I do have a “why” for you. It doesn’t cost zero to go to court. You need to take a day off work, either unpaid or use a vacation day. Many make way more than $139 a day and value a vacation day at well more than that also. If it is your first ticket in years, it won’t raise your insurance rates so you end up loosing by going to court, even if you win.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Can my Dashcam get me out of this speeding ticket?
- Thread starter WilliamG
- Start date
I do have a “why” for you. It doesn’t cost zero to go to court. You need to take a day off work, either unpaid or use a vacation day. Many make way more than $139 a day and value a vacation day at well more than that also. If it is your first ticket in years, it won’t raise your insurance rates so you end up loosing by going to court, even if you win.
That's not true.
It will cost OP additional court fees for the privileged of contesting the matter in court.
And time. Expect to take at least 1/2 day off during business hours.
You are not entitled to anything. Unless you pay for it.
As far as challenging cop's or equipment certification - fooogetabuiiiiiit.
Judge will be 110% on cop's side, and you requests will either be shut down on the spot, or will receive superficial responses that you won't be allowed to challenge.
Traffic court is not Law'n'Order, it's more like KangarooCourt
a
OK, all. Let's not get into a fight about it. 
I have some ideas - and as I said, I'll update here when things are resolved one way or another. But I thank you all for the input. It's really interesting to see how different many people's views are here.
I have some ideas - and as I said, I'll update here when things are resolved one way or another. But I thank you all for the input. It's really interesting to see how different many people's views are here.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Very good point.
It sounds like drivers would need to pay a lawyer who is a professional and who knows how to handle the system.
If you want a favorable outcome, yes. In the opinion of a random guy on the internet (me), it's also best to reserve this for times of actual need, rather than something like a minor speeding ticket unless it's abundantly clear that you're not at fault. Having seen the video, I don't think this is one of those times.
cpa
Active Member
Contesting a traffic violation is no different than a criminal trial. You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Yeah I read what others wrote. The fact is, traffic officers are presumed to be experts at enforcing traffic laws, and they are testifying under oath. That is a high bar to overcome.)
The officer will offer up evidence under oath. Like any other trial, you will get a chance to impeach this witness either to his truthful or untruthful statements, qualifications, calibrations on his equipment, and whatever else he brings up under direct testimony. You can challenge his statements if you think they are BS or unsupported.
Then it is your turn to provide a defense. You will need to offer proof that there were technical or mechanical problems with his equipment if that is true. You could mention tangential issues that interfered with your ability to drive at the speed limit when you passed the sign. It is doubtful whether your video would have any probative value to impeach the officer. It might help clarify the situation for the judge, but that is about it.
You might see if there is any evidence that you can obtain through discovery. There might be some evidence there to raise reasonable doubt. (For example, he just cited another driver half a mile away three minutes before he nailed you. How could he possibly get your speed accurately if he had just arrived at the sign?)
The judge has two choices after hearing the testimony: Guilty. Dismissal (in other words, the charges are dropped.)
The officer will offer up evidence under oath. Like any other trial, you will get a chance to impeach this witness either to his truthful or untruthful statements, qualifications, calibrations on his equipment, and whatever else he brings up under direct testimony. You can challenge his statements if you think they are BS or unsupported.
Then it is your turn to provide a defense. You will need to offer proof that there were technical or mechanical problems with his equipment if that is true. You could mention tangential issues that interfered with your ability to drive at the speed limit when you passed the sign. It is doubtful whether your video would have any probative value to impeach the officer. It might help clarify the situation for the judge, but that is about it.
You might see if there is any evidence that you can obtain through discovery. There might be some evidence there to raise reasonable doubt. (For example, he just cited another driver half a mile away three minutes before he nailed you. How could he possibly get your speed accurately if he had just arrived at the sign?)
The judge has two choices after hearing the testimony: Guilty. Dismissal (in other words, the charges are dropped.)
A speed-limit sign does not mean "begin slowing down here." It means, "from this point onward, you may not be driving faster than X."
I would say you have grounds to appeal the ticket if you can argue that because of traffic behind you it would have been dangerous to slow down rapidly enough to reach the limit at the sign.
I have gotten about a half a dozen speeding tickets in the half-century that I've been driving. In each case I was guilty and I paid every one of them immediately.
Contest the ticket if it would have been unsafe to reduce your speed enough to be going the limit at the sign. Pay the ticket if you really were waiting for the sign before beginning to slow down.
JMO.
