting it. I won a ticket in Arlington, Texas back in the 1980's simply by the cop not showing up for my trial. The judge had to toss it out, since the cop failed to show up. Good Luck.
ttownclown:
I forget, but Im pretty sure the camera's on the turnpikes dont have to ID the driver when they issue tickets...
That's BS.
WELL LOOKY HERE. I went back to the scene to take more pictures and look what the city put up that wasn't there yesterday. Click on the first pic to blow it up and see up close what it was like yesterday.
Yesterday when cited:
(http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4341/mingo4ga9.jpg)
(http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9973/mingosk1.jpg)
TODAY:
(http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/9577/mingo2eg0.jpg)
(http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/5184/mingo3qx4.jpg)
This better be dismissed. I have a picture of Wednesday's paper along with it in the pic on the day of citation and then the pic showing HOW THE STREET IS SUPPOSED TO BE MARKED.
I once called the Mayors Action Line, due to a police cruiser going about 20 mph over the limit with no warning lights on. I jotted down the cruiser number -- and reported it. I received a call from the Chief or whoever was over the South Precinct about a week later. He told me that they could verify that they had a cruiser on the road at that time with that vehicle # that I reported. But I would have to come down to the precinct and visually identify the patrolman. I explained that it was dark outside and the patrolman zoomed by me. He then proceeded to say that they can't do anything about it since I couldn't visually identify their cop.
You mean the police get the same presumption of innocence just like everyone else? And the police have to be identified just like everyone else? See how fair the criminal justice system is. It's the same for everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I really, REALLY dislike Tulsa cops. Most of the things they do (traffic) do nothing to either serve OR protect the citizens of Tulsa; rather, they act as trolls under bridges who collect tolls as people pass.
[}:)] tis might have to become my new signature
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
WELL LOOKY HERE. I went back to the scene to take more pictures and look what the city put up that wasn't there yesterday. Click on the first pic to blow it up and see up close what it was like yesterday.
Yesterday when cited:
(http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4341/mingo4ga9.jpg)
(http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9973/mingosk1.jpg)
TODAY:
(http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/9577/mingo2eg0.jpg)
(http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/5184/mingo3qx4.jpg)
This better be dismissed. I have a picture of Wednesday's paper along with it in the pic on the day of citation and then the pic showing HOW THE STREET IS SUPPOSED TO BE MARKED.
oh wow, if you dont get out of that ticket somebody has some explaining to do.
and to the people advocating these frivolous tickets. I find it hard to support these toll trolls while 71st/S 101st e ave intersection is constantly blocked by mother****ers who don't know to NOT enter an unclear intersection. when they start enforcing that THEN I'll be a little more supportive.
Those of you who have lived or driven any amount of time in Dallas can appreciate the culture shock that is experienced between the way things are 'down there' to here in Tulsa.
Check this out-
What if a TPD officer... no wait, even better, what if a TPD motorcycle officer had to work a couple of shifts in downtown Dallas!
LOL, that would be so fun see, I'd buy a movie ticket for it. This could be the next great thing in reality TV!
Dallas driver: Uh, why did you pull me over, officer?
TPD Officer: Because you entered an intersection AFTER the yellow light turned red.
Dallas driver: Dude, what are you talking about? I was only the 4th car thru that yellow light. So what if it turned red?
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Those of you who have lived or driven any amount of time in Dallas can appreciate the culture shock that is experienced between the way things are 'down there' to here in Tulsa.
Check this out-
What if a TPD officer... no wait, even better, what if a TPD motorcycle officer had to work a couple of shifts in downtown Dallas!
LOL, that would be so fun see, I'd buy a movie ticket for it. This could be the next great thing in reality TV!
Dallas driver: Uh, why did you pull me over, officer?
TPD Officer: Because you entered an intersection AFTER the yellow light turned red.
Dallas driver: Dude, what are you talking about? I was only the 4th car thru that yellow light. So what if it turned red?
actually, that would be a great reality series. take big city cops and put them in small towns and vice versa.
I predict the small town cops would get shot or beat up for some of the stuff they try to do in the big city though.
anyways, for my latest observation of stupid tactics, the other day on 169 I saw a TPD pull up onto the highway from 61st st and put his flashers on. He keeps moving along, roughly 65 or so. The traffic unfortunate enough to get caught behind him immediately slows down from a safe flow of 70-75 to a traffic clogging 65. So then what does this guy do? He turns off at 71st st. What did this accomplish? was this some sort of twisted traffic calming technique? because if it is it did nothing but back traffic up. And if the guy turned on his flashers just so he could get down to the next exit (he turned them off) faster that is an abuse of power.
Hey with that photo of that speedlimet sign and newspaper you did a very smart thing. I think you may have a good chance to beat that ticket. It's worth a shot. The city never would think that someone whould take a photo like that. However, in todays world they could claim that the photo was computer doctored.... 25mph is far too low for that road anyhow IMO, there is not much around except open fields.
I went to the courthouse today. There was no option to speak to anyone. I have a trial date in a few weeks set up. A lawyer wants 500 bucks, so I think I should do this myself.
I have been racking my brain trying to figure out if there is any way they can charge me with the ticket but I don't see how. My court paper says to bring any documents or pictures that would support my case so I don't see them not accepting these pictures as evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
I went to the courthouse today. There was no option to speak to anyone. I have a trial date in a few weeks set up. A lawyer wants 500 bucks, so I think I should do this myself.
I have been racking my brain trying to figure out if there is any way they can charge me with the ticket but I don't see how. My court paper says to bring any documents or pictures that would support my case so I don't see them not accepting these pictures as evidence.
Assuming your court date says to be there at 2pm (most traffic trials are), arrive a few minutes early and you will get a chance to speak to the assistant city prosecutor. I'm confident he/she will take you 'evidence' into consideration before deciding to proceed.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
I went to the courthouse today. There was no option to speak to anyone. I have a trial date in a few weeks set up. A lawyer wants 500 bucks, so I think I should do this myself.
I have been racking my brain trying to figure out if there is any way they can charge me with the ticket but I don't see how. My court paper says to bring any documents or pictures that would support my case so I don't see them not accepting these pictures as evidence.
Assuming your court date says to be there at 2pm (most traffic trials are), arrive a few minutes early and you will get a chance to speak to the assistant city prosecutor. I'm confident he/she will take you 'evidence' into consideration before deciding to proceed.
Yes, it is at 2pm. How many other people will be in there? 5-20? So everyone else will hear my case too-grreeatttt. [:P]
I just don't see how I can talk beforehand to the prosecutor. It's not like they are going to go around and ask me why I'm there. What does being early have to do with it besides the obvious start time of 2pm?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
I went to the courthouse today. There was no option to speak to anyone. I have a trial date in a few weeks set up. A lawyer wants 500 bucks, so I think I should do this myself.
I have been racking my brain trying to figure out if there is any way they can charge me with the ticket but I don't see how. My court paper says to bring any documents or pictures that would support my case so I don't see them not accepting these pictures as evidence.
Assuming your court date says to be there at 2pm (most traffic trials are), arrive a few minutes early and you will get a chance to speak to the assistant city prosecutor. I'm confident he/she will take you 'evidence' into consideration before deciding to proceed.
Yes, it is at 2pm. How many other people will be in there? 5-20? So everyone else will hear my case too-grreeatttt. [:P]
I just don't see how I can talk beforehand to the prosecutor. It's not like they are going to go around and ask me why I'm there. What does being early have to do with it besides the obvious start time of 2pm?
As to how many people will be there, any place from 5 to 20 or more, it just depends how many people are on the docket for that day in that court room. No good way to know. When you get to your court room, hanging outside the door will be a list of names of people who are on the docket. Names are listed in alphabetical order.
And actually, the prosecutor will seek you out (and all other defendants) prior to the start of court. This will give the court a good idea how many potential trials there will be. Don't be surprised how many people make a deal with the prosecutor to avoid a trial. Your talk with him/her will be very informal, probably out in the hall, and that will be your chance to show him your pictures.
And yes, the Judge will call all the names on the docket to ensure you are there. Make sure you are present in court when the docket gets called, otherwise a bench warrant gets issued for your arrest for fail to appear. The Judges usually don't call the docket until 2:15, which gives people a chance to find a parking spot and the court room.
Thanks for your help. All I need now is to find the regulation or ordinance that shows me what ODOT or whoever has to abide by when lowering a speed limit temporarily due to construction or other issues.
Something to the effect of, "posted sign should be within 200 feet of any intersection..." or something to that nature. I went all over the net but only found the cityoftulsa.org rules and ordinances that WE as citizens are to follow but I can't find anything else. Can someone point me in the right direction?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
Thanks for your help. All I need now is to find the regulation or ordinance that shows me what ODOT or whoever has to abide by when lowering a speed limit temporarily due to construction or other issues.
