• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Update to older thread

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

lawyer

Member
Hello all,

As promised, I have returned with a result to an issue I posted in the thread a few months back:

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=244342&page=1&pp=15

To cut to the chase the prosecuter made a deal. I plead guilty to 69MPH in a 65. The fine is the same, but carried no points. win:win.

I can now reveal the "Holy Mary" defense I described in the original thread. For those of you without the time to read through the whole thread, I was preparing a multi-layered defense, to a speeding ticket (80 in a 65) and this was the last resort.

My first defense layer failed due to my own ignorance (more on that in a bit) but then the second was to avoid a trial altogether, and ultimately that's what happened.

The Hail Mary would have happened during trial, and I hoped would go something like this:

(Part of the strategy was to build a rhythym in the officer's answers)

Me: Officer XXX, can you please describe the distance at which you targetted my car with the laser unit?
Officer: about 100 yards.
Me: Officer XXX, you were stationary at the time?
Officer: Yes.
Me: Did you have a clear view of my vehicle?
Officer: yes
Me: Officer XXX, have you completed a training course in the use of this laser unit?
Officer: Yes, I am certified blah, blah, blah
Me: Officer XXX, does this unit report any type of "lock" signal indicating that you have targeted a vehicle?
Officer: (answer doesn't really matter)
Me: Officer, how many readings were you able to get off of my license plate?
Officer: I took 3 readings.
Me: Your honor, motion to dismiss Officer XXX as an unreliable witness.
Judge: On what grounds?
Me: Your honor, he just testified that he got 3 readings off of my front plate. My car is registered in KY and doesn't have a front plate.

Would it have worked? Highly doubtful, but as I said - it was a last resort kind of thing. I almost wish I could have tried it just to see what would have happened.

Now about the failed first defense: if I had been smarter, I think I had a very good chance of getting this dismissed outright, but I made a stupid mistake out of ignorance.

The officer wrote in the wrong code violation on my citation. Where it should have said something like 812D1 he wrote 81201. There was really no way that it could have been a D, because there were 3 other D's on the ticket, and they were all clear as day - this was obviously a 0.

According to the code, the violation must be on the ticket. I couldn't make a plea to violating a non-existant code.

So I objected before I even entered a plea, based on defect of the citation.

The prosecutor moved to ammend the ticket. I wasn't expecting that. I didn't know he could do that. I was temporariily stunned. I plead Not Guilty.

I shouldn't have given up. I should have objected in 2 ways; first of all, the prosecutor was not a witness to the violation, so he really had no foundation to change the charge. Second, according to code, (I found out later) to properly ammend a ticket I should have been issued a new citation. As the prosecuter didn't have a ticket book, he'd have hard a hard time doing that.

All moot, of course, because I just sat there and entered a plea.

So while that didn't work for me, let it be a lesson for someone else. Always check to make sure that you meet all the criteria for the exact violation that you were charged with and that everything on the ticket is proper. (He also miswrote my zip code on the ticket, but I wasn't going to go after that)
 
Last edited:


Bcar1463

Member
That is kind of a tricky defense. I don't know how much normal courtroom rules apply in traffic court, but that may be considered leading the witness (by phrasing a question that puts words in his mouth, you would be stating for him that he targeted your license plate.) However, since I guess you would technically be cross-examining him, leading is allowed. The judge might not like this tactic, because your trying to trick the cop. There are other things that they can target on the front besides a license plate, and the cop could say those, or probably even change his mind if he said license plate the first time. Personally, I would give this about a 15% chance, if that, of working. Sounds like you got a decent deal though, so that is good.
 

lawyer

Member
Bcar1463 said:
That is kind of a tricky defense. I don't know how much normal courtroom rules apply in traffic court, but that may be considered leading the witness (by phrasing a question that puts words in his mouth, you would be stating for him that he targeted your license plate.)
No doubt that it would have been leading. Also no doubt that it would have been tricky to pull off. I considered ways to phrase it in a way that wouldn't be leading, perhaps by mentioning earlier in questioning regarding his laser training that the license plate is the prefered target for laser guns, and then hoping he had in his head enough to volunteer that he targetted my plate. Of course I was also hoping for a favorable 'amusement factor' from the magistrate - also tricky. But that's why this was my 'Hail Mary' defense; odds not favorable, but awesome if I could have pulled it off.