I would say you have grounds to appeal the ticket if you can argue that because of traffic behind you it would have been dangerous to slow down rapidly enough to reach the limit at the sign.
I have gotten about a half a dozen speeding tickets in the half-century that I've been driving. In each case I was guilty and I paid every one of them immediately.
Contest the ticket if it would have been unsafe to reduce your speed enough to be going the limit at the sign. Pay the ticket if you really were waiting for the sign before beginning to slow down.
JMO.
That would be a hard argument if he was to reference the video, since it didn't show much traffic.
Like I say, if you did the crime, pay the fine. If the speed limit was properly marked, and you could have safely obeyed the law, and they caught you fair and square, be a responsible citizen and pay up. No criticism here of the OP because he hasn't said what his intentions are (or if he did I didn't notice).
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Which answers the OP question whether the car camera video might get him out of a ticket. Of course he has since embarked on a fishing expedition for any excuse he might use in court
davewill
Active Member
I once got my wife off of a speeding ticket using a trial by mail program. It was a little similar in that the officer was catching people who were approaching a low speed limit. The officer wrote my wife up for 40 in a 25 zone. The problem was that were NO speed limit signs on this stretch of road (was new construction). The 25 MPH sign the officer was relying on was a few hundred feet farther along, on the other side of an intersection. Worse, the road where the ticket was written was 4 lanes with a wide center divider, and the road after the intersection, where the sign was, narrowed to a regular two lane divided by a dashed line.
I argued that it was perfectly reasonable to assume a speed limit of 40MPH on that wide road absent signage, and gave examples of nearby roads of similar dimensions with 40 and 45MPH limits. The judge obviously agreed.
It still burns me up. The officer obviously knew exactly what the situation was and had her own fun little speed trap. A LOT of people had a moving violation added to their record for no legal reason.
I argued that it was perfectly reasonable to assume a speed limit of 40MPH on that wide road absent signage, and gave examples of nearby roads of similar dimensions with 40 and 45MPH limits. The judge obviously agreed.
It still burns me up. The officer obviously knew exactly what the situation was and had her own fun little speed trap. A LOT of people had a moving violation added to their record for no legal reason.
Thank you for bringing nothing to the table. Cheers!
And you're more than welcome to disagree with the post (which is why I said all opinions are welcome). But you don't need to be an ass about it, that's all.
Last edited:
Things may have changed in the decades since this incident, but when I returned to Fargo after a year and a half in Europe, I was on a stretch of road that changes from industrial to residential, and the speed limit changes a block before you get to the residential block. I had forgotten this, thinking that the limit went down where the residential block began, and got a ticket. As with my other tickets, I was guilty (though I had thought I was obeying the law) and I paid the fine. I didn't make that particular mistake again.
Most people think it's a very bad thing when other people break the law, but when they themselves are caught, their first thought is to try to wriggle their way out of it, even though it will cost their fellow taxpayers money to bring them to court, and the cop who could be catching other scofflaws has to take a day off the street to sit in court.
To the OP: It sounds from your description like you were caught fair and square. I'd encourage you to take your medicine and pay the fine. Yes, you will have a violation on your record. But if you are guilty the honest thing to do is accept responsibility for your action.
And it's not a speed trap if the signage is clear.
Most people think it's a very bad thing when other people break the law, but when they themselves are caught, their first thought is to try to wriggle their way out of it, even though it will cost their fellow taxpayers money to bring them to court, and the cop who could be catching other scofflaws has to take a day off the street to sit in court.
To the OP: It sounds from your description like you were caught fair and square. I'd encourage you to take your medicine and pay the fine. Yes, you will have a violation on your record. But if you are guilty the honest thing to do is accept responsibility for your action.
And it's not a speed trap if the signage is clear.
Well we can agree to disagree on some things. From my perspective, I don't think it's that simple, and I suspect this won't be as clear cut as some may think. But I thank you for the constructive criticism.
As I said earlier, I'll update when I have more info to provide. Won't be for at least a few weeks.
I thank you for systematically going through all my posts and disagreeing with them. It's kind of adorable that TMC notifies you when that happens.
Dr. J
Active Member
Time, effort and aggravation. To some, those things are costly. To others, not so much.
Your time and effort? Unless you dont value your time at all, as I mentioned before, to go back and gather the information, etc the OP will have spent far more than $139 in time.