Something to the effect of, "posted sign should be within 200 feet of any intersection..." or something to that nature. I went all over the net but only found the cityoftulsa.org rules and ordinances that WE as citizens are to follow but I can't find anything else. Can someone point me in the right direction?
You can go to www.oscn.net. They are posted within Title 47. In short, you can't lower the speed limit more then six times per mile nor more then 10 miles-per-hour at a time.
PSA:
Yesterday on highway 11 Tulsa police car "P2006" passed me. I was probably going 70 when he blew by, I got up to 85 and he was still pulling away. So I whipped out my video phone and took some video of my speed-o-meter and then the cop pulling away. I tried to catch up but didnt want to go over 90.
I assumed he was going to the cop shop off of 36st North so I headed that way and caught up with him as he was pulling in. When he saw me turn in behind him he exited the lot and got back on the highway.
As much as I would like to, I believe police are too protective of their own to do anything about this. More trouble for me than a likelihood that anything would get done. At the same time, screw that... 25 over could mean the loss of a license for anyone else. Unless its a cop near shift change and wanting to get home.
Oh yeah, for bonus points... he was on a cell phone.
Oh yeah, noticed they put a sign up exactly where it was missing when rowdy drove by.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
Thanks for your help. All I need now is to find the regulation or ordinance that shows me what ODOT or whoever has to abide by when lowering a speed limit temporarily due to construction or other issues.
Something to the effect of, "posted sign should be within 200 feet of any intersection..." or something to that nature. I went all over the net but only found the cityoftulsa.org rules and ordinances that WE as citizens are to follow but I can't find anything else. Can someone point me in the right direction?
You can go to www.oscn.net. They are posted within Title 47. In short, you can't lower the speed limit more then six times per mile nor more then 10 miles-per-hour at a time.
I've been to a site similar to this that posted this same material. However, all it states for roads are "highways". Does this in fact mean highways or any road traveled on by a motorist?
For something like that you don't even need a lawyer. Just go in and take your pictures, talk to the DA in charge of the case and he will drop it.
(I had something similar for running a stop sign that didn't exist.)
Well, a lawyer wanted 500 bucks to do it and I said "forget it". I think I can do this myself. He even offered that he thinks he could get me on a probationary period for a few months. Why in the heck would I want that?!
I'll give my picture evidence to the court and then turn around and point my finger at the cop and say "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Well, maybe not. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
Well, a lawyer wanted 500 bucks to do it and I said "forget it". I think I can do this myself. He even offered that he thinks he could get me on a probationary period for a few months. Why in the heck would I want that?!
I'll give my picture evidence to the court and then turn around and point my finger at the cop and say "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Well, maybe not. [;)]
(http://deseretnews.com/photos/1606611.jpg)
Ok, this is the big week to "face the music". [B)]
Here is my interpretation of a birds-eye view of the event. I hope it explains it somewhat to the casual viewer.
(http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6517/map2d1en7.jpg)
You left the Fiesta Mart and the car wash off of your map. Are you trying to hide something?
I gotta go with the police on this one.
I would add the fact that all of the traffic barrels went E<->W at the time and nothing N<->S
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
You left the Fiesta Mart and the car wash off of your map. Are you trying to hide something?
I gotta go with the police on this one.
Sounds like a case of OCD. If I did that, then I would have to add foliage and simulated traffic.
Maybe if you added foliage to your picture...right in front of the new speed limit sign...
I won't tell.
I drove through that intersection headed south last week. I can't see a single reason for the speed limit to still be 25 south of the intersection. Fortunately, I remembered Rowdy's post and kept it at 25.
I was actually standing naked behind that McDonalds on that day. I have to question your accuracy unless you add in the naked man behind McDonalds when presenting to the court.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I was actually standing naked behind that McDonalds on that day. I have to question your accuracy unless you add in the naked man behind McDonalds when presenting to the court.
If you were standing naked behind a Mickey D's, then you should be the one taking my place. [:D]
If for some odd reason the court will not dismiss this ticket, then I wonder how to go about the appeals process...
I guess I will cross that bridge when I come to it.
Darn bridges....
I think you have made a good case. The only issue will be whether or not the officer acknowledges if you were continuing south on Mingo across 81st or had turned off 81st.
Good luck.
I think I'm more interested in the outcome of this then who Dannilynn's father is.
Fellow TulsaNow Forum members:
I had my court date today. Let me tell you that first of all, I have never felt so shocked, stunned and simply amazed at what transpired today. The judge told me that I was guilty and that the Prosecution he felt did their job. My problem with everything is why he thinks I am guilty.
First, the officer flat out lied and told me that he pulled me over in the McDonald's parking lot. I was in awe that here was someone who wrote me a ticket on E 84th Pl. tell the court that he cited me in the parking lot. I told them the whole story. I was turning right on 81st St and heading southbound on Mingo. Then, I noticed an unmarked suddenly behind me. He then pointed his finger out of the window and I had that deer-in-the-headlights look for an instant as in "what the heck did I do?"
I then found the first place to pull over and it was the residential district on the east side of Mingo which is E 84th Pl. I sat there and he wrote me a ticket as clear as day. Yet, with his story, I was cited at McDonald's. I submitted my pictures and then the officer said that there WAS a 25mph speed limit sign farther up the road behind me and still south of the intersection! Gee now how can that be possible? You can see on the pics I took that I was right smack past the intersection and yet the officer stated that there was still a sign posted behind me. Unbelievable.
Now that I am home, I have looked at all the pics again and it clearly shows that there is ONE speed limit sign posted near any part of that intersection-not two. Especially on the day I was cited where there was NO sign. The officer said that there was one posted TEN FEET just south of the intersection. NOT TRUE. Heck, there's even an ordinance that the city cannot post that many signs close together. I am sorry folks but I didn't used to be one to dislike police or the court system, but I got royally screwed on this one. I don't want to lump all the police and the Tulsa Court into one bad egg but I am afraid I do not have a choice.
How many people fight tickets? Not many. I know some do but a LOT don't. I had a chance to plea bargain when the judge came in but I felt and still feel there is no reason to plea bargain something where you aren't guilty. I had pictures and all the officer had was his memory. I questioned the officer and asked him, "I understand you write a lot of citations. Is it possible to remember every person you pull over and where exactly it happened?" He said no. But he went so far as to state that he remembered his buddy in the same parking lot writing other tickets to others when I was cited. Interesting since I didn't join in this little pullover in McD's.
Let me state to anyone who reads this that I CANNOT STAND TULSA POLICE OR THE COURT SYSTEM. I got screwed over and it hurts more that I now have however many points and a record for so many years and I didn't do a darned thing wrong. I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up and keep to the principal of the matter which was I did not break the law going 19+ over the limit. Screw'em.
I was going to tell you all of what you experienced...But you seemed so head strong I figured it was better if you learned your lesson......
I hate that you got screwed over Rowdy. However, not all that surprising how it came out.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I was going to tell you all of what you experienced...But you seemed so head strong I figured it was better if you learned your lesson......
huh?
I don't care about odds if that is what you are pointing towards. My being "headstrong" was nothing more than a civilian who was wrongly convicted of a citation and was trying to prove my innocence. Now I have three years of 3 points on my record I think.
I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up...
I believe if you will review state law, insurance companies are prohibited from raising your rates based on a municipal speeding tickets.
if you contest the ticket the odds are that the cop won't show up, and you will just get to walk away with n harm done. i have contested my way out of three speeding tickets, and never had to pay a single one. but the good thing about contesting is, even if the cop does show up you can't be charged more than the ticket charges. contesting is always the way to go.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up...
I believe if you will review state law, insurance companies are prohibited from raising your rates based on a municipal speeding tickets.
What? I have never heard of that. All my life I have heard that any time you get a speeding ticket a certain amount over the limit, it can go on your record and it will be reported to the insurance company which in turn can raise your rates. This is news to me.
I give Rowdy credit for standing up for the principle that he believed was right and not being a sheep about it. He has the right to try and prove his side of the story. I feel bad for him that he lost, but he exercised his right to contest the ticket.
Thanks dbacks. Good to see another 'Backs fan.[8D]
The girl before me was cited for a rolling stop. She didn't fair well and came out of there bawling her eyes out. She was also crying during her testimony.
I think my trial lasted about an hour or longer. Started at 215-her trial ended about 235 and then mine started and I got back to the car just a little before 4.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up...
I believe if you will review state law, insurance companies are prohibited from raising your rates based on a municipal speeding tickets.
What? I have never heard of that. All my life I have heard that any time you get a speeding ticket a certain amount over the limit, it can go on your record and it will be reported to the insurance company which in turn can raise your rates. This is news to me.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=391387
where insurance is prohibited from raising your rates based on a speeding ticket.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=82330&hits=674+662+596+586+496+238+226+162+152+65+
where the state is prohibited from putting certain speeding tickets on your driving record.
Sorry to hear about your experience. I am really shocked and drive that intersection regularly. I'd swear under oath that there was no sign and my wife also said the same thing.
Sorry to hear it turned out that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up...
I believe if you will review state law, insurance companies are prohibited from raising your rates based on a municipal speeding tickets.
What? I have never heard of that. All my life I have heard that any time you get a speeding ticket a certain amount over the limit, it can go on your record and it will be reported to the insurance company which in turn can raise your rates. This is news to me.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=391387
where insurance is prohibited from raising your rates based on a speeding ticket.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=82330&hits=674+662+596+586+496+238+226+162+152+65+
where the state is prohibited from putting certain speeding tickets on your driving record.
This reflects any speeding done under 10mph. I was supposedly 19 over.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up...
I believe if you will review state law, insurance companies are prohibited from raising your rates based on a municipal speeding tickets.
What? I have never heard of that. All my life I have heard that any time you get a speeding ticket a certain amount over the limit, it can go on your record and it will be reported to the insurance company which in turn can raise your rates. This is news to me.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=391387
where insurance is prohibited from raising your rates based on a speeding ticket.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=82330&hits=674+662+596+586+496+238+226+162+152+65+
where the state is prohibited from putting certain speeding tickets on your driving record.
This reflects any speeding done under 10mph. I was supposedly 19 over.
If you were 19 over the posted speed limit, which was supposed to be 25, but was originally 40, then you were over the original posted speed limit as well. Claiming you were speeding, yet being above the original posted speed limit, is still speeding, weather it was 19 mph over or 4 mph over.
I obviously wasn't at court, but if you claim the speed limit was never posted at 25, yet you are above the original posted speed limit of 40, you really don't give the court much room to find you not guilty.
The first statute talks about speed limits that were changed and someone being accused of speeding above the new limit but below the old limit. If you are above both the new limit and the old limit, again, that won't apply to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up...
I believe if you will review state law, insurance companies are prohibited from raising your rates based on a municipal speeding tickets.
What? I have never heard of that. All my life I have heard that any time you get a speeding ticket a certain amount over the limit, it can go on your record and it will be reported to the insurance company which in turn can raise your rates. This is news to me.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=391387
where insurance is prohibited from raising your rates based on a speeding ticket.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=82330&hits=674+662+596+586+496+238+226+162+152+65+
where the state is prohibited from putting certain speeding tickets on your driving record.
This reflects any speeding done under 10mph. I was supposedly 19 over.
If you were 19 over the posted speed limit, which was supposed to be 25, but was originally 40, then you were over the original posted speed limit as well. Claiming you were speeding, yet being above the original posted speed limit, is still speeding, weather it was 19 mph over or 4 mph over.
I obviously wasn't at court, but if you claim the speed limit was never posted at 25, yet you are above the original posted speed limit of 40, you really don't give the court much room to find you not guilty.
The first statute talks about speed limits that were changed and someone being accused of speeding above the new limit but below the old limit. If you are above both the new limit and the old limit, again, that won't apply to you.
The normal speed limit was not even
brought into question so that wasn't even a part of anyone's argument either on my end or the Prosecution. I would gladly take an excessive speed limit offense of 4mph over but I hardly see any Tulsa Police writing tickets for 4+ in a 40 zone on up anyway. I am sure it can happen, but it isn't the norm.
The points WILL go on my record. At first, I thought it was going to be three but when I went to the Oklahoma DMV, it says that anything under 25 over is 2 points. I didn't plea bargain with the Prosecution so I wonder if I still have an opportunity to get those points off through traffic school. I didn't think I could but the Oklahoma DMV website states, "You may also reduce your driving record by two points if you attend traffic school."
This leads me to believe that if you already HAVE two points, they can be reduced. I will have to check into that and find out.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Sorry to hear about your experience. I am really shocked and drive that intersection regularly. I'd swear under oath that there was no sign and my wife also said the same thing.
Sorry to hear it turned out that way.
Thanks for your nice post. Much appreciated and I wish I had you guys there to help. Seeing that officer lie twice is tearing me up. I wonder if they sided with him because he is with the Specialized Division-who knows. I find it even funnier that he states he cited me and handed me my ticket in the McDonald's parking lot when it was a quarter mile down the road where he actually pulled me over. He told the judge it was McDonald's then he stated that is what he put on the ticket.
Then the judge asked me if I had that on my same ticket. As he asked, the officer stated he put down "mcd". That was his nice "proof" that he pulled me over into McDonald's. I guess since I didn't notice he put these almost illegible initials down, that I could not fight it unless I brought it up when I first received the ticket.
Here is my ticket scanned with the wonderfully-clear description that it was in a McDonald's parking lot.
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6397/ticketun0.jpg)
I am sorry you lost your case Rowdy. I can see why you are mad at the policeman and the judge.
I think your case must be the abnormality. I haven't been stopped for speeding in over a decade so I don't know what the procedures are now, but almost every police officer I encounter in my life today has been very truthful (except when negotiating their pay raises).
I also have no real experience before a judge(I was always guilty and just paid the ticket), but feel sorry that your exhibits were not accepted in your case. I thought you did a good job documenting the conditions.
Good luck next time (and slow down).
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I am sorry you lost your case Rowdy. I can see why you are mad at the policeman and the judge.
I think your case must be the abnormality. I haven't been stopped for speeding in over a decade so I don't know what the procedures are now, but almost every police officer I encounter in my life today has been very truthful (except when negotiating their pay raises).
I also have no real experience before a judge(I was always guilty and just paid the ticket), but feel sorry that your exhibits were not accepted in your case. I thought you did a good job documenting the conditions.
Good luck next time (and slow down).
Thanks RM. I guess I could slow down but how much? I was only 4+ legitimately over which most officers could care less about in a 40+ zone. Anyway a lot of peeps here have been great so I really appreciate the responses and input. Next to my family, you guys were the first I told. Its scary just thinking that thought alone. [8D][:o)]
Given the preparation of your evidence it certainly should have gone in your favor.
If you were the victim of fraud, you should consider pitching this to an investigative reporter who might be interested in a story on the insincerity of traffic enforcement in construction zones.
Your evidence suggests that this was engineered to generate citations, and that it might be routine. When it's your word against a flashy uniform people will put their trust in the video.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Given the preparation of your evidence it certainly should have gone in your favor.
If you were the victim of fraud, you should consider pitching this to an investigative reporter who might be interested in a story on the insincerity of traffic enforcement in construction zones.
Your evidence suggests that this was engineered to generate citations, and that it might be routine. When it's your word against a flashy uniform people will put their trust in the video.
Funny you mention that. The officer stated that he wrote approx 20-25 citations just that day alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I wasn't in there to get out of a ticket, I was in there to keep my record clean, insurace from going up...
I believe if you will review state law, insurance companies are prohibited from raising your rates based on a municipal speeding tickets.
What? I have never heard of that. All my life I have heard that any time you get a speeding ticket a certain amount over the limit, it can go on your record and it will be reported to the insurance company which in turn can raise your rates. This is news to me.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=391387
where insurance is prohibited from raising your rates based on a speeding ticket.
Check:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=82330&hits=674+662+596+586+496+238+226+162+152+65+
where the state is prohibited from putting certain speeding tickets on your driving record.
This reflects any speeding done under 10mph. I was supposedly 19 over.
If you were 19 over the posted speed limit, which was supposed to be 25, but was originally 40, then you were over the original posted speed limit as well. Claiming you were speeding, yet being above the original posted speed limit, is still speeding, weather it was 19 mph over or 4 mph over.
I obviously wasn't at court, but if you claim the speed limit was never posted at 25, yet you are above the original posted speed limit of 40, you really don't give the court much room to find you not guilty.
The first statute talks about speed limits that were changed and someone being accused of speeding above the new limit but below the old limit. If you are above both the new limit and the old limit, again, that won't apply to you.
The normal speed limit was not even
brought into question so that wasn't even a part of anyone's argument either on my end or the Prosecution. I would gladly take an excessive speed limit offense of 4mph over but I hardly see any Tulsa Police writing tickets for 4+ in a 40 zone on up anyway. I am sure it can happen, but it isn't the norm.
The points WILL go on my record. At first, I thought it was going to be three but when I went to the Oklahoma DMV, it says that anything under 25 over is 2 points. I didn't plea bargain with the Prosecution so I wonder if I still have an opportunity to get those points off through traffic school. I didn't think I could but the Oklahoma DMV website states, "You may also reduce your driving record by two points if you attend traffic school."
