I think what he's saying is that if you argue the timing on the yellow light then you admit you went through on a red by default. Otherwise, you'd be arguing the light was yellow and therefore the cop had no grounds to issue a ticket.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone successfully fight a traffic ticket using one of those $99 lawyers?
- Thread starter acer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The difference is my mom didn't have a defense. Instead, she attacked the state's case. While my mom had no idea what she was doing, her strategy was actually fairly wise (though completely not artful).
You have to understand burdens of proof. The state has the burden of proof as to your violation. If they meet that burden, then you have the burden of proof on any affirmative defense (an affirmative defense is like saying "yes I did it, but it should be excused because...")
Arguing that yes you ran a red but it should be excused because the timing with the yellow light wasn't proper is an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are notoriously difficult because YOU carry the burden of proof, and someone else will be poking holes in your case.
It is much less work to instead try to poke holes in someone else's burden of proof; in this case the state's. No you didn't run a red light because it wasn't red yet at the time you crossed it, or because you're such a good driver that never runs red lights. These are arguments that you do not carry the burden on, but rather they are rebutting the state's main burden.
Do you see the difference?
Look, you're obviously pretty set on this whole yellow light thing. I just want to make sure you know what you're getting into, and am warning you not to be shocked or surprised if you're argument is shot down in the first minute. If nothing else, I hope my warning encourages you to do more leg work in advance to get all your ducks in a row.
Good luck, seriously. Update the thread when you have your hearing date and let us know how it went.
Again, I don't get the belligerent tone - not only towards me, but indeed, towards any and all forms of authority whose right to impose any sort of penalty for violation of traffic regulations you appear to doubt.
Nowhere do you seem to have been able to admit that your action - running a red light - might have endangered others.
You were in the wrong, yet you persist in trying to frame this in terms of the authorities being either "wrong", "corrupt", or mistaken. Why - when you were clearly in the wrong, and quite possibly a danger to others - do you persist in trying to prove the authorities mistaken?
Alright: Quite candidly, I hope your silly stuff with yellow lights fails, and is thrown out of court, and that you own up to the fact that you failed to take due caution on a road when approaching traffic lights in a manner that violated traffic regulations and possibly endangered others.
Only the judge, after either an admission of guilt, or finding against OP in court has any authority to impose a penalty.
The police officer who stopped OP can only issue a ticket. Signing that ticket is NOT an admission of guilt. Guilt has to be proven in a court.
You would be right if OP had already been proven guilty, but that hasn't happened yet.
I accept that. Nevertheless, I suspect that there is an enormous difference between how such matters are viewed on either side of the Atlantic. I daresay that the fact the OP intends to fight a traffic violation on such grounds suggests to me how litigious some are in the US.
To my mind, the stuff about the yellow light is obsessional for a traffic violation - which was witnessed by a police officer who was immediately behind him when it occurred.
To b honest, it is the obsessive and belligerent tone of the OP's posts that bothers me most, the bellicosity, and suggestion that he appears to be of the opinion that the system is out to frame him. From what I can see, most judges in the US are not corrupt despite what has been posted here to date. I cannot see how conveying such an attitude in court would offer much by way of benefit.
However, if I were to challenge such a thing, as others have argued, the best way to set about that is to challenge the state's case, not attempt to build your own.
I'm not going to pretend to know if the OP ss in the right or the wrong here, but there have been instances of cities being caught tinkering with the times for money. An example. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2269.asp
Ive used one of those 99 dollar lawyers, worked perfectly, what they do is keep pushing off the court date and then go one day and it will get dismissed. Even though my friends are San Diego Police Department, they couldn't do anything about it. Also they said that CHP are the worst because they are "wanna be cops" since they don't go through any real training.
Okay: I guess that the US is different; I have never heard of anything like this happen anywhere in northern or western Europe.
Not litigious. But protective of rights. OP feels he was ticketed wrongly. The fact that many municipalities use tickets to generate revenue at the expense of public safety only reinforces this.
OP is obsessing because he's trying to find anything he can to defend his case. The fact that the police officer witnessed this is strong evidence against him in court. But if you can prove that the evidence is based on a faulty foundation you've won your case.
This is why radar guns are certified and tested and why speedometers on police vehicles are also certified.
OP also probably has some reason to feel the system is out to get him. I am not saying anything is rigged, but judges tend to side with law enforcement more than they do the public. There can be a lot of reasons for that outside the scope of this thread, but it's generally true.
I agree however, that to adopt that attitude in court will sink your case very quickly. Judges like to think of themselves as impartial and if they get any hint of belief from any party that they are not they tend to come down hard.
Lastly, I agree with you that attacking the state's case is the better option.
[doublepost=1493067110][/doublepost]
Red light cameras.
Pure civic revenue generation. Try fighting your accuser in court when it's a camera. If a cop shows up it's because it's the officer in charge for the day, not the actual cop that acually saw you through the camera (if there even was one). City's get a cut of the fines.
Pay the fine. Learn from it. Don't do it again. It's not some conspiracy to get you. You made a mistake, thought you could get away with something, and didn't. You're not a victim, you're just in the wrong.
We pretty much all get a ticket for something at some point. It isn't because the world is unfair. It's because none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes. Simple as.
______________________________
and if you lose...and say "tough" how do you get your $99 back?
I got my first speeding ticket a couple months ago... first ticket in over 10 years of driving. I thought about fighting it but my insurance said it would forgive me considering my driving record and the fact I was technically out of state.
It was a 76 in a 65 zone on the Massachusetts Turnpike detected by pacing, at night, in the rain. Pacing is not the most reliable method, especially in inclement weather. Honestly I consider it BS because I was in the center lane, cars were passing me, and I was keeping with the flow of traffic. I'm sure I was target for having out of state plates (car is registered in CT). This appears to be the game all the State Cops play.
The MassPike now uses fully electronic tolling and monitors speed (though will not ticket you). I would have pressured the state to show I was moving faster than the average vehicle.
I figured it was $150 fine and probably a week waste of time to argue in court being registered out of state. Oh well.
It was a 76 in a 65 zone on the Massachusetts Turnpike detected by pacing, at night, in the rain. Pacing is not the most reliable method, especially in inclement weather. Honestly I consider it BS because I was in the center lane, cars were passing me, and I was keeping with the flow of traffic. I'm sure I was target for having out of state plates (car is registered in CT). This appears to be the game all the State Cops play.
The MassPike now uses fully electronic tolling and monitors speed (though will not ticket you). I would have pressured the state to show I was moving faster than the average vehicle.
I figured it was $150 fine and probably a week waste of time to argue in court being registered out of state. Oh well.
This is exactly why out of state drivers are targeted. The chances that an out of state driver will fight a ticket are much smaller.
Even if there is a trial by declaration, the advantage is always given to law enforcement.
Tickets are simply revenue generators. It's why they are infractions and not mideameanors. Back in the 1960s they used to be misdemeanors.
PS. Once made a trip that takes 45 minutes at 70 mph in 20 minutes. I'll let everyone else figure out how fast that was.
Don't really do this anymore though. Wife, kids, finances - don't need the aggravation and lost time.
Yes. The thing about Mass too is that the ticketing cop doesn't have to show up to the trial. From what I hear they usually they just have a representative of sorts for the State Police.
I don't deny speeding and take responsibility, I was apparently going 11mph over the speed limit. It seems like a tough thing to argue in court... though pacing is not exactly accurate and generally Mass allows up to 10mph over. It's just ridiculous to me that I was in the center lane being paced for allegedly a mile by the cop with cars passing us (undercover police car). The cop's interaction was the quite interesting too, basically he asked for my license and refistration, went back to his car, and came back to say he was ticketing me for speeding. He didn't say how fast I was going or ask or tell me the limit. He didn't even say slow down. It was like he was just cranking out tickets.
A while back my GF and I were pulled over at like 1:30AM allegedly because we "seemed to have difficulty staying in our lane" which was absolute BS and later amended to essentially swerving within the lines... also BS as far as I could tell. The lanes were coming out of a tunnel so there's not much lane space to play with. We weren't ticketed but I'm pretty sure it was the cops sketchy ways of trying to find drunk drivers by pulling over people late at night. We had not been drinking either. I know a off duty cop who was pulled over after "a 911 call" of him swerving down the road. It turns out there was no phone call and the cop who pulled him over (who had the highest drunk driver arrests) eventually was later found to illegally pulling people over after an investigation.
I have mixed feelings about unwarranted pull overs looking for drunk driving. On the one hand it's illegal. On the other, I have zero tolerance for people who drive under the influence.
I hear you!
Got pulled over once coming home from work. Around 3am and I was tired, but not weaving. It was summer and I had no A/C so the windows were down. The cop that pulled me over leaned halfway into my car when he started to talk to me.
I know he was smelling for alcohol or other things, but he was very disappointed when he figured out I was just tired. He told me to get a cup of coffee (I didn't drink coffee at the time) and let me go. A 24 hour grocery store was right there at the offramp so I went and got a soda.
Again, coming home from work another night I rolled through a yellow on a "No Right On Red" light at the end of the offramp. CHP was right there, lit me up and pulled me over. I was VERY annoyed because there was no reason to pull me over and my tone must have come through. Cop asked me if I knew that there was a no right on red at the end of the ramp. "Yes," I snarled back, "But it was yellow when I went through it!!!"
He took one long look at me and decided that this ticket wasn't viable so told me to have a good night and left.
And yet ANOTHER night I was coming home. Living at my parents there is a long stretch of road from the 10 freeway to where they live. It's unincorporated so it means that Riverside County Sheriff patrols the road.
At the time the speed limit was 55mph. It slows down to 40 at a particular stretch. If you live in the area you hit 70mph down that road because there's nothing out there but GD chicken farms and dog training ranches. At 3am it's pitch black. You also know, living in the area, where the speed limit changes.
So, shortly before it changes I'm off the accelerator and slowing down to 45 because in this part there are homes. Well, the Sheriff must have caught me shortly before the speed change but apparently did not have his radar gun out so all he knew was that I was speeding but couldn't prove how fast. He pulled me over to rip me a new one, demanding to know where I was going at 3 in the morning. I told him I was going home, which was true.
He's spectacularly pissed off, but he had no proof so he told me to slow down and let me go. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!!
He's so angry at me that he's looking for ANY violation to pull me over again. He tails me the ENTIRE WAY HOME!!! I kept EVERY traffic law at this point and the damn cop didn't leave until he saw me pull into my parents driveway!
I started reading this thread the other day and remembered the OP saying something about measuring the yellow lights. Then this popped up in the news today:
https://heatst.com/life/man-fined-500-for-criticizing-traffic-lights-system/
https://heatst.com/life/man-fined-500-for-criticizing-traffic-lights-system/
FYI - the cop didn't have to pretend not to know because it's extrememly rare any actually would know. The appearance date and time is all that entered on the ticket not the bail/fine.
[doublepost=1493335360][/doublepost]
I will tell you what I do when I get a ticket. I've had plenty of them since I was 16.
Note that my perspective is coming from California traffic laws because that's where I learned to drive and I lived there for 20 years.
Fight your ticket.
Your ticket will have a court date. Show up. It's going to be a cattle call and they will announce your name (eventually). The judge is going to ask you how you plead. "Not guilty" is your answer. Somewhere in there, either the clerk or the judge will ask you if you wish to waive your right to a (speedy) trial. Do NOT waive your right. If you waive your right, the judge will decide right then and right there and 99% of the time he will decree you guilty.
If you demand your right for a trial this is where your chance comes in. Show up, be prepared to explain yourself and your opinion. But what you are hoping for is that your officer does NOT show up. You have the right to face your accuser in open court. You have the right to question the accuser in open court.
If this was Highway Patrol then your chances of getting off this way aren't good, but a local cop? Usually they don't bother showing up for court dates. And this is what you want.
The state cannot convict you for "lack of prosecution". The officer HAS to show up and the officer HAS to present his side (the state's side). If the officer does NOT, then unless you have a sadistic judge, your case will be thrown out. That means, no fine, no traffic school - end of story.
If your officer DOES show up and the judge DOES find you guilty then the silver lining here is that the judge has discretion to modify the fine as he sees fit based on past history. Very often the judge will much reduce your fine.
All you are out is some of your time. And possibly less money than you originally expected to pay.
My very first ticket was for doing 90 in a 55 zone on the 15 going to Barstow. I showed up, the judge reduced my $300 fine to something like $125 or so.
Once, I made a right turn on red in Redlands. The City of Redlands had just installed a no right on red sign and the local cops had freakin' CONES set out to divert traffic as it violated the sign!!!! I got out of that ticket because I showed up for court and my officer did NOT!
Usually the fine they specify when you ask is the max allowed under the law. Which is why I say the judge has discretion.
Also, the courts will work with you on fines. This is an infraction, they cannot jail you. You can set up payments if that's what you need.
Lots of tickets in my 20s.
The 'speedy trial' and 'not guilty' but is inaccurate and doesn't happen in traffic court over an infraction.
The bottom line to your post is this: ask for a trial. If the cop is a no-show the judge usually will (99%) dismiss the case, but not always.
If the cop shows up 99% you'll be found guilty.
No, it's not. At least it isn't in California. My wording is probably inaccurate, so I will try restating it.
The clerk will give instructions at the cattle call (everyone instructed to appear on that date). This is technically an arraignment. You enter a plea here, there is no trial unless you waive your right to it.
The clerk will inform everyone that about how they may plead and he will say that if you plead innocent you have two options. You can either waive your right to a trial and the judge will rule right there. Or you can NOT waive that right and a court date for trial will be set. If you plead No Contest or Guilty the judge will issue the fine right then and there.
Pleading No Contest is stupid because it's essentially admitting guilt - but with a reason. People seem to think they can get out of a fine by giving a good reason, but under the law that is still an admission of guilt - which demands a fine.
Perhaps other jurisdictions do it differently, but in California you have a right to enter your plea and you have a right to a trial.
Parking tickets are an entirely different matter. You cannot fight those.
Laughable and incredibly wrong.
[doublepost=1493336355][/doublepost]
No. When you request a traffic court date you are pleading not guilty. When court starts the clerk swears everyone in.
No traffic court is not an arraignment. Infractions don't get them. Traffic court is just that: court.
Yes you can fight parking tickets.
If the ticket is a misdemeanor there are games that can be played that don't often end well but can include an arraignment.
No one pleads no contest in traffic court. No contest is a guilty plea, but can't be used as a guilty plea in civil court.
Here let me help with what I think you might have experienced. When you get a ticket you receive a notice in the mail. You can arrange your court date via that notice. If you decide to skip that and appear in general court you might have a slightly different experience. I don't know why anyone would do that but some people want to show up there to have the court date assigned. Silly because there's no benefit to it. Skip that nonsense and have the court date assigned Via the mail and then show up. If the cop FTA's then it'll be likely dismissed.
[doublepost=1493337961][/doublepost]@acer - what was the posted speed limit approaching the intersection?
Last edited:
No. What I've experienced is showing up on the date shown on my ticket and the clerk of the court explaining just what I mentioned. I was 20 at the time so I didn't know any different. I pleaded 'Guilty' and waived my right. The judge reduced my fine right there.
But my last name starts with a 'Y' so I had a litany of people in front of me with different pleas. Those that plead 'Not Guilty' and did not waive their rights had trial dates assigned.
This was in Barstow in 1990.
Sometime in 1997 I was charged with violating a No Right on Red. I went to the Clerk of the Court in San Bernardino and plead 'Not Guilty' while asking for a court date. But I still had to plead.
In 2005 or so I was charged for doing 90 in a 70 zone outside of Blythe. Because I didn't want to deal with having to show up three times I paid my fine and marked 'Not Guilty' asking for a trial date.
Now maybe something has changed in California since 1990, or even 2005, but those were my experiences.
As far as notices, yes, I did receieve notices. But those I only glance(d) at to make sure they are/were correct. If I get a ticket I am down at the court at the earliest date it shows up in their system. I don't wait because I don't want a date assigned to me that I cannot appear even if I am going to rechedule it anyway.
I take a very proactive approach to this, although I have not had a ticket in several years. The very LAST thing I want is a warrant because I failed to appear on some date I wasn't aware of or because USPS failed to deliver mail.
I take care of this type of crap in person so there is no question.
I have to say what you describe is pretty atypical experience. Just arrange the court date when the notice comes in the mail. But it's good you take personal responsibility, too many people don't and cry victim.
Another good reason to be responsible like you said is the cycle of being suspended is very hard to break. People, usually always due to their fault, get suspended. They don't request an exception to drive to/from work, or during the course of employment and then get cited for driving on a suspended license and the car goes to car jail. The bail is higher, they fta and a warrant is issued. They get caught again, car jail, again, and human jail over the warrant. It's hard to break that cycle...but they created it.
Jail has never been any place I have ever wanted to go.
I will do anything I legally must to avoid ever having to go there.
Actually the OP stated in his opening paragraph that he admitted to running the red light. He is just looking for a way to get it thrown out so that he can avoid the fine. He is counting on the yellow light defense to help him. My guess is that he is going to end up paying that fine.
Don't get a lawyer, just go to court with video proof of the timing of the yellow. Add in the typical human response time and the distance / time it takes to stop a car from 55mph plus road conditions ( was the officer close enough behind you to warrant fear of a rear end? was the sun in your eyes for anytime during the drive up to and through the traffic light, was the road wet from rain or morning dew, ect ). Judges are reasonable people. They see the worse cases most of the time and are happy to see a legitimate excuse to overturn. It gives them the happy feeling all day.
I believe you are clear of a red light if your car has passed the stop line before it turns red. You do not have to clear the intersection before the red. Look it up in your state to be sure.
If you blatantly ran the light as will be seen by the cop camera, then you may pay the max fine for wasting the judges/cops time. In this case, just pay the fine as mentioned and take it as a learning lesson and be happy you did not kill someone or get t-boned by someone else timing the light going 55mph in the perpendicular.