Im going to assume that the average new tesla owner makes north of $25 per hour. Thats less than 6 hours of OPs time to "pay for this" at that rate. Again, I get the "principle of the matter" and I have absolutely stopped patronizing businesses over FAR less (I stopped going to dennys for 10 years over how my wife and I were treated at a breakfast meal as an example). Still, in this case, unless one values one's time as "free" which some do I guess, I would bet OP has already spent more than 6 hours thinking about this... thus already "paid for it" in time.
I would also imagine OP might make more than $25 per hour, skewing the calculation to pay himself back to a shorter timeframe.
So, I’ve read through all the responses, and I have a few observations.
1. Perhaps I missed it but do you currently have points on your record, such that this would put you over or closer to the limit than you want? That is usually an important consideration as to whether it’s worth fighting
2. As was noted by others, if the officer doesn’t show up, you win automatically if you plead not guilty. Yes, you do actually have to plead not guilty. If your case is late on the docket, you will observe cases where the judge “reminds” the defendant, that the state has to prove its case and repeatedly asks the defendant how they want to plead, until they say “not guilty.” However, many airports have dedicated police, and if that is the case where you are, they will show up for sure
3. Someone mentioned deferral. I looked it up. You could choose this and get out of it unless you used it already within the timeframe noted
4. In MD and VA you can also plead “guilty with explanation.” If the judge finds your explanation has merit, they can further reduce the speed (happens frequently in VA, if you are clocked doing above 80 on the Dulles Toll Road, which nets you a Reckless Driving charge. This road is run by the airport authority, who has a dedicated police force). In MD, we have something called Probation Before Judgment, which is a guilty verdict, but does not appear on your record and has no points. I no longer think of “PBJ” the same way any more, though I did have 2 of them for lunch today
5. If you go to court, yes, take a lawyer. Your odds will definitely improve. As you can probably surmise, I have A LOT of experience with this (kids). The % of time I have seen people win w/o an attorney is about 25%. In one case a young defedant was explaining why he ran a light, and told the judge that he looked down at his phone when the Nav app told him to do something. Judge said, “oh, you were using your phone.. - GUILTY.” On the other hand, I will share the family favorite. Son was doing 70 in a 35 mph zone. Went to court with attorney. Attorney knew the judge. Guilty with explanation. Explanation was, son had dogs in car and one of them defecated. Judge said, “poop in the car wins every time. PBJ”
Good luck
1. Perhaps I missed it but do you currently have points on your record, such that this would put you over or closer to the limit than you want? That is usually an important consideration as to whether it’s worth fighting
2. As was noted by others, if the officer doesn’t show up, you win automatically if you plead not guilty. Yes, you do actually have to plead not guilty. If your case is late on the docket, you will observe cases where the judge “reminds” the defendant, that the state has to prove its case and repeatedly asks the defendant how they want to plead, until they say “not guilty.” However, many airports have dedicated police, and if that is the case where you are, they will show up for sure
3. Someone mentioned deferral. I looked it up. You could choose this and get out of it unless you used it already within the timeframe noted
4. In MD and VA you can also plead “guilty with explanation.” If the judge finds your explanation has merit, they can further reduce the speed (happens frequently in VA, if you are clocked doing above 80 on the Dulles Toll Road, which nets you a Reckless Driving charge. This road is run by the airport authority, who has a dedicated police force). In MD, we have something called Probation Before Judgment, which is a guilty verdict, but does not appear on your record and has no points. I no longer think of “PBJ” the same way any more, though I did have 2 of them for lunch today
5. If you go to court, yes, take a lawyer. Your odds will definitely improve. As you can probably surmise, I have A LOT of experience with this (kids). The % of time I have seen people win w/o an attorney is about 25%. In one case a young defedant was explaining why he ran a light, and told the judge that he looked down at his phone when the Nav app told him to do something. Judge said, “oh, you were using your phone.. - GUILTY.” On the other hand, I will share the family favorite. Son was doing 70 in a 35 mph zone. Went to court with attorney. Attorney knew the judge. Guilty with explanation. Explanation was, son had dogs in car and one of them defecated. Judge said, “poop in the car wins every time. PBJ”
Good luck
I think I'd have some fun with this one in court. I lived on the Eastside back in the late 80s and 90s and beat every speeding ticket. I got four tickets in the first month I had my 300 ZX-TT, so I hired an attorney to handle them (I could have lost my license!). I kept the documentation and memorized his techniques then defended four or so more myself over the years. I had an infamous "ticket.doc" on the network at work on how to defend tickets in court. Back then, you'd do the following (going from memory here):
1. Request written copies of all documentation on the radar unit used (calibration, etc.)
2. Request the officer to be present (half the time they won't show up, instant dismissal)
3. Do not request the radar expert to be present (if you do and they show up, you're dead meat)
4. Get your story straight (fallback strategy)
Then you play rope-a-dope once in the actual court. A minor violation like this is a joke to them, so the judges are looking for a reason to dismiss and get on to the meatier cases. No documentation before the court date means instant dismissal (BTDT). Radar expert doesn't show up and the judge asks you if you requested him, say yes (BTDT). Documentation shows up or is promised *at* the court date, ask for a continuance and that the court pay for the remainder of your case because of their error, including any attorney fees (BTDT, my attorney used this one).
In your particular case, I'd lay an extra trap. Make no mention of the video. You were not in violation *before* the speed limit sign and the cop was sitting at the sign. If the cop doesn't show up, you're golden. If he does, then you ask him where you were relative to him when he clocked you. If he says words to the effect of "coming at me" then, boom, you show the video to the judge. Instant dismissal ... and you'll probably have the judge yell at the cop (BTDT). As a backup, I'd probably bring along evidence showing the deceleration rate of a Model 3 and compare it to the distance given by the cop.
I guess it depends on how flexible your work is on whether you want to challenge in court or not. I was in software development back then and no one cared if you were in the office or not, just whether you got your work done in time. Gone for half a day, no problem.
Edit: the post by @Skipdd reminded me of the details of the "continuance" case I mentioned. When we went into court, my attorney said, "oh, the judge and I go to the same tennis club". I thought, piece o' cake on this one, considering that the court provided no radar records, my attorney knows the judge, etc. No so! When my attorney said his standard, "there's no evidence that the radar used was calibrated and certified for use, therefore the radar reading should be thrown out and the case dismissed", the judge replied, "no, we'll provide you with the required documentation". What??? My attorney got a little mad and said something to the effect of, "due to an error by the prosecution, I request that the court pay my client's exorbitant legal fees from here on out". That got the judge a bit cranky, he grumbled a little, then said, "DISMISSED". It was all academic sparring between two attorneys.
1. Request written copies of all documentation on the radar unit used (calibration, etc.)
2. Request the officer to be present (half the time they won't show up, instant dismissal)
3. Do not request the radar expert to be present (if you do and they show up, you're dead meat)
4. Get your story straight (fallback strategy)
Then you play rope-a-dope once in the actual court. A minor violation like this is a joke to them, so the judges are looking for a reason to dismiss and get on to the meatier cases. No documentation before the court date means instant dismissal (BTDT). Radar expert doesn't show up and the judge asks you if you requested him, say yes (BTDT). Documentation shows up or is promised *at* the court date, ask for a continuance and that the court pay for the remainder of your case because of their error, including any attorney fees (BTDT, my attorney used this one).
In your particular case, I'd lay an extra trap. Make no mention of the video. You were not in violation *before* the speed limit sign and the cop was sitting at the sign. If the cop doesn't show up, you're golden. If he does, then you ask him where you were relative to him when he clocked you. If he says words to the effect of "coming at me" then, boom, you show the video to the judge. Instant dismissal ... and you'll probably have the judge yell at the cop (BTDT). As a backup, I'd probably bring along evidence showing the deceleration rate of a Model 3 and compare it to the distance given by the cop.
I guess it depends on how flexible your work is on whether you want to challenge in court or not. I was in software development back then and no one cared if you were in the office or not, just whether you got your work done in time. Gone for half a day, no problem.
Edit: the post by @Skipdd reminded me of the details of the "continuance" case I mentioned. When we went into court, my attorney said, "oh, the judge and I go to the same tennis club". I thought, piece o' cake on this one, considering that the court provided no radar records, my attorney knows the judge, etc. No so! When my attorney said his standard, "there's no evidence that the radar used was calibrated and certified for use, therefore the radar reading should be thrown out and the case dismissed", the judge replied, "no, we'll provide you with the required documentation". What??? My attorney got a little mad and said something to the effect of, "due to an error by the prosecution, I request that the court pay my client's exorbitant legal fees from here on out". That got the judge a bit cranky, he grumbled a little, then said, "DISMISSED". It was all academic sparring between two attorneys.
Last edited:
I'm curious about what we're in disagreement about. Do you disagree that people should accept responsibility for their actions? Or do you think it's somehow unfair for the cop not to give you, say, a quarter of a mile to slow down after the start of the 20 mph zone? Or do you feel that the state does not have a right to enforce speed limits?
Similar threads
- Article
