Fighting a traffic ticket

[hunknhot 1067]

This happened a couple of months back. I was in Calgary and following my GPS. Needless to say I wasn't paying attention and pulled a u-turn after I missed an instruction.

 

I got pulled over and got a 'distracted' driving ticket. He asked me why I did the u-turn and told him that I missed my turn and was going to go back to the route that GPS showed. I should have just kept my mouth shut or told him I was lost so this is probably my fault anyway ;)

 

He gave me a $402 and 6 demerit ticket. I was shocked. I said "for a u-turn?" he said no, for 'blindly' meaning "stupidly" following my GPS.

 

I decided I would fight the ticket but since I was from out of town I hired a local ticket fighting company. They charged me $250 and got it reduced to $150 and 2 demerits.

 

So basically I saved 2$ and 4 precious demerits. Had I flown back to the court date that would have cost me another $1200 but my goal was to save on demerits.

 

Anyone else have any good or bad experiences in fighting tickets?

[piano8950 32577]

I got stopped because I slowed at a stop sign instead of stopping entirely. I was heading over to a party as the cop could see four, very well dressed people inside. And then to top it off, I didn't have my insurance and registration papers. So instead of a stop sign ticket, I got a ticket for that.

 

But here's the kicker. Right after the cop gave it to me, he then proceeded to tell me how to get it revoked. Basically, I had to file an appeal to talk to the prosecutor and show him the forms. I'd get it dropped then.

 

In the end all I had to do was file an appeal, and 6 months later, I get a letter saying the fines were dropped.

 

Basically, from a speed demon friend of mine, his advice is to always talk to the prosecutor, work out a deal, and avoid points even if it means a larger fine.

[CristyCurves 169032]

I have been lucky lately, the last couple of times I was pulled over I was let go with a warning,I have to be careful as I am a fast driver and most officers aren't that forgiving.

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

As a woman I just flash major cleavage or cry when caught speeding. lol. Worked both times. Haven't had a speeding ticket since 2002 where I got 4 of them in 2 months when travelling across Ontario and various cities in the U.S. Twice I got them knocked down in Canada and had to deal with Pointts. There was probably a warrant out in upstate NY for me because I didn't pay that one. lol.. I also had to go to traffic school where they give you a lecture on not speeding and the dangers. I lost a lot of demerit points and high car insurance rates for about 2 years. Needless to say as I am more mature now and not trying to get everywhere so quickly, I don't speed excessively. I did do a rolling stop in my neighborhood development at 2 am last year but again because of the blond hair, cleavage and that charming way I have, he let me go.;)

[backrubman 64800]

Anyone else have any good or bad experiences in fighting tickets?

 

When I was 16 and first got my driver's license I got a ticket for doing 76 in a 50. Of course I wasn't (Radar Russ) as we used to call him in this small town was asleep and the radar woke him up and by the time he came to, I was the car he saw coming. So I hired the most colourful lawyer and he made a mockery of the whole thing in Court for at least an hour of Monty Python style entertainment (really has a reputation for the dramatic flare and he has only gotten worse, or better with age), it was worth every penny of the $300 it costs me to fight a $76.50 ticket as he turned the Court room into a circus :) and won easily. He really earned every penny of his $300 as he called a witness I didn't even know he had who testified he was a taxi driver that passed by Radar Russ several times as day, every day and always laughed because he was sleeping. But in the end, after all that, he dropped the bomb, wrong charge "Speeding in a Business District" and a Business District being defined as having 50% business frontage and Radar Russ had already authenticated the pictures of the forest of trees beside the road as the correct area.

 

Since then, I have fought four tickets I didn't deserve over the years myself and smoked them (won) every time. Sometimes these things are hard to win, even if you should. I remember once I met up with a friend of mine in the Court room and when I told him why I was there, he said, "impossible, you gonna loose, very hard to fight that" and I said well you just stick around and watch, I did my homework.

 

I also paid the fine twice over the years as I was speeding :) Hmmm, maybe if I was as cute and sexy as Cristy or Nicolette Vaughn.... :)

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

What a way to fight a traffic ticket and win at the same time!

 

http://now.msn.com/now/0413-physics-paper-ticket.aspx

[backrubman 64800]

What a way to fight a traffic ticket and win at the same time!

http://now.msn.com/now/0413-physics-paper-ticket.aspx

 

That's amazing! Great link Nicolette!

 

One of my Court room wins was somewhat similar except I resorted to more conventional, understandable techniques and "proved" that his testimony I had already caused "that he never lost sight my my car" was false as he couldn't see around corners (and I proved this). After Court was over he apologized outside the Court room and said "Hope there are no hard feelings".

[tangoman 100]

I fought a traffic ticket in Montreal. I easily won, but while I was presenting my case my wallet got stolen out of my coat pocket (which I had left on a bench in the court room. It turns out that a bailiff working in the courthouse stole my wallet, used the credit cards to the tune of $500 on each card (a lot of money back in 1989), then sold the wallet to some undesirables who stole my identity, took out a bank loan to buy a car which was then used to rob a bank.

 

Its so much more convenient to pay the fine!!

[nntsci 11076]

My wife fights tickets to gets the charge reduced.

 

I personally don't fight the tickets though I gotten very very few tickets ever and never lost points, so I'm perhaps not the best person to respond. My reasoning is that my time is worth more than the money saved from fighting it.

 

It seems the system is set up to penalize people who accept the tickets, and pay them. My wife fights it and gets a discount (she get more ticket than I do). There is something really bizzare because it cost the state a lot more money if the driver fights the ticket, than if they just pay the ticket, because court time is very expensive. Thats backwards. The system should reward drivers who just pay the fine.

[tangoman 100]

Paying the fine is an admission of guilt, so any penalties should and would apply. By contesting a ticket you are telling your side of the story to someone that is impartial, and by just the facts, the judge will determine the modified punishment. Maybe the cop had a fight with his boss/wife/girlfriend or is just having a bad day and he is taking out on you.

[backrubman 64800]

Paying the fine is an admission of guilt, so any penalties should and would apply. By contesting a ticket you are telling your side of the story to someone that is impartial, and by just the facts, the judge will determine the modified punishment. Maybe the cop had a fight with his boss/wife/girlfriend or is just having a bad day and he is taking out on you.

 

Excellent point. That's why I have chose to do battle in Court when I have, because I wasn't guilty. Sure, always a lot less time, energy and even money to pay the fine and be done with it but you have to say you're guilty when you are not. So in my opinion, if you are not guilty, you don't even have to fight it, just plead not guilty and show up for the trial. Often happens the "officer" or prosecutor is on vacation or involved with something more important or just doesn't show for whatever reason and it's case dismissed :) Quite often they couldn't be bothered, but if you deposition the officer (I have) they will really come to the battle with all guns blazing and spend a fortune to go down in flames.

 

And once, while trying to prove I was guilty, they actually discovered the truth - not guilty! There is "some" justice in the justice system, not sure just how much, but some.

[NotchJohnson 214136]

Excellent point. That's why I have chose to do battle in Court when I have, because I wasn't guilty. Sure, always a lot less time, energy and even money to pay the fine and be done with it but you have to say you're guilty when you are not. So in my opinion, if you are not guilty, you don't even have to fight it, just plead not guilty and show up for the trial. Often happens the "officer" or prosecutor is on vacation or involved with something more important or just doesn't show for whatever reason and it's case dismissed :) Quite often they couldn't be bothered, but if you deposition the officer (I have) they will really come to the battle with all guns blazing and spend a fortune to go down in flames.

 

And once, while trying to prove I was guilty, they actually discovered the truth - not guilty! There is "some" justice in the justice system, not sure just how much, but some.

I was told lately that the officer does not have to be present during the court case. I had gotten only a few tickets in my life and paid the ones where I was guilty and fought the ones that I wasn't. One case in Ottawa was when I was driving west bound on Innes near Blackburn Hamlet. The officer was parked on the side of the road with his motorcycle, he signaled me to move over so I obliged, the fine was for speeding at 106 in an 80 zone which I was not doing. I went to court and for some reason there was 2 offender for the same day, same time and same speed.

The reason why they lost and I won was that I had asked the officer to see the radar for a proof of that said speed and it showed 89 km/h not 106. It was an automatic case dismiss.

[backrubman 64800]

I was told lately that the officer does not have to be present during the court case.

 

Wow, Ontario must be so different! As far as I am concerned if they are going to put on a trial in accordance with the principals of fundamental justice then I have the right to cross examine my accuser and examine the evidence against me even if he (or she) has submitted an affidavit attesting to the fact that they "think" I am guilty, so I would (in Nova Scotia at least) compel the prosecution to produce their witness against me. I would simply call my accuser to take the stand and if the prosecution cannot produce its' only witness move for an immediate dismissal. Tested and proven and should still work today unless the natzis have taken over and I hadn't noticed :)

[Phaedrus 209521]

One of my Court room wins was somewhat similar except I resorted to more conventional, understandable techniques and "proved" that his testimony I had already caused "that he never lost sight my my car" was false as he couldn't see around corners (and I proved this). After Court was over he apologized outside the Court room and said "Hope there are no hard feelings".

 

So you have to take time off work, shoulder the expense and hassle of going to court to defeat this guy's false testimony, and he wants there to be "no hard feelings"? He should get some sort of chutzpah award for that.

 

Time is money. He's clearly a waste of both.

[backrubman 64800]

So you have to take time off work, shoulder the expense and hassle of going to court to defeat this guy's false testimony, and he wants there to be "no hard feelings"? He should get some sort of chutzpah award for that. Time is money. He's clearly a waste of both.

 

Thanks my friend, you are very insightful indeed! You read between the lines surprisingly very well. I didn't exactly want to mention it as it is so very out of character for me but this is precisely the way it went down (a day off work a lot of trouble and I proved him wrong on the stand), the only time in my life I can recall refusing to shake someones outstretched hand, told him there was very much "hard feelings", tore a strip off him and walked away while he still tried to apologize. Looking back on it, I was younger and not as "seasoned" as I am today. These days I am always a gentleman, except of course in circumstances that clearly justify the use of lethal force.

[nntsci 11076]

>Paying the fine is an admission of guilt

 

But typically the driver IS guilty. My wife got a fine reduced by fighting the ticket, when she was in fact speeding and was guilty. So why reward them with a smaller fine if they waste the taxpayers money and fight it. Ok, sure sometimes there may be extenuating circumstances, but often that is not the case. If the driver is guilty and does waste the taxpayers money, they should pay the court costs in addition to the fine.

[Jake_1957 1301]

I've received multiple speeding tickets over the years, I admit I was a cronic speeder, still am, but not as much. In my experience the officer always reduced the speed so I would not lose demerit points (or less points) or just given me a warning, so I've never considered trying to fight the fines, it's just not worth the hassle, after all I'm guilty as hell.

 

So far I haven't even needed to flash my cleavage. :icon_lol:

[backrubman 64800]

But typically the driver IS guilty. My wife got a fine reduced by fighting the ticket, when she was in fact speeding and was guilty. So why reward them with a smaller fine if they waste the taxpayers money and fight it. Ok, sure sometimes there may be extenuating circumstances, but often that is not the case. If the driver is guilty and does waste the taxpayers money, they should pay the court costs in addition to the fine.

 

I agree, if you really are guilty, pay the darn fine and move on.

 

But that's cute. If you break down the costs of the fine (which is necessary if you are filing an appeal, complete with appeal book and a factum) you discover surprise, surprise the fine (in Nova Scotia) already includes "Court Costs", so if you just pay the fine you are also paying "Court Costs" anyways. So every fine paid and not challenged already includes the "Court Costs", those tricky devils.

 

I doubt there is any tax payer money involved at all. I'm sure they make a very tidy profit and if anything you are using "fine payer money" not "tax payer money" when you do challenge being falsely accused.

 

Ok here is an actual grey example: We have a four lane highway, a 10 km straight stretch and then a steep hill. If you diligently set your cruise control to exactly 100 Kms/h then some 10 kms later at the bottom of the hill you will (due to gravity) be doing about 116/kms before your speed automatically drops back to 100. Flashing lights in your rear view mirror. Yes, they are there EVERY SINGLE MORNING at the bottom of this hill.

 

But dam it, you were exceeding the speed limit and are guilty! Or, perhaps the Presiding Justice should just get the chance to here about this, perhaps the "Officer" can be asked how often they are there and how many tickets they issue? Hmmm. With direct questioning under oath it was in fact possible to establish that they were there in this area not to increase traffic safety but to increase revenue from fines. But you are still guilty!

 

Hmm. But 116 in a 100, bit of a stretch, so lets just charge him with failure to obey road signs instead of speeding, yeah, that's the ticket (pun intended) then he won't fight it in court as there is no one week license suspension, no "points", just the fine! Well as it turns out "failure to obey road signs" requires that the signs be "in close proximity", hmmm, so Officer (and you are under oath), "just where is this speed limit sign in relation to your daily speed trap?", "Oh, it's less than or about 1 kilometer up the road". "Really? So what if I asked if you would believe it was in fact 10 Kms up the road? Would you believe that?" "No, I wouldn't" he says. "So along that same line, you wouldn't think this charge was prudent if it was in fact established that the speed limit sign is 10 Kms away?" "No, but it's only one Km away".

 

Time to have him watch a 15 minute video which starts 10 Kms back (where the last speed limit sign was) and proceeds all the way, proving that it is in fact 10 Kms as each mile marker flies by, we pause the video and so note it.

 

"So Officer, just how do you explain this video? Was it the wrong area?"

"Why no, I guess the snowplow must have knocked down the sign at some point, I know it was there".

 

The prosecution now doesn't even allow for the case or questioning to continue, they immediately moved that the charge be dismissed.

 

The effect: case dismissed in favor of the defendant, a new speed limit sign appears within a week, the daily saga continues and those that have been trapped by this know they must disengage their cruise control and break because guess who is still hiding at the bottom of the hill?

 

So case dismissed... you tell me, was I guilty? I could site three or four other examples were I clearly was not but this one is still grey and won on a technicality, judge me! Please.

[Guest My***tLixx]

I have been lucky lately, the last couple of times I was pulled over I was let go with a warning,I have to be careful as I am a fast driver and most officers aren't that forgiving.

If I looked as good as you, I'd let myself off with a warning too!

[Phaedrus 209521]

I've received multiple speeding tickets over the years, I admit I was a cronic speeder, still am, but not as much. In my experience the officer always reduced the speed so I would not lose demerit points (or less points) or just given me a warning, so I've never considered trying to fight the fines, it's just not worth the hassle, after all I'm guilty as hell.

 

True. I've never even *heard* of anyone being written a speeding ticket that was actually as fast as they were going, except for one person with an already-horrible driving record.

 

What *really* pisses me off about all this is not so much the fine paid to the courts, as the fact that your insurance company will then proceed to gouge you and line their own pockets for the next few years.

[backrubman 64800]

...What *really* pisses me off about all this is not so much the fine paid to the courts, as the fact that your insurance company will then proceed to gouge you and line their own pockets for the next few years.

 

And studies (lots of them) have shown that fast drivers, particularly on safe four lane highways are paying more attention and less likely to get in an accident than those well under the "speed limit" so why the higher insurance rates?

 

Because it's a thinly veiled but plausible excuse to gouge you and they can, that's why. But then insurance companies are, in general, evil by nature. I was appalled by the recent article in Bloomberg a few months back were they deny claims in life insurance policies as a matter of policy and hope the poor widow doesn't know how to sue them and when it turns out they do, just pay then and only then (a few hours before the trial is scheduled to begin). Many don't know how to sue and they save the money they would have to pay out... worst case they keep the money in their bank account longer. Sickening.

 

Now, I agree if you are driving recklessly fast that is a different matter entirely, then you are a higher risk for them.

[nntsci 11076]

"And studies (lots of them) have shown that fast drivers, particularly on safe four lane highways are paying more attention and less likely to get in an accident than those well under the "speed limit" so why the higher insurance rates? "

 

LOL. There are several ways of being a bad driver -- speeding, changing lanes, tail gating, using a cell phone, distraction, reading a map, drinking etc. -- and all of them should pay high insurance rates or have their licence suspended. I have no sympathy the insurance rates paid by bad drivers -- be they driving too fast or too slow (and both will get stopped and fined). In fact good drivers subsidize the cost of bad drivers.

 

I hate to throw so evidence into a discussion of opinion, but this is what a transport Canada has to say on the topic of speeding.

 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp2436-rs200807-menu-158.htm