However, since I guess you would technically be cross-examining him, leading is allowed. The judge might not like this tactic, because your trying to trick the cop.
Again, the amusement factor. 95% of the time they are going to side with the Officer, but if you have the cojones to get the Officer to make a mistake like that under oath, that's gotta count for something. From the court sessions that I sat in, most were SO boring and predictable, something like this that shakes things up a bit might just amuse him. Maybe not. Like I said, I almost wish I had the opportunity to try it.

There are other things that they can target on the front besides a license plate, and the cop could say those, or probably even change his mind if he said license plate the first time. Personally, I would give this about a 15% chance, if that, of working. Sounds like you got a decent deal though, so that is good.
Right, but the plate, being very reflective and mounted vertically is absolutely the prefered target. Every training couse for Laser guns that I found said this. In the absence of a front plate, they need to target something reflective, especially from any distance. However, the car I was driving is white, which is the 'best' possible color for reflecting laser - so that didn't work in my favor. A black car, especially one with no front plate and a small front profile with little vertical surface is very hard to target with Ladar.

But I'm happy with the result and very glad I challenged the ticket. I learned a ton of useful and fascinating information, and hey, no points is a good thing.
 
Last edited:

Bcar1463

Member
I understand a little better now. Ya, you did have a chance with that defense, you seem to have it worked out pretty well, it would be interesting to see how the court took it. Probably still a good thing you didn't have to rely on it though. just for my own knowledge, what are the other car colors that are good/bad for laser? I have a coupe-type car that has a really small frontal area that is very slanted/pointy and I have pop-up headlights, which are usually down and has no front plate. Seems like I got a laser evader without even knowing! Not that I plan on taking advantage of it BTW.
 

lawyer

Member
Bcar1463 said:
just for my own knowledge, what are the other car colors that are good/bad for laser? I have a coupe-type car that has a really small frontal area that is very slanted/pointy and I have pop-up headlights, which are usually down and has no front plate. Seems like I got a laser evader without even knowing! Not that I plan on taking advantage of it BTW.
All I know is that black was least responsive to reflectivity, and white was the most reflective. As my car was white I didn't spend much more time looking into it, but I would think, as a general rule - darker = less reflective.

Also, putting one of those 'car bra' devices on the front should make you more invisible to Ladar as well. Won't do squat for radar though.
 

Curt581

Senior Member
lawyer said:
Me: Officer XXX, can you please describe the distance at which you targetted my car with the laser unit?
Officer: about 100 yards.
Me: Officer XXX, you were stationary at the time?
Officer: Yes.
Me: Did you have a clear view of my vehicle?
Officer: yes
Me: Officer XXX, have you completed a training course in the use of this laser unit?
Officer: Yes, I am certified blah, blah, blah
Me: Officer XXX, does this unit report any type of "lock" signal indicating that you have targeted a vehicle?
Officer: (answer doesn't really matter)
Me: Officer, how many readings were you able to get off of my license plate?
Officer: I took 3 readings.
Me: Your honor, motion to dismiss Officer XXX as an unreliable witness.
Judge: On what grounds?
Me: Your honor, he just testified that he got 3 readings off of my front plate. My car is registered in KY and doesn't have a front plate.

Would it have worked? Highly doubtful, but as I said - it was a last resort kind of thing. I almost wish I could have tried it just to see what would have happened.
The testimony about distance would not have been "about 100 yards"... it would have been "Exactly 314.7 feet from my position". If nothing else, this part of your post shows the extent of your knowledge of Lidar and it's abilities and limitations.

I wish you'd have tried it, too.

I had a violator try that very tactic about two years ago. The Judge was chuckling when he said "Motion denied". When the defendant was found guilty, in addition to the full penalties for speeding, the judge ordered, "Defendant admitted in open court to violating SS. 341.XXX Improper Display of Registration. Defendant ordered to pay an additional fine of $100".
The officer wrote in the wrong code violation on my citation. Where it should have said something like 812D1 he wrote 81201. There was really no way that it could have been a D, because there were 3 other D's on the ticket, and they were all clear as day - this was obviously a 0.
No, it wasn't. It WAS whatever the Judge rules it to be. If the Judge decides it looks sufficiently like a "D", then it's a "D".
According to the code, the violation must be on the ticket. I couldn't make a plea to violating a non-existant code.

So I objected before I even entered a plea, based on defect of the citation.

The prosecutor moved to ammend the ticket. I wasn't expecting that. I didn't know he could do that. I was temporariily stunned. I plead Not Guilty.
Don't you hate it when people don't follow your painsakingly prepared script?

Welcome to the Justice System. