Traffic Ticket

[Conan71]

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?

[sgrizzle]

If you turned onto southbound mingo, mcdonalds is right on the corner, how did you get up to 44mph BEFORE you passed mcdonalds?

[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.

[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.

[Conan71]

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. []

[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.

[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.

[waterboy]

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.

[Rowdy]

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."

[Wilbur]

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.

[Rowdy]

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.

[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...

[Rowdy]

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.

[Radio]

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.

[Radio]

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!"