Anyone successfully fight a traffic ticket using one of those $99 lawyers?

[acer]

Hmmmmm.

I have watched this conversation as a third party. And honestly, I can agree with both sides.
Acer accepted that he ran the red light. He also stated he lives in California. This state is somewhere around 16 billion in the red. Although they have cameras is strategic location because of heavy traffic, I know there have been treating this as more of a way to bring in revenue. My sister lives near San Diego and the OP is right, the tickets in that state are way way over for what a simple mistake should cost. Maybe if running that light caused an accident.
Acer, personally I wouldn't be surprised if that light it timed to change quickly just for the reason that it has a camera. If you think you can prove to the judge that it isn't timed right, then great. If not, I wouldn't hesitate to use a 99 dollar lawyer. All they will do is work a deal. He gets some easy money and the courts get a little as well.

Edit: just read the above post from and agree.

Well, it wasn't a camera but a real life cop who ticketed me.
[doublepost=1493049956][/doublepost]

I have answered your question - but perhaps you did not read my post.

I have written that I would pay the fine, and admit that I ran the light - which can put others into danger - and stop wasting everyone's time with idiotic, ridiculous and paranoid conspiracy theories.

So you'll bend over and take it even when you've been wronged because you fear authority that much? Again, says a lot about you.

Regulations aren't conspiracy theories, they are rules that must be followed by both the government and its citizens. And there are regulations on how long yellow lights must stay on, whether you believe it or not.

 

[oneMadRssn]

It is a cultural difference. Americans fight everything and have a hard time when they are told to just pay. Even living in Germany the Americans here get upset when they get flashed by a blitzer whereas a German will just pay and move on.

I don't know the rules in Germany, but I think the US it depends on the incentives and how screwed you get from the ticket.

In Vermont (last I checked), if you pay the ticket before it is due, they don't report it to the insurance companies. They only report it to insurance companies if you pay late, or if you fight it and lose. Thus, they have a pretty low rate of challenges and most folks just pay the tickets.

On the flip side, Massachusetts tells the insurance companies no matter what, and there is a pretty high rate of cops either not showing up to the hearings or showing up totally unprepared. Thus, they have a pretty high rate of challenges.

I don't think it's an American cultural thing. It's typical economics: people behave however the system of incentives around them encourages. It just so happens that many states, probably unintentionally, encourage people to fight all traffic violations.

So I would assume in Germany the system is set up to discourage fighting their tickets. Also they have the Autobahn, so...

 

[acer]

Not here give you legal advise, but instead to tell you about my anecdotes and those I've observed.

If this is your first ticket, challenge it. Most reasonable people get one freebie. Tell the judge this is your first ticket, it was an accident, that you are a good driver and don't have a habit of gunning down yellows, and that your driving record is squeaky clean, and that you promise to be more cautions at yellow lights in the future. Be polite, timid, cautious, and dress well but not too well. 9 times out of 10 the judge will let you off the hook for the cost of the the court date.

The guarantee or your money back lawyers are technically not allowed. It is against lawyers' rules of ethics to have these sorts of contingency fee arrangements for criminal matters. The idea is, if lawyers are paid only when successful in criminal matters, they have an incentive to lie. So I would be suspect of anyone that advertises this, they may not be actual lawyers to begin with.

Do not argue the shortened yellow light theory. Even if you're right, you will sound like a conspiracy theory lunatic and you will not be taken seriously.

My friends have used the low-cost craigslist lawyers with good success before. There was no guarantee, and I think they paid closer to $150-200 per appearance.

Where I am, the fines aren't the issue so much as the insurance points which jack your annual insurance cost significantly for years, so even getting the violation reduced down to a non-moving violation is a win. Paying a $500 fine once isn't so bad, but being faced with a steep ($750 or more per year) increase in insurance until those points fall of your record in many years is a big deal so personally I would gladly pay a proper ethical licensed attorney up to $600 or so to fight a big ticket for me.

Why do you say not to argue the shortened yellow light "theory" when judges across the country are throwing out red light citations for exactly that reason? I mean wouldn't that be my #1 best defense?

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...t-judge-says-before-tossing-red-light-tickets

 

[daflake]

I don't know the rules in Germany, but I think the US it depends on the incentives and how screwed you get from the ticket.

In Vermont (last I checked), if you pay the ticket before it is due, they don't report it to the insurance companies. They only report it to insurance companies if you pay late, or if you fight it and lose. Thus, they have a pretty low rate of challenges and most folks just pay the tickets.

On the flip side, Massachusetts tells the insurance companies no matter what, and there is a pretty high rate of cops either not showing up to the hearings or showing up totally unprepared. Thus, they have a pretty high rate of challenges.

I don't think it's an American cultural thing. It's typical economics: people behave however the system of incentives around them encourages. It just so happens that many states, probably unintentionally, encourage people to fight all traffic violations.

I'm not saying that a German won't complain or even fight it depending on whether they felt it was right or wrong, I am just saying it isn't the norm. It is very much a cultural thing where we Americans tend to be a lot more self entitled. A German will complain if they felt that they were in the right as I am sure a Brit or any other person would. However, the OP knows he ran it and is still looking for a way out. That is the American norm...

My wife just got flashed doing 82 in a 60 zone and it is an 80 Euro fine. We are just going to pay it and be done with it.

More power to the OP if he beats it, but I am still curious as to what the fine really is. He may be wasting his time if the cost of the ticket is low. My time plus court costs could make it not worth the effort.

 

[eyoungren]

Excellent post, very insightful.

So I guess you don't recommend or even need a lawyer for these proceedings. Do you recommend delaying the court dates as many times as possible so the cop gets sick of it and less likely to show up?

I can't say one way or the other (lawyer) as I am not a legal expert. However, I have never used one because traffic tickets are not misdemeanors or felonies. They are infractions. Thus the costs of a lawyer have far exceeded what paying the full fine would be.

And yes, if you can delay - delay. The ONLY issue is that if you are dealing with CHP you can expect them to show up. CHP gives their officers the day off for their court date. If it's rescheduled, they will also reschedule it. So, if the officer is off but doesn't show up for the court date the CHP takes a dim view of that.

 

[acer]

Have you found out the cost of the ticket yet?

Nope. I guess I won't know until it arrives in the mail. Don't know when that'll be.

 

[daflake]

Nope. I guess I won't know until it arrives in the mail. Don't know when that'll be.

Wait, I thought the citation was issued to you by a real officer? There should be a number on the citation for you to call and get the information. Was it CHP or local?

My point is that you may be spinning yourself up over nothing.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I'm not saying that a German won't complain or even fight it depending on whether they felt it was right or wrong, I am just saying it isn't the norm. It is very much a cultural thing where we Americans tend to be a lot more self entitled. A German will complain if they felt that they were in the right as I am sure a Brit or any other person would. However, the OP knows he ran it and is still looking for a way out. That is the American norm...

My wife just got flashed doing 82 in a 60 zone and it is an 80 Euro fine. We are just going to pay it and be done with it.

More power to the OP if he beats it, but I am still curious as to what the fine really is. He may be wasting his time if the cost of the ticket is low. My time plus court costs could make it not worth the effort.

But what you're saying is generally agreeing with my assessment. You're doing a cost/benefit analysis and deciding what to do.

I think most Americans would just pay a speeding fine without even considering it if the fine was under $200 and had no future-cost repercussions (i.e., insurance).

But unfortunately the reality is that in most states speeding 15-20mph over the limit will easily add up to a $500 fine plus $2000 or more in additional insurance cost over the next 2-3 years. Do you really blame us for fighting it?

It has nothing to do with being self entitled. We do the same cost/benefit analysis you described, but we decide that our time plus court costs are worth the effort to roll the dice and potentially get out of a very costly and long-term financial hit.

 

[acer]

I can't say one way or the other (lawyer) as I am not a legal expert. However, I have never used one because traffic tickets are not misdemeanors or felonies. They are infractions. Thus the costs of a lawyer have far exceeded what paying the full fine would be.

And yes, if you can delay - delay. The ONLY issue is that if you are dealing with CHP you can expect them to show up. CHP gives their officers the day off for their court date. If it's rescheduled, they will also reschedule it. So, if the officer is off but doesn't show up for the court date the CHP takes a dim view of that.

Couldn't see the markings on the car since it was really dark. But on top of the ticket it does say "Department of California Highway Patrol" so I guess it is CHP.

 

[eyoungren]

Wait, I thought the citation was issued to you by a real officer? There should be a number on the citation for you to call and get the information. Was it CHP or local?

My point is that you may be spinning yourself up over nothing.

If OP calls and asks for the cost of the fine, the clerk of the court will quote the MAXIMUM amount of the fine.

They do not, except if they are in a very good mood, ever quote you the LEAST penalty. They want you to pay the max and they count on people NOT fighting their tickets when they tell you the fine.
[doublepost=1493051122][/doublepost]

Couldn't see the markings on the car since it was really dark. But on top of the ticket it does say "Department of California Highway Patrol" so I guess it is CHP.

Yeah, than most likely you're sunk. But take the shot and have your day in court. Chances are the judge will reduce your fine.

Note, that when you do this you will kill your chance to attend traffic school. So, depending on your situation that might be something to consider.

Usually, I chose traffic school when I had about three points racked on my license. Gambling that my officer wouldn't show could have been bad if the officer did show at that point.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Why do you say not to argue the shortened yellow light "theory" when judges across the country are throwing out red light citations for exactly that reason? I mean wouldn't that be my #1 best defense?

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...t-judge-says-before-tossing-red-light-tickets

I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say "judges across the country are throwing out red light citations for exactly that reason." The article points to what seems like an issue in Chicago, and only one judge doing something about it.

What is your goal? Do you want to get out of the ticket, or at least reduce the penalty and points? Or do you want to be a traffic-light civil rights hero?

If you just want this to go away, then the best strategy isn't the one that asks the judge to understand civil engineering, traffic light timing regulations, probably complicated testing equipment, government inspection reports, etc. etc.

The best strategy is: look at my clean driving record, I don't drive dangerously, I don't take this lightly, please dismiss my ticket. It doesn't ask the judge to understand anything except that you're a good guy.

If you want to be a traffic light hero for all drivers everywhere, then please by all means proceed with your yellow-light timing theory. If I was a judge, I would rule against you only so I wouldn't have to deal with the evidentiary issues; and then see if you decide to appeal it further, let the appellate courts figure out the legal issues and then kick it back down to me with guidance.

 

[acer]

Wait, I thought the citation was issued to you by a real officer? There should be a number on the citation for you to call and get the information. Was it CHP or local?

My point is that you may be spinning yourself up over nothing.

If I call the court and give my citation number, they'll be able to tell me the exact fine amount? I doubt its even been entered in to the system yet since it happened last night. But I'll try in the next few days.

I doubt it's nothing since everything I've read says close to $500 and 1 pt.

 

[eyoungren]

PS. I got a ticket between Chiriaco Summit and Blythe once. That's CHP. I live in Phoenix now, but I played this game since the court was in Blythe.

I rescheduled twice, which was what was allowed me. BUT! I paid the fine in full before I attended the court date because I didn't want anything bad to happen. I was counting on a refund from the court.

Of course, being CHP, the officer showed. The judge of course found against me and issued the fine. I got back half my money because that was the judge's discretion.

The bailiff starting to step towards me with handcuffs until the clerk of the court verified to the judge that I had indeed, paid the fine in full before the proceeding was a different matter though!
[doublepost=1493051579][/doublepost]

If I call the court and give my citation number, they'll be able to tell me the exact fine amount? I doubt its even been entered in to the system yet since it happened last night. But I'll try in the next few days.

I doubt it's nothing since everything I've read says close to $500 and 1 pt.

They won't be able to tell you into about three days from the date of the citation. And when they do they will only tell you what the full amount of the fine is, not the least that you can pay. Only a judge can modify the fine.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Why do you say not to argue the shortened yellow light "theory" when judges across the country are throwing out red light citations for exactly that reason? I mean wouldn't that be my #1 best defense?