This leads me to believe that if you already HAVE two points, they can be reduced. I will have to check into that and find out.
By going to a defensive driving school, the state will take two points off your driving record, but the violation still remains. It does not take off any violations, it simply takes off points.
IF you take a defensive driving class, your insurance company is required to give you a 5% discount on your auto insurance for the next three years. The class is painfully boring, so you'll need to weigh how valuable your time is compared to the discount you get.
If you are taking the class so your speeding ticket won't appear on, or gets removed from, your driving record, that won't happen. Only the points get removed. So, your insurance company will still see the violation on your record.
And understand, neither the state nor the police notify your insurance company of traffic violations. It is up to your insurance company to discover your traffic violation, which they normally do by buying a copy of your driving record from the state.
So as far as insurance companies go, they don't go off of points, just infractions...? I guess I wouldn't need to take the defensive driving unless I got another ticket because the DMV states,
"You will have two points removed for each 12 month period in which you do not receive another pointable ticket."
I didn't know that. I always assumed that it takes three years.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Sorry to hear about your experience. I am really shocked and drive that intersection regularly. I'd swear under oath that there was no sign and my wife also said the same thing.
Sorry to hear it turned out that way.
Thanks for your nice post. Much appreciated and I wish I had you guys there to help. Seeing that officer lie twice is tearing me up. I wonder if they sided with him because he is with the Specialized Division-who knows. I find it even funnier that he states he cited me and handed me my ticket in the McDonald's parking lot when it was a quarter mile down the road where he actually pulled me over. He told the judge it was McDonald's then he stated that is what he put on the ticket.
Then the judge asked me if I had that on my same ticket. As he asked, the officer stated he put down "mcd". That was his nice "proof" that he pulled me over into McDonald's. I guess since I didn't notice he put these almost illegible initials down, that I could not fight it unless I brought it up when I first received the ticket.
Here is my ticket scanned with the wonderfully-clear description that it was in a McDonald's parking lot.
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6397/ticketun0.jpg)
The
illegible initials are simply notes an officer puts down on a ticket for his own use if the violator takes the citation to court. These are specific to each individual violation and are used when the officer is asked questions in court. Each officer has his/her own method, or set of notes, they choose to put down.
On your ticket I see southbound and visual estimated at 45 mph before the officer used his radar. Other then the construction zone note, I don't know what the other notes are.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Sorry to hear about your experience. I am really shocked and drive that intersection regularly. I'd swear under oath that there was no sign and my wife also said the same thing.
Sorry to hear it turned out that way.
Thanks for your nice post. Much appreciated and I wish I had you guys there to help. Seeing that officer lie twice is tearing me up. I wonder if they sided with him because he is with the Specialized Division-who knows. I find it even funnier that he states he cited me and handed me my ticket in the McDonald's parking lot when it was a quarter mile down the road where he actually pulled me over. He told the judge it was McDonald's then he stated that is what he put on the ticket.
Then the judge asked me if I had that on my same ticket. As he asked, the officer stated he put down "mcd". That was his nice "proof" that he pulled me over into McDonald's. I guess since I didn't notice he put these almost illegible initials down, that I could not fight it unless I brought it up when I first received the ticket.
Here is my ticket scanned with the wonderfully-clear description that it was in a McDonald's parking lot.
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6397/ticketun0.jpg)
The illegible initials are simply notes an officer puts down on a ticket for his own use if the violator takes the citation to court. These are specific to each individual violation and are used when the officer is asked questions in court. Each officer has his/her own method, or set of notes, they choose to put down.
On your ticket I see southbound and visual estimated at 45 mph before the officer used his radar. Other then the construction zone note, I don't know what the other notes are.
The point is the officer told this to the judge when he was asked how did he remember I was pulled over at McDonald's and the officer stated because he wrote it on his ticket. Then the judge asked me if my ticket reflected that. The whole point I was making is the judge used his little note on his ticket to back up the fact it was at McDonald's. Had I known to look at the ticket before signing it, I would have said something. However, even if I knew to read it, mcd does not tell me that he was stating in his ticket that I was pulled over at McDonald's. A chicken-scratched three-letter word is hardly discernible to the average person.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
The point is the officer told this to the judge when he was asked how did he remember I was pulled over at McDonald's and the officer stated because he wrote it on his ticket. Then the judge asked me if my ticket reflected that. The whole point I was making is the judge used his little note on his ticket to back up the fact it was at McDonald's. Had I known to look at the ticket before signing it, I would have said something. However, even if I knew to read it, mcd does not tell me that he was stating in his ticket that I was pulled over at McDonald's. A chicken-scratched three-letter word is hardly discernible to the average person.
From your copy of the ticket, a reasonably prudent individual wouldnt have known what they were signing, and the judge made a leap of logic in assuming average people know police shorthand. That you could have gone to jail for hesitating to sign it doesnt help, either.
Citations in plain English really arent a bad idea... especially ones you are compelled to sign to show that you have read and understand them.
Call one of the local new outlets and cause a stink. Traffic/Small Claims in this town are just kangaroo courts. I honestly think some the judges know less about the law and common sense than the average joe.
Police need mini printers in their vehicles. That would help solve the problem. I hope I don't see this cop on the street again or I will probably feel the urge to call him Pinocchio.
I'm not sure why everyone is arguing about where a car got stopped. The violation has nothing to do with where the car got stopped and everything to do with whether someone was speeding or not.
Your first argument when you posted this thread was all about the speed limit sign. Now the argument is all about where the officer pulled you over and what notes he wrote to himself on the ticket.
The court case has only one thing to consider: Were you driving above the posted speed limit? Nothing else.
The only part of the citation you are signing has to do with promising to take action on the citation by the date specified (which is usually two weeks). Refusing to sign a ticket because you don't agree with some officers' notes he/she scribbles to himself is a sure fire way to get arrested (which is mandated by the court, not the officer).
And remember, everyone here is basing their opinion based on one side of the argument. Please consider the other side might not agree, and that a court of law, which heard both sides, has found someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I'm not sure why everyone is arguing about where a car got stopped. The violation has nothing to do with where the car got stopped and everything to do with whether someone was speeding or not.
Your first argument when you posted this thread was all about the speed limit sign. Now the argument is all about where the officer pulled you over and what notes he wrote to himself on the ticket.
The court case has only one thing to consider: Were you driving above the posted speed limit? Nothing else.
The only part of the citation you are signing has to do with promising to take action on the citation by the date specified (which is usually two weeks). Refusing to sign a ticket because you don't agree with some officers' notes he/she scribbles to himself is a sure fire way to get arrested (which is mandated by the court, not the officer).
And remember, everyone here is basing their opinion based on one side of the argument. Please consider the other side might not agree, and that a court of law, which heard both sides, has found someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wilbur-you are missing the entire point. If the officer testified that I was sitting in a McDonald's parking lot and remembers quite clearly looking over and seeing his other officer writing another ticket while he was writing up mine, then that is a problem when I wasn't even in close proximity to his statement. I was on E 84th Pl. Go look up where that is located because it sure isn't across the street from the McDonald's. Therefore, one has to assume the credibility of his entire testimony.
The Prosecutor and Judge knew nothing of what went on that day. That is why they took everything the officer said as completely valid. This included his "detailed" description of the infamous and invisible speed limit sign. I guarantee you it IS a big deal on the discrepancy if I could have proved it. Right after the officer testified that I was cited in McDonald's, I could have asked him, "Are you absolutely certain?" He would have most certainly said "yes". Then I would have stated to the court, "You're Honor, I have a photograph that was taken while being pulled over by this officer and it clearly shows that I was on E 84th Pl. and NOT in McDonald's." At that point, the entire trial would have leaned my way. It is one thing to state you may not know for certain about a past event but when you state you are quite certain and yet are proven otherwise, it damages your credibility even more.
You have to look at things in a legalistic manner and how the courts portray witness testimonies and their overall credibility. The ticket and my defense had nothing to do with any location of the pullover. It was the fact the officer should have had his memory and entire testimony questioned on that day.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I'm not sure why everyone is arguing about where a car got stopped. The violation has nothing to do with where the car got stopped and everything to do with whether someone was speeding or not.
Your first argument when you posted this thread was all about the speed limit sign. Now the argument is all about where the officer pulled you over and what notes he wrote to himself on the ticket.
The court case has only one thing to consider: Were you driving above the posted speed limit? Nothing else.
The only part of the citation you are signing has to do with promising to take action on the citation by the date specified (which is usually two weeks). Refusing to sign a ticket because you don't agree with some officers' notes he/she scribbles to himself is a sure fire way to get arrested (which is mandated by the court, not the officer).
And remember, everyone here is basing their opinion based on one side of the argument. Please consider the other side might not agree, and that a court of law, which heard both sides, has found someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wilbur-you are missing the entire point. If the officer testified that I was sitting in a McDonald's parking lot and remembers quite clearly looking over and seeing his other officer writing another ticket while he was writing up mine, then that is a problem when I wasn't even in close proximity to his statement. I was on E 84th Pl. Go look up where that is located because it sure isn't across the street from the McDonald's. Therefore, one has to assume the credibility of his entire testimony.
The Prosecutor and Judge knew nothing of what went on that day. That is why they took everything the officer said as completely valid. This included his "detailed" description of the infamous and invisible speed limit sign. I guarantee you it IS a big deal on the discrepancy if I could have proved it. Right after the officer testified that I was cited in McDonald's, I could have asked him, "Are you absolutely certain?" He would have most certainly said "yes". Then I would have stated to the court, "You're Honor, I have a photograph that was taken while being pulled over by this officer and it clearly shows that I was on E 84th Pl. and NOT in McDonald's." At that point, the entire trial would have leaned my way. It is one thing to state you may not know for certain about a past event but when you state you are quite certain and yet are proven otherwise, it damages your credibility even more.
You have to look at things in a legalistic manner and how the courts portray witness testimonies and their overall credibility. The ticket and my defense had nothing to do with any location of the pullover. It was the fact the officer should have had his memory and entire testimony questioned on that day.
I wasn't in the court room, but, based on your posting here is what I observe:
1. You ATTEMPTED to use a defense of discrediting the officer. That is fine and happens in court rooms all across the country. In this instance, it did not work.
2. The issue before the court is: were you speeding or not? Period.
3. In court, did you ever tell the judge you were not speeding? Did you attempt to discredit the testimony of the officer and all of his notes regarding whether or not you were driving above the posted speed limit? Did you attempt to discredit the officer based on his experience, training and use of professional radar equipment and how he judges speeds?
With all due respect, you can't go into court and argue about where you were stopped and never address the issue at hand (speeding, in this instance). You might as well have argued about what color underwear everyone was wearing, because it has about as much relevance.
Too often, I have seen people go into court and argue crazy points that have nothing to do with the issue. The most common: An officer writes a ticket to someone for doing 80 mph in a 60 mph (or whatever the speeds are) zone. The defendant argues to the court he was only doing 70. If you admit to speeding in court (70 in a 60 is still speeding), you give the judge no choice but to find you guilty.
My initial fear when you posted the original pictures was, you didn't take enough pictures. Specifically, back for enough. As I mentioned very early on, there are state regulations about how much speed limits can drop. They are not allowed to drop from 40 to 25 in one place. Someplace out there was/is a sign somewhere in-between. Regardless of this, even if it was not posted correctly, you were accused of driving 44 mph, which is still above any posted speed limit. Thus, when you go to court, your argument has to be you were not driving that fast, not argue about where the officer stopped you.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I'm not sure why everyone is arguing about where a car got stopped. The violation has nothing to do with where the car got stopped and everything to do with whether someone was speeding or not.
Your first argument when you posted this thread was all about the speed limit sign. Now the argument is all about where the officer pulled you over and what notes he wrote to himself on the ticket.
The court case has only one thing to consider: Were you driving above the posted speed limit? Nothing else.
The only part of the citation you are signing has to do with promising to take action on the citation by the date specified (which is usually two weeks). Refusing to sign a ticket because you don't agree with some officers' notes he/she scribbles to himself is a sure fire way to get arrested (which is mandated by the court, not the officer).
And remember, everyone here is basing their opinion based on one side of the argument. Please consider the other side might not agree, and that a court of law, which heard both sides, has found someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wilbur-you are missing the entire point. If the officer testified that I was sitting in a McDonald's parking lot and remembers quite clearly looking over and seeing his other officer writing another ticket while he was writing up mine, then that is a problem when I wasn't even in close proximity to his statement. I was on E 84th Pl. Go look up where that is located because it sure isn't across the street from the McDonald's. Therefore, one has to assume the credibility of his entire testimony.
The Prosecutor and Judge knew nothing of what went on that day. That is why they took everything the officer said as completely valid. This included his "detailed" description of the infamous and invisible speed limit sign. I guarantee you it IS a big deal on the discrepancy if I could have proved it. Right after the officer testified that I was cited in McDonald's, I could have asked him, "Are you absolutely certain?" He would have most certainly said "yes". Then I would have stated to the court, "You're Honor, I have a photograph that was taken while being pulled over by this officer and it clearly shows that I was on E 84th Pl. and NOT in McDonald's." At that point, the entire trial would have leaned my way. It is one thing to state you may not know for certain about a past event but when you state you are quite certain and yet are proven otherwise, it damages your credibility even more.
You have to look at things in a legalistic manner and how the courts portray witness testimonies and their overall credibility. The ticket and my defense had nothing to do with any location of the pullover. It was the fact the officer should have had his memory and entire testimony questioned on that day.
Troll, here. You may be missing his point. The judge was not there, the prosecutors were not there. Therefore they had to rely on the evidence and testimony presented, which to the best of his memory, was that you were pulled over at McDonalds. That implied that you were able to see the speed limit sign. No evidence existed that you turned after the limit sign and you were speeding. And you expected him to side with you because of your passion?
It apparently was an injustice,that sucks, but had I been on the jury, doubtful I would have differed with the judge.
And why so hard on the patrolman? I'm no apologist for the TPD, they have had their moments with me too, but he pulled over 25 people that afternoon and probably did forget your location and absentmindedly noted McD just like the other 24. I'm sure they are taught to be decisive and mentally tough since the public can be difficult to work with. Its not that you weren't innocent, you just didn't make the case strong enough to win.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
...a court of law, which heard both sides, has found someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Municipal court is a kangaroo court which is largely biased toward the citation-issuing officer and the city. Beyond reasonible doubt or beyond prejudice for the officer?
Granted, the argument about where Rowdy's car was stopped was somewhat specious. However, I still don't quite understand how the absence of the speed limit sign was not taken into consideration. Did the officer get the radar on 81st or on Mingo at the area identified as not having a sign there at the time of the infraction?
If you turned onto southbound mingo, mcdonalds is right on the corner, how did you get up to 44mph BEFORE you passed mcdonalds?
quote:
Municipal court is a kangaroo court which is largely biased toward the citation-issuing officer and the city.
I would love to see someone go into the court room and claim that as their defense. Stuff like that is always fun to watch! Can you say 'contempt of court'?
I'm confident, the three full time judges and the other part time judges will all disagree with you strongly on that point. Any court of law, whether municipal, state or federal, is unbiased.
I've seen plenty of people go into municipal court and win their court case by placing doubt in the eyes of the judge. That is all it takes.
That's exactly my point and the judge brought that up. That is why the officer answered him back and said that I had plenty of time to slow down into the entrance which is ridiculous.
Wilbur-Of course I stated what happened. I assumed that there was no lowered speed limit and drove as such. I described my route and presented my viewpoint from the driver's seat and challenged any visual of any construction or lowered sign. Where do you assume that I just went in there and didn't stick to the reason for the citation? Where you there?
I would like for you to go to that intersection and take another picture farther back than the one I took. It is easy to sit back and give me the old hindsight is 20/20 barrage. Where were you three weeks ago when this topic was open and tell me then that you are certain I didn't have enough pictures taken? Going southbound on Mingo from 71st goes from 35 down to 25. If you continue through the intersection of 81st, you are to assume the same speed limit unless you see one of two things: a different speed limit sign or an END OF CONSTRUCTION sign.
BUT, when you are coming off of 81st, there is nothing to show the lowered limit on 3-14-07. That was my argument and I clearly made that point. I have no earthly idea why you insist on bringing up the fact I was speeding anyway. Do some research and see the difference in a 4+mph over the speed limit fine/points versus 19+ over. BIG difference.
Waterboy- How does being "pulled over" in McDonald's imply I saw a sign? That doesn't even make any sense. What does passion have to do with anything? I turned southbound on a road that in the picture is quite evident there is no reason to believe that the speed limit is lowered unless shown otherwise. There was no lowered sign when turning southbound that day. Therefore no one has any idea to slow to 25 when nothing was posted. This has nothing to do with McDonald's. I made the case plenty strong enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Municipal court is a kangaroo court which is largely biased toward the citation-issuing officer and the city.
I would love to see someone go into the court room and claim that as their defense. Stuff like that is always fun to watch! Can you say 'contempt of court'?
I'm confident, the three full time judges and the other part time judges will all disagree with you strongly on that point. Any court of law, whether municipal, state or federal, is unbiased.
I've seen plenty of people go into municipal court and win their court case by placing doubt in the eyes of the judge. That is all it takes.
I'm sure someone has had the guts to say it.
In absence of any other evidence and when it comes down to taking one witness' word as the truth over another, who's testimony is the judge going to give more weight to? The sworn officer of the law or the citizen?
BTW- congrats for being depicted on one of the state quarters. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
That's exactly my point and the judge brought that up. That is why the officer answered him back and said that I had plenty of time to slow down into the entrance which is ridiculous.
Wilbur-Of course I stated what happened. I assumed that there was no lowered speed limit and drove as such. I described my route and presented my viewpoint from the driver's seat and challenged any visual of any construction or lowered sign. Where do you assume that I just went in there and didn't stick to the reason for the citation? Where you there?
I would like for you to go to that intersection and take another picture farther back than the one I took. It is easy to sit back and give me the old hindsight is 20/20 barrage. Where were you three weeks ago when this topic was open and tell me then that you are certain I didn't have enough pictures taken? Going southbound on Mingo from 71st goes from 35 down to 25. If you continue through the intersection of 81st, you are to assume the same speed limit unless you see one of two things: a different speed limit sign or an END OF CONSTRUCTION sign.
BUT, when you are coming off of 81st, there is nothing to show the lowered limit on 3-14-07. That was my argument and I clearly made that point. I have no earthly idea why you insist on bringing up the fact I was speeding anyway. Do some research and see the difference in a 4+mph over the speed limit fine/points versus 19+ over. BIG difference.
Waterboy- How does being "pulled over" in McDonald's imply I saw a sign? That doesn't even make any sense. What does passion have to do with anything? I turned southbound on a road that in the picture is quite evident there is no reason to believe that the speed limit is lowered unless shown otherwise. There was no lowered sign when turning southbound that day. Therefore no one has any idea to slow to 25 when nothing was posted. This has nothing to do with McDonald's. I made the case plenty strong enough.
Perhaps, I misunderstood. You turned off of 81st onto Mingo and were ticketed at 84th as per your remarks. I assumed the McDonalds was pre-81st. My mistake. I shun the area. The officer asserted he pulled you over at the McDonalds. Correct?
If the McDonalds is right at 81st as shown in the pic, then Grizz is right. Your argument should have been that there is no way you could have accelerated to 44mph in that span without lots of noise and burning tires. But did you prove to anyone that you had turned off of 81st? If not, it becomes your word vs. the patrolman. Pragmatically, the judge works with these guys daily, most drivers are inattentive and dishonest. Advantage cops. Make some strong doubt of his memory or the facts of the case you gain advantage and win. I would bet the patrolman confused you with another vehicle. That also would have been a strong point.
As far as your speeding, its a moot point. Whether 4mph or 44mph you admitted guilt. You're either pregnant or not pregnant. Case closed there.
To state that an officer writes so many citations that he or she should have the benefit of the doubt in regards to accuracy is BS. If you are going to write out a citation, and screw with people's driving records which in turn can affect their income and employment, you had better be accurate.
The officer had me flying through the intersection (apparently) at 44mph. Yet, I was making a right turn from 81st St. What struck me as odd was when he had pulled me over and told me he clocked me at 44, I assumed he was right. I thought it strange however that my Trailblazer could hit 44 going from a stop at the 81st St intersection to just near that convalescent home when he got behind me.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
To state that an officer writes so many citations that he or she should have the benefit of the doubt in regards to accuracy is BS. If you are going to write out a citation, and screw with people's driving records which in turn can affect their income and employment, you had better be accurate.
The officer had me flying through the intersection (apparently) at 44mph. Yet, I was making a right turn from 81st St. What struck me as odd was when he had pulled me over and told me he clocked me at 44, I assumed he was right. I thought it strange however that my Trailblazer could hit 44 going from a stop at the 81st St intersection to just near that convalescent home when he got behind me.
I said the officer had a built in advantage, not the benefit of the doubt. You were innocent til the facts were argued and weighed on their merits. The advantage comes from him observing speeders, writing tickets and defending them in court on a regular basis. You had that happen...once. He has it happen often. Thats just human nature. Your advantage was presumption of innocence and a host of potential atty's that know the system.
If you had made your case that you turned on 81st, you win. What I learned here? Never, ever, admit you did something wrong to authorities. Stipulate that you will show for court or pay, but no admissions of guilt.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
That's exactly my point and the judge brought that up. That is why the officer answered him back and said that I had plenty of time to slow down into the entrance which is ridiculous.
Wilbur-Of course I stated what happened. I assumed that there was no lowered speed limit and drove as such. I described my route and presented my viewpoint from the driver's seat and challenged any visual of any construction or lowered sign. Where do you assume that I just went in there and didn't stick to the reason for the citation? Where you there?
I would like for you to go to that intersection and take another picture farther back than the one I took. It is easy to sit back and give me the old hindsight is 20/20 barrage. Where were you three weeks ago when this topic was open and tell me then that you are certain I didn't have enough pictures taken? Going southbound on Mingo from 71st goes from 35 down to 25. If you continue through the intersection of 81st, you are to assume the same speed limit unless you see one of two things: a different speed limit sign or an END OF CONSTRUCTION sign.
BUT, when you are coming off of 81st, there is nothing to show the lowered limit on 3-14-07. That was my argument and I clearly made that point. I have no earthly idea why you insist on bringing up the fact I was speeding anyway. Do some research and see the difference in a 4+mph over the speed limit fine/points versus 19+ over. BIG difference.
Waterboy- How does being "pulled over" in McDonald's imply I saw a sign? That doesn't even make any sense. What does passion have to do with anything? I turned southbound on a road that in the picture is quite evident there is no reason to believe that the speed limit is lowered unless shown otherwise. There was no lowered sign when turning southbound that day. Therefore no one has any idea to slow to 25 when nothing was posted. This has nothing to do with McDonald's. I made the case plenty strong enough.
Perhaps, I misunderstood. You turned off of 81st onto Mingo and were ticketed at 84th as per your remarks. I assumed the McDonalds was pre-81st. My mistake. I shun the area. The officer asserted he pulled you over at the McDonalds. Correct?
If the McDonalds is right at 81st as shown in the pic, then Grizz is right. Your argument should have been that there is no way you could have accelerated to 44mph in that span without lots of noise and burning tires. But did you prove to anyone that you had turned off of 81st? If not, it becomes your word vs. the patrolman. Pragmatically, the judge works with these guys daily, most drivers are inattentive and dishonest. Advantage cops. Make some strong doubt of his memory or the facts of the case you gain advantage and win. I would bet the patrolman confused you with another vehicle. That also would have been a strong point.
As far as your speeding, its a moot point. Whether 4mph or 44mph you admitted guilt. You're either pregnant or not pregnant. Case closed there.
That was my whole point. The guy is stating I am sitting at McDonald's getting a ticket when it clearly was not me. It is quite difficult to prove I turned on a road. The Prosecutor did ask me what 81st looked like when I came eastbound and I honestly told him about the lowered speed limit and barrels along that road. I know because that is the road I was traveling on. It's tough to prove.
The judge asked the officer how I could slow down to make that turn into McDonald's and he simply stated it could be done and that was that. I submitted the following pic (pics you don't know I used Wilbur) which shows that it is difficult to impossible to see a vehicle before entering the intersection. Yet the officer stated that he saw me approaching the intersection speeding from the retirement home which is even further away then the vantage point in my pic. Then the judge asked how he could have seen the vehicle and he adjusted his answer to "I saw him speeding in the intersection."
(http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/6040/img0244lc1.th.jpg) (http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0244lc1.jpg)
quote:
Where were you three weeks ago when this topic was open and tell me then that you are certain I didn't have enough pictures taken?
My quote from March 14th:
Take your pictures, making sure you take pictures of the entire area in order to give the judge a clear perspective. quote:
Where you there?
My quote from April 13th:
I wasn't in the court room, but, based on your posting here is what I observe: quote:
Do some research and see the difference in a 4+mph over the speed limit fine/points versus 19+ over. BIG difference.
Thank you. I'm well aware of the difference. So is the judge. If you are driving 44 in a 40 mph zone, or you are driving 44 in a 25 mph zone, it doesn't matter to the judge. He MUST find you guilty, regardless of what you claim was/was not the posted speed limit. Speeding is speeding, regardless of how much you are speeding.
quote:
I'm sure someone has had the guts to say it.
I watched a guy on a red light ticket when he tried this defense. Then after several claims the judge was a M*%##%r F$%#$@%r, he was hauled off to serve his 90 days.
You can defend the Tulsa Police and the Court system all you like but it won't change the fact of what transpired. You have your idea of what happened and I have mine.
Fight it yourself. You don't need a lawyer to fight a measley traffic ticket, especially a speeding one. Go back and take pictures of the place again from every angle possible. Then when you go to your court date, plead not guilty, at which point, they assign you a new date to come back and plead your case against the citing officer. If the officer does not show up for court (which happens more often than most), your case will either be rescheduled or just completely dropped. I've known many people to fight traffic tickets w/o a lawyer and come out under much better circumstances...
quote:
Originally posted by TurismoDreamin
Fight it yourself. You don't need a lawyer to fight a measley traffic ticket, especially a speeding one. Go back and take pictures of the place again from every angle possible. Then when you go to your court date, plead not guilty, at which point, they assign you a new date to come back and plead your case against the citing officer. If the officer does not show up for court (which happens more often than most), your case will either be rescheduled or just completely dropped. I've known many people to fight traffic tickets w/o a lawyer and come out under much better circumstances...
I did fight it. The last couple of pages is what happened afterwards. If you live in Tulsa and get a traffic ticket, good luck fighting it.
I don't know how OK handles it, but in missouri if you get a municipal ticket, and don't agree with the verdict, you can appeal it to the circuit court - AKA "Real Court". Then it is handled like a state issued ticket.
Our municipal judges are often times... Well... Lacking may be the good word.
If it was me, I would try to get it appealed. Work quick though, there are specific deadlines to meet.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The last time I got a ticket, I made a smart-alec remark about how the officer was just writing me a ticket because he had a quota to fill.
The policeman said, "You are right. Two more and my wife gets a new toaster."
I have always liked "Quota? Nah, we can write all we want!"
The Justice Department occasionally requires some police departments to install dashboard cameras as a part of corruption or brutality settlements, but it's not always a solution. (//%22http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1116072&nid=25%22)
Meanwhile, you could always install your own, or get one of the commercially available "accident cameras" that have a TiVo-like ability to preserve something 30 seconds before you trigger it:
http://www.truscene.com/Products.aspx
http://www.drivecam.com
but these are really more practical for commercial vehicles or fleets.
I thought about next time taking pictures of the cop walking back to his car after pulling me over and the surrounding locale(if it happens ever again) since that would have mattered in this case. However, it would be rare that I would ever need a picture of where I was pulled over in the future. Usually when I have been pulled over in the past, it was deserved.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
I thought about next time taking pictures of the cop walking back to his car after pulling me over and the surrounding locale(if it happens ever again) since that would have mattered in this case. However, it would be rare that I would ever need a picture of where I was pulled over in the future. Usually when I have been pulled over in the past, it was deserved.
It sounds like the bigger issue is, why do you keep getting pulled over? Only one person responsible for that!
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
It sounds like the bigger issue is, why do you keep getting pulled over? Only one person responsible for that!
Doesn't matter how may times he does it, he still deserves fair treatment, which he did not get.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
I thought about next time taking pictures of the cop walking back to his car after pulling me over and the surrounding locale(if it happens ever again) since that would have mattered in this case. However, it would be rare that I would ever need a picture of where I was pulled over in the future. Usually when I have been pulled over in the past, it was deserved.
It sounds like the bigger issue is, why do you keep getting pulled over? Only one person responsible for that!
Sounds like you work for the crooked organization by your constant ranting about me being guilty for speeding 4+ over. I was going 44 in a 40 like I said many times. I was not cited for that, I was cited for something entirely different. A cop told me I was going 44 in a 25 which was NOT 25. Then, the entire story was misconstrued.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
It sounds like the bigger issue is, why do you keep getting pulled over? Only one person responsible for that!
Doesn't matter how may times he does it, he still deserves fair treatment, which he did not get.
Based on who's say so?
A person goes to court and admits (to this forum included) he is speeding and expects to get found not guilty, then rants about the entire law enforcement system being corrupt when he's found guilty.
Everyone else is wrong and only he is right.
Rowdy, the minute you admitted you were going 44 in a 40, you lost the argument and the case. You were speeding and thus breaking the law. End of story. Take your medicine and stop whining.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Rowdy, the minute you admitted you were going 44 in a 40, you lost the argument and the case. You were speeding and thus breaking the law. End of story. Take your medicine and stop whining.
No one's whining and its obvious you haven't read the entire thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
It sounds like the bigger issue is, why do you keep getting pulled over? Only one person responsible for that!
Doesn't matter how may times he does it, he still deserves fair treatment, which he did not get.
Based on who's say so?
A person goes to court and admits (to this forum included) he is speeding and expects to get found not guilty, then rants about the entire law enforcement system being corrupt when he's found guilty.
Everyone else is wrong and only he is right.
It is clear you are going to stick with your obstinant attitude. I never admitted to speeding to the courts. I admitted to this forum that I supposedly was going 44. This is taking the officer for his word which in this case one could doubt that credibility. The issue of the normal speed limit for this road was never brought up and didn't get that far or need to. If you had a notion of law, you would find that judges do not have the entire city of Tulsa memorized with every speed limit in place.
Normal speed limits are usually 40mph. However, this road could have been 45 for all he knew. The judge does not look up the speed limit in his magic "YE OLDE TULSA SPEED LIMIT REFERENCE MANUAL" to find out. This would have been asked of the officer by the prosecution. It was never asked because it was all due to the lowered limit of 25mph. No one said "well, you DID go over by 4mph, so you're guilty of something anyway." To say I should just deal with it because I was 4mph over anyway is just plain stupid. You must not have read all my posts because I have said time and time again that there is a difference between 19mph over versus 4mph over.
Your mindset that I should just accept 2 points on my perfect driving record and a much larger fine because "hey, I'm guilty anyway" is utter foolishness. A cop normally doesn't pull someone over for 4 over. 4mph=0 points and lower fine.19mph=2 points and large fine. You do the math.
"Brittney?"
"Yes, Daddy"
"Are you pregnant?"
"Just a little."
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Rowdy, the minute you admitted you were going 44 in a 40, you lost the argument and the case. You were speeding and thus breaking the law. End of story. Take your medicine and stop whining.
Convicting him of going 44 in a 25 zone because he's guilty of going 44 in a 40 zone is an irrational leap, and would make as much sense as, for instance, saying it was OK to kill the fleeing man shot in the back last week because he was guilty of being an illegal alien.
Rowdy, you got ripped off, plain and simple. I think everything presented here just shows that TPD and the court system that SUPPORTS them is a crooked racket. Only a blind fool could agree with this ticket. There was no sign saying it was 25, plain and simple.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Rowdy, you got ripped off, plain and simple. I think everything presented here just shows that TPD and the court system that SUPPORTS them is a crooked racket. Only a blind fool could agree with this ticket. There was no sign saying it was 25, plain and simple.
The entire community should hope you don't have that attitude if you ever serve on a jury. You hear one side of the story and take it for gospel and convict the other party without hearing all the facts. Pathetic!
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Rowdy, you got ripped off, plain and simple. I think everything presented here just shows that TPD and the court system that SUPPORTS them is a crooked racket. Only a blind fool could agree with this ticket. There was no sign saying it was 25, plain and simple.
The entire community should hope you don't have that attitude if you ever serve on a jury. You hear one side of the story and take it for gospel and convict the other party without hearing all the facts. Pathetic!
I support rowdy because I drive through that area and can 100% confirm there was no 25mph speed limit sign and no construction zone signs in the area he was pulled over in. I just got off a jury where I was the toughest person on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Rowdy, you got ripped off, plain and simple. I think everything presented here just shows that TPD and the court system that SUPPORTS them is a crooked racket. Only a blind fool could agree with this ticket. There was no sign saying it was 25, plain and simple.
The entire community should hope you don't have that attitude if you ever serve on a jury. You hear one side of the story and take it for gospel and convict the other party without hearing all the facts. Pathetic!
you are a tool.
I hope I never serve on a jury, because I have much better things to do. But if I ever get suckered into one, you better believe I will use COMMON SENSE to make my decisions, and not use scummy favoritism towards the LE.
Rowdy - I am sorry you didn't win your case. My husband is a Tulsa Officer and I told him about your post from the beginning. In the end, he was surprised with the information you took to court that you didn't win. But I have to say I'm losing faith in you as well. You have come down on the entire department because of one bad experience. I am fairly sure I know the officer that pulled you over based on your posts, and I don't know him to be crooked. He probably was using his best memory, but I won't swear he was right. I wasn't there. It happens, he's human, not hateful. Don't let Wilbur get to you. It seems he is taking this personal, and he shouldn't. To act like a citizen will never have a bad opinion about an encounter with an officer is wrong.
I am sure there are bad apples on the department, just as any company any of you work with, but a HUGE majority of these officers put a vest on their chest everyday willing to take a bullet for the same of you who are willing to call them all corrupt. It's easy to jump on a bandwagon when someone feels they've been wronged, but you should remember that officers are there for you 24/7, they are also human. They are asked to treat some of the slimiest people in this town with curtesy and respect, sometimes, they fail just a bit.
Again, Rowdy, I was pulling for you, I thought you had a good case and if you presented yourself in court professionally and rationally, I am surprised you didn't fair better. The officer is well trained in testifying in the courts. I truly don't believe he was out to get you and purger himself. He is testifying to the best of his knowledge. Officers are also taught to be confident in their actions and decisions. If he made notes and remembers things a certain way, I believe that to be true in his mind. That being said, sometimes our mind is not always perfect. As you said, he probably wrote 25 tickets that day. 24 of them were probably handled the same. I'm sorry he missed yours.
I hope before so many of you are ready to hang the entire department, you could remember that 98% of what these officers do on a daily basis is to protect you, your family and your property.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa_fan
Rowdy - I am sorry you didn't win your case. My husband is a Tulsa Officer and I told him about your post from the beginning. In the end, he was surprised with the information you took to court that you didn't win. But I have to say I'm losing faith in you as well. You have come down on the entire department because of one bad experience. I am fairly sure I know the officer that pulled you over based on your posts, and I don't know him to be crooked. He probably was using his best memory, but I won't swear he was right. I wasn't there. It happens, he's human, not hateful. Don't let Wilbur get to you. It seems he is taking this personal, and he shouldn't. To act like a citizen will never have a bad opinion about an encounter with an officer is wrong.
I am sure there are bad apples on the department, just as any company any of you work with, but a HUGE majority of these officers put a vest on their chest everyday willing to take a bullet for the same of you who are willing to call them all corrupt. It's easy to jump on a bandwagon when someone feels they've been wronged, but you should remember that officers are there for you 24/7, they are also human. They are asked to treat some of the slimiest people in this town with curtesy and respect, sometimes, they fail just a bit.
Again, Rowdy, I was pulling for you, I thought you had a good case and if you presented yourself in court professionally and rationally, I am surprised you didn't fair better. The officer is well trained in testifying in the courts. I truly don't believe he was out to get you and purger himself. He is testifying to the best of his knowledge. Officers are also taught to be confident in their actions and decisions. If he made notes and remembers things a certain way, I believe that to be true in his mind. That being said, sometimes our mind is not always perfect. As you said, he probably wrote 25 tickets that day. 24 of them were probably handled the same. I'm sorry he missed yours.
I hope before so many of you are ready to hang the entire department, you could remember that 98% of what these officers do on a daily basis is to protect you, your family and your property.
Thanks for your insightful post and I agree that it is wrong to state what I have been stating in regards to lumping an entire group of people together. So in that, I apologize for making those types of comments as it was wrong. I still stand by the fact that the ones I dealt with were clearly inept. Not because they didn't agree with me, but due to the fact that I presented a clear case and was still punished for something I did not do.
I have a work vehicle and a clean driving record is important to me as it can affect my employment. It was never about crying over spilt milk but rather the fact I work hard at keeping my record clean of any infractions. It was definitely guilty until proven innocent. Regardless, its all in the past and the points on my record will go away in a year if I dont get pulled over again in the meantime. That should be quite easy to do since I hardly ever get pulled over for anything. It was a learning experience though. [B)][:)]
Apologies again to you or anyone who felt offended that are decent, honest individuals in the force or in the court system here in Tulsa or to those who are relatives, friends or spouses of said people. Thanks for setting me straight. [:)]
Best to have your day in court, anyway:
http://www.fox23.com/content/solvingproblems/story.aspx?content_id=554f4bf7-4dfe-4c9d-9a10-2eb132d4e1d2
Slightly OT but does Oklahoma have a radar calibration statute? This is a pretty good way to get radar speeding tickets thrown out in other states, even if the officer shows up to court.
quote:
Originally posted by runderwo
Slightly OT but does Oklahoma have a radar calibration statute? This is a pretty good way to get radar speeding tickets thrown out in other states, even if the officer shows up to court.
Nothing would have mattered the day I showed up to court.
Well, it would matter - if they want to push a radar ticket, they either present the calibration records, or the ticket is void. That's the way the statutes work, in states that have them.
quote:
Originally posted by runderwo
Well, it would matter - if they want to push a radar ticket, they either present the calibration records, or the ticket is void. That's the way the statutes work, in states that have them.
Each police division keeps all of each radar's maintenance and calibration records in case they are needed in court. Simply showing up and requesting the officer produce the records the day of court won't work. It would be something the defense would need to subpoena ahead of time.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Each police division keeps all of each radar's maintenance and calibration records in case they are needed in court. Simply showing up and requesting the officer produce the records the day of court won't work. It would be something the defense would need to subpoena ahead of time.
Doesnt this compel a defendant to hire an attorney (thus discouraging less affluent citizens from having their day in court)?
Justice shouldnt be a rich man's game...
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Each police division keeps all of each radar's maintenance and calibration records in case they are needed in court. Simply showing up and requesting the officer produce the records the day of court won't work. It would be something the defense would need to subpoena ahead of time.
Doesnt this compel a defendant to hire an attorney (thus discouraging less affluent citizens from having their day in court)?
Justice shouldnt be a rich man's game...
A citizen representing themself could request the records as well, but it really is grasping a straws. The records are there. Radars are tested daily, and the newer ones, test themselves every ten minutes, giving an audible signal to the officer verifying the test. There just isn't that much to go wrong with those things. I've never had one test wrong. Remember, the officer doesn't even need radar. The radar simply confirms the officer's visual speed estimate. Officers can use stop watches or other means to verify visual estimates. Radar is simply the most popular.
Eagleton's favorite form of revenue again:
TPD may switch to "e-tickets"
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=e05d90a9-29ed-4b61-a739-e9364e1bf4d2
(EAST TULSA, Okla.) May 22 - It's new technology that could revolutionize the Tulsa Police Department, but you could be the one who pays for it.
The Tulsa Police Department is considering switching to electronic ticketing.
With a paper ticket, an officer has to fill in information which takes up a lot of their time. But the new technology could save them time.
It's another day on the streets for Officer Harold Goad, chasing down speeders, writing ticket after ticket. "We have to use a separate sheet of paper on each violation. [It takes] probably seven to eight ten minutes maybe."
That takes up most of his day. "Anything that speeds up the process would be welcome."
The answer could be the so-called e-ticket technology. Instead of writing people tickets, the officer simply scans their driver's license.
Tulsa City Councilman John Eagleton says, "The person receiving the ticket will get a print out that tells that person the date, what they're charged with, what their court date is."
Eagleton says the time-saving technology would allow officers to write more tickets and help the city make more money. "By one analysis, the e-ticket system pays for itself in just a matter of two years."
There's still a long way to go before TPD switches to the technology. The city council will likely make the decision and it could be weeks or even months before they vote on it.
TPD says an e-ticket system would also increase the number of convictions on traffic offenses.
Right now at least 10% of traffic cases are thrown out, because the officer made a mistake writing the ticket.
I like the idea of speeding up the process of giving me a ticket. I was speeding in my car for a reason...I am in a hurry.
RM - Ha, I agree.
I think this is a good idea, not because it can increase revenue, but why wouldn't we want to improve technology? Another way to look at it is that when an officer makes a car stop, where a ticket is warranted, they can complete the process more quickly and get back available for calls faster.
Nope...They will just write more tickets...This will just increase throughput....More tickets per hour....
I'm not convinced it would result in more tickets being written, and if it does, I don't think the numbers would be too significant. Most officers don't want to write too many tickets to one person at a time and ultimately suspend their driver license on the spot.
What the research does show, is the number of tickets that get dismissed because the court can't read somebody's handwriting almost goes to zero. Some cities reported dismissing up to 30% of their tickets because of similar problems. After switching to electronic tickets, those numbers dropped to under 1%. If Tulsa did that, it would result in more then $2M in fine collections.
On the flip side, this department has talked about electronic tickets for years. I'll believe it when it finally happens.
quote:
I like the idea of speeding up the process of giving me a ticket. I was speeding in my car for a reason...I am in a hurry.
That's funny! Thanks for the chuckle!
This would solve problems where my ticket had a Dr.-wannabe chicken scratch the location on my ticket.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
They will just write more tickets...This will just increase throughput....More tickets per hour....
At some point, going to all the trouble of physically scanning the barcode on the back of a subject's drivers license wont be considered as expedient or safe as, say, ID'ing them from a distance via their RFID implant. But that would be too Orwellian for us to...
'OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ Legislation that would authorize microchip implants in people convicted of violent crimes was sent back to a committee for more work Wednesday after state House members questioned whether the proposal would violate constitutional civil liberties.'UH OOOOH!!! [:O] [:O] [:O] [:O] [:O] [:O]