Traffic Ticket

[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).

[Rowdy]

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][)]

[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.

[Rowdy]

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.

[Wilbur]

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.

[Rowdy]

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.

[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.

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.

[Rowdy]

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.

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.

[patric]

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.

[iplaw]

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.

[Rowdy]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Wilbur]

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.

[waterboy]

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.