Thank you for the reply, and to everyone else who replied, too. It’s really fascinating the response running the gamut of culpability or...not.
I will say, this likely won’t be as clear cut as you think. But again - await the results, as I will.
-
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
Thank you for the reply, and to everyone else who replied, too. It’s really fascinating the response running the gamut of culpability or...not.
I will say, this likely won’t be as clear cut as you think. But again - await the results, as I will.
Tam
Well-Known Member
If you read the articles from post #16, it has been explained very clearly that drivers can be as guilty as sin but there's a right way to enforce the speed law and the wrong way.
In the first article, because the city did it wrongly so the state wants a share of its money.
In the second article, this kind of speed law enforcement was called " legalized robbery" and the whole department of the town's police force was disbanded.
And do you feel this was an unreasonable speed trap? Just based on what the OP has posted, it looks to me like a straightforward speeding ticket. Yes, the cop was apparently ticketing people who thought it was okay to continue driving at their previous speed after the sign with the slower posted limit. And yes, apparently a lot of people were doing that. But that's the point of traffic tickets: To get people to stop violating the traffic laws.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I am not an expert that's why we should go to court and learn about this case.
The lawyer might be able to shine the light on how this speed trap was set up and whether it was appropriate.
Dr. J
Active Member
brucet999
Active Member
A lawyer's job is not to shed light on the case. A lawyer's job is to obfuscate, lie by omission, distort, confuse any witnesses into saying things they did not intend, and generally do his damnedest to make sure that the outcome has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual facts.
Not under oath. I'm sitting the general courtroom and I see a guy on the front row with a briefcase and pocket protector ... he must be the radar expert. Well, when the judge enters he asks who the expert is there for and the guy replies, "state cases". There was no expert for King county cases and mine was a King county case. The judge calls out name after name for county cases asking whether you requested the expert. When he got to my name I replied, "yes". Case dismissed.
You know a lot of women named William?
This is the Internet. I don't even believe your name is Bruce.
Congratulations! You've shown how a system designed to protect the innocent can be exploited by the guilty to get away with reckless driving, if you're willing to lie to the judge in court. I guess the anonymity of the internet makes it easier to admit to having total disregard for the safety of others.
Tam
Well-Known Member
If it wasn't for the lawyers we wouldn't read about those 2 articles and that whole police force wouldn't be shut down.
Lawyers do have a higher purpose than just greed.
Some lawyers do have principles. But note that the law is the only profession where "ethical" standards prohibit the practitioner from actually telling the truth. A lawyer is required to do his best to convince a judge and jury that his client is innocent when he knows full well that his client is guilty. In theory this is so that every accused person gets a fair trial. But in practice it means that the outcome of a trial has almost nothing to do with the facts of the case, and everything to do with the skill of the opposing lawyers (or in a criminal case, the skill of the prosecutor and the defense attorney). And in a market economy, the most skilled lawyers can charge the most money, so the rich go free and the poor go to prison, regardless of actual guilt or innocence. (Some public defenders are good and dedicated, but all of them are vastly overworked so they don't have time to prepare the best case, and most of them work in the Public Defender's office because they could not get work in the higher-paying private sector. So, again, the poor get convicted and the rich walk free.)
Lawyers have indeed provided some important good to society. But helping speeders beat legitimate traffic tickets is not one of those. Helping speeders beat traffic tickets just makes our roads less safe. Which is why I say that an honest citizen doesn't look for loopholes in the law when he's been caught speeding, but accepts responsibility and pays the fine and takes it as a lesson to not repeat the offense.
The issue is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the overall justice system works. First, there are two very different kinds of cases - civil and criminal - that have very different standards. Traffic cases are almost always civil, therefore there is no guilt or innocence but only liable (responsible for the results of an action) or not liable. In both types of cases, it’s is 100% the responsibility of the plaintiff / prosecutor to prove the facts establishing liability or guilt. The defending party has no burden whatsoever. Both parties are obligated not to lie. Most attorney’s never ask such a question from their client whether they are “guilty” because most clients don’t have the knowledge to answer such a question. A lawyer for a defending party is obligated to present the facts in the light most favorable to their client. A prosecutor presents the facts in the light most favorable to establishing liability or guilt.
Now, if your point is that once humans become involved in anything then there are unethical actors who don’t follow the rules then yeah, fine.
Tam
Well-Known Member
There's no question that the ticket is legal.
The question here is: Is this legal ticket legitimate?
The first irregularity is a speed sign of 40MPH with the next one 20MPH.
There have been cases that it's completely legal to have speed trap but that practice can be proven illegitimate.
Spokane like a lawyer.
40 mph sign followed by 20 mph sign. Yes. Because the speed limit drops. I hope nobody is saying that it's unfair or wrong to ever lower the speed limit from one section of road and another.
Ah. Then that's the end of it: First there's a 40 mph stretch of road. Then there's a "reduced speed ahead" sign. Then there's a 20 mph sign marking a slower limit for that section of road. Anybody still going 40 after the 20 sign is in violation of the law. A lot of people will choose to take their chances, and will keep going 40 or 50. But if you do, you've got no legitimate grounds for complaint when you get caught.
I have no idea what you mean by "legitimate." By my definition of the word, and noting that all the speed limits were clearly marked by signage, including the "Reduced speed ahead" sign, the ticket is both legal and legitimate.
The two-part plan for driving over the speed limit:
Part One: Ignore the signs and drive as fast as you feel like. Your chances of getting stopped are small.
Part Two: When you finally do get caught, bitch and complain about it, tell everyone the cops are just trying to meet their quota or they're being unfair. Convince yourself that you really did nothing wrong because the speed limit law certainly wasn't intended to apply to you. Take it to court and hope the cop doesn't show up, or lie and obfuscate and find excuses and loopholes.
And here's my final update on this thread. I contested the ticket, and had my lawyer represent me in court this week. Received the following correspondence:
"This letter confirms the above infraction was dismissed in the redacted District Court on redacted. The Judge dismissed this infraction because the City did not meet their burden of proof after our motions to suppress were granted.
The dismissal will be reported electronically to the Department of Licensing within 30 days and this infraction will not appear on your driving record nor will it be reported to your insurance company. This letter will be the only written confirmation of the dismissal you will receive."
I don't know any further details, but there you go.
"This letter confirms the above infraction was dismissed in the redacted District Court on redacted. The Judge dismissed this infraction because the City did not meet their burden of proof after our motions to suppress were granted.
The dismissal will be reported electronically to the Department of Licensing within 30 days and this infraction will not appear on your driving record nor will it be reported to your insurance company. This letter will be the only written confirmation of the dismissal you will receive."
I don't know any further details, but there you go.
I figured they were tracking the car behind you. It seemed to gain on you as it was changing lanes.
Similar threads
- Article