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...t-judge-says-before-tossing-red-light-tickets

Sidenote: my mother recently got out of a ticket by arguing she had a small child in the car and never speeds when with a small child.

The conversation went something like this during the hearing:
- Cop: Clocked gray Honda going 82mph at 90 yards in a 70mph near mile marker 76 on interstate 95. Vehicle was changing lanes from... *interrupted*
- Mom: No, I was not speeding. I had my 4-year old in the car, and I never speed when he is in the car.
- Cop: Your honor, as I was saying, we used a properly calibrated Lidar with tag number six-alpha-charlie-seven-zero ... *interrupted*
- Mom: That can't be. I do not speed with my 4-year old in the car. It couldn't have happened.

Pretty sure the judge let her off the hook only so he wouldn't have to keep listening to it.

 

[acer]

I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say "judges across the country are throwing out red light citations for exactly that reason." The article points to what seems like an issue in Chicago, and only one judge doing something about it.

What is your goal? Do you want to get out of the ticket, or at least reduce the penalty and points? Or do you want to be a traffic-light civil rights hero?

If you just want this to go away, then the best strategy isn't the one that asks the judge to understand civil engineering, traffic light timing regulations, probably complicated testing equipment, government inspection reports, etc. etc.

The best strategy is: look at my clean driving record, I don't drive dangerously, I don't take this lightly, please dismiss my ticket. It doesn't ask the judge to understand anything except that you're a good guy.

If you want to be a traffic light hero for all drivers everywhere, then please by all means proceed with your yellow-light timing theory. If I was a judge, I would rule against you only so I wouldn't have to deal with the evidentiary issues; and then see if you decide to appeal it further, let the appellate courts figure out the legal issues and then kick it back down to me with guidance.

Here's more:

http://www.ocregister.com/2016/07/0...tossed-out-because-of-red-light-camera-error/

So yeah, the yellow light theory isn't just a theory but an actual defense that seems to work.

Well, my defense will probably depend on whether I can prove the light at this intersection violated the law or not. If not, I'll probably go with your defense but I highly doubt it would get dismissed since it's not a minor violation.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Here's more:

http://www.ocregister.com/2016/07/0...tossed-out-because-of-red-light-camera-error/

So yeah, the yellow light theory isn't just a theory but an actual defense that seems to work.

Well, my defense will probably depend on whether I can prove the light at this intersection violated the law or not. If not, I'll probably go with your defense but I highly doubt it would get dismissed since it's not a minor violation.

Don't take my calling it a "theory" as diminishing it. You're right that if the traffic light was not operating correctly, that would be a defense. Applying a set of facts to a legal defense is a "theory," it's what we call it in the legal world. Everything is a theory until you either win or lose.

Suppose you do find that the light is malfunctioning. Are you really prepared to put on that defense? Do you know where to get certified copies of the regulations that govern traffic light timing? Do you know how to obtain copies of the permits and inspection reports of that light? Are you prepared to defend an accusation that you did not time it correctly or that your timer is not certified or calibrated? How are you going to draw the inference that just because it's not working correctly today that it also wasn't working correctly two weeks ago or whenever? Will you have a civil engineer traffic light specialist there with you to offer his/her expert opinion?

Remember, the state has the burden to prove you ran the light, but it is your burden to prove the light is wrong if that is the defense you go with. It's much easier to attack the state's case than to build your own case.

 

[smirking]

Well, everything I've read points to a severe fine so I have nothing to lose by hiring a lawyer.

Except for $99, plus whatever other fees they sneak into the $99 rate and your time and energy. If it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is.

If I can prove the yellow light isn't on the required amount of time I should have an excellent chance of winning.... unless the judge is corrupt, which is possible.

Yeah, that must be the reason. You couldn't possibly be wrong... ever.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

So you'll bend over and take it even when you've been wronged because you fear authority that much? Again, says a lot about you.

Regulations aren't conspiracy theories, they are rules that must be followed by both the government and its citizens. And there are regulations on how long yellow lights must stay on, whether you believe it or not.

Your posts make clear that you make an awful lot of assumptions about 1) your own government and 2) other posters, in a tone that comes across as rather belligerent.

Anyway: No, I don't "fear authority" and I fail to see how obeying sensible regulations qualifies as a description of "bending over".

And, - much more importantly - if I have been seen by a police officer - "that damned cop" - who was directly behind me running a red light, then I was not wronged if given a ticket. Rather, I was in the wrong. There is a significant difference. Your posts make it clear that you do not accept that the authorities have the right to impose a fine on you for violating traffic regulations.

Admit to the violation, own up, apologise, stop picking fights, and pay the fine.

 

[eyoungren]

And, - much more importantly - if I have been seen by a police officer - "that damned cop" - who was directly behind me running a red light, then I was not wronged if given a ticket. Rather, I was in the wrong. There is a significant difference. Your posts make it clear that you do not accept that the authorities have the right to impose a fine on you for violating traffic regulations.

Just a comment here.

Even if an officer sees you violating the law, as an American you are innocent until proven guilty. No guilt is ascribed to you until it is proven in open court.

Paying the fine means admitting your guilt.

What you are advocating and what you would do are an ethical matter. Ethics, in a court of law, may or may not apply. Guilt is a legal matter.

And that is the difference here. OP is gambling that the court will fail to provide sufficient evidence of guilt, either by the officer not showing up or the judge believing OP. Ethics or morality has nothing to do with legality.

Until the court decides OP is guilty, there is no guilt - ticket or no.

PS. The ticket does not ever state guilt. At the top it always reads "Notice to Appear". Only a judge can determine guilt.

 

[acer]

Don't take my calling it a "theory" as diminishing it. You're right that if the traffic light was not operating correctly, that would be a defense. Applying a set of facts to a legal defense is a "theory," it's what we call it in the legal world. Everything is a theory until you either win or lose.

Suppose you do find that the light is malfunctioning. Are you really prepared to put on that defense? Do you know where to get certified copies of the regulations that govern traffic light timing? Do you know how to obtain copies of the permits and inspection reports of that light? Are you prepared to defend an accusation that you did not time it correctly or that your timer is not certified or calibrated? How are you going to draw the inference that just because it's not working correctly today that it also wasn't working correctly two weeks ago or whenever? Will you have a civil engineer traffic light specialist there with you to offer his/her expert opinion?

Remember, the state has the burden to prove you ran the light, but it is your burden to prove the light is wrong if that is the defense you go with. It's much easier to attack the state's case than to build your own case.

Obviously, I'm not gonna do everything you mentioned and I doubt the judge expects anyone to do all that in traffic court no less. I'll just show the judge the video with a clock on it to prove it does not meet regulations. Remember I'm just trying to put even a little doubt in the judge's mind and as long as he's a competent judge, he'll be well aware of all the red light cases being thrown out all over the country due to shortened yellow lights.

 

[Mobster1983]

People here are crazy. Fight that ticket.

BTW, many, many, many cities, especially in the US, intentionally shorten their yellow lights just to catch people like this.

Eyoungren has great advice, and something you can do on your own. Often, if you hire an attorney, the state/city won't even want to bother with the extra time and effort for a ticket and you are more likely to get the case dismissed (also due to the lawyer's experience). This would just mean less work for you, but you would still have to show up to the hearing.

However, someone above brought up a good point that lawyers are not allowed to guarantee a certain result. The one you had sounds sketchy, so I would recommend just looking into him before signing anything.

 

[acer]

Your posts make clear that you make an awful lot of assumptions about 1) your own government and 2) other posters, in a tone that comes across as rather belligerent.

Anyway: No, I don't "fear authority" and I fail to see how obeying sensible regulations qualifies as a description of "bending over".

And, - much more importantly - if I have been seen by a police officer - "that damned cop" - who was directly behind me running a red light, then I was not wronged if given a ticket. Rather, I was in the wrong. There is a significant difference. Your posts make it clear that you do not accept that the authorities have the right to impose a fine on you for violating traffic regulations.

Admit to the violation, own up, apologise, stop picking fights, and pay the fine.

Here's what I meant: Let's say you are pulled over for speeding and fined for going 20 over speed limit but you know you were only going 5 over. So the cop either got the wrong guy or his radar gun malfunctioned. But you choose to pay anyway because you think authorities are never to be questioned and never make mistakes. That's what I mean bending over and taking it because of your fear of authority.

Unlike you I won't bend over and take it if I can prove authority made a mistake. Thousands of cases are thrown out each year because they often make mistakes. Had the light been working properly, it would've been yellow when I crossed it.
[doublepost=1493055055][/doublepost]

People here are crazy. Fight that ticket.

BTW, many, many, many cities, especially in the US, intentionally shorten their yellow lights just to catch people like this.

Eyoungren has great advice, and something you can do on your own. Often, if you hire an attorney, the state/city won't even want to bother with the extra time and effort for a ticket and you are more likely to get the case dismissed (also due to the lawyer's experience). This would just mean less work for you, but you would still have to show up to the hearing.

Exactly.

This one city made nearly $8 Million issuing 77,000 additional tickets because they lowered the yellow light by one tenth of a second!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...w_lights_makes_8_million_off_new_tickets.html

 

[D.T.]

There are thousands of tickets thrown out every day due to poor technical implementation of various traffic control mechanisms, overly aggressive "discretion", etc.

In a large area here in Florida there was a massive deployment of red light cams, which are provided by private companies who get a percent of the fines. A study showed (for this particular deployment), that installations mostly covered intersections with a high occurrence of violators (i.e., lots of fines, and revenue for the RLC company) but no/low incidence of accidents/injuries, vs. intersections with a history of fatal accidents, but lower incremental volumes of violators.

Revenue vs. safety.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Obviously, I'm not gonna do everything you mentioned and I doubt the judge expects anyone to do all that in traffic court no less. I'll just show the judge the video with a clock on it to prove it does not meet regulations. Remember I'm just trying to put even a little doubt in the judge's mind and as long as he's a competent judge, he'll be well aware of all the red light cases being thrown out all over the country due to shortened yellow lights.

Like I said, if you were to do that in front of any of the judges I know, I think you would lose the first few hearings for sure.

At the first level hearing before an administrative law judge or magistrate, you would lose because the first hearing is only about the violation and by arguing about yellow light timing you are admitting to the underlying fact that you ran a red. If you request an appeal before a judge, you will lose that too (unless the cop doesn't show up) because it sounds like you won't have all your evidentiary ducks in a row to prove your affirmative defense. Remember, judges don't care about legal developments in yellow-light timing across the country. They only care about moving their dockets forward, and clearing as much off their desk as possible. You win means a huge headache for them in the future. You lose means 90% chance you don't bother them again. If you go and appeal that, before an appellate court, you better have hired a lawyer and expert by now because there is no way to go forward without them.

Look, you might get lucky and you win at the first hearing, but it will be by annoying your way out of it, not by your yellow-light theory.

 

[acer]

Like I said, if you were to do that in front of any of the judges I know, I think you would lose the first few hearings for sure.

At the first level hearing before an administrative law judge or magistrate, you would lose because the first hearing is only about the violation and by arguing about yellow light timing you are admitting to the underlying fact that you ran a red. If you request an appeal before a judge, you will lose that too (unless the cop doesn't show up) because it sounds like you won't have all your evidentiary ducks in a row to prove your affirmative defense. Remember, judges don't care about legal developments in yellow-light timing across the country. They only care about moving their dockets forward, and clearing as much off their desk as possible. You win means a huge headache for them in the future. You lose means 90% chance you don't bother them again. If you go and appeal that, before an appellate court, you better have hired a lawyer and expert by now because there is no way to go forward without them.

Look, you might get lucky and you win at the first hearing, but it will be by annoying your way out of it, not by your yellow-light theory.

I'm not understanding why you think a completely ridiculous defense like the one your mom used works but a fact & evidence based defense wouldn't fly. Don't get me wrong, your mom's defense was hilarious and I'm glad she won but it's completely ridiculous and made it look like a kangaroo court.

I would think a judge allowing such a defense would be inviting others to make the same ridiculous defense making the entire proceedings look like a joke. Unlike fact based defense that actually comes with real evidence, which would add credibility to the proceedings. I mean what's wrong with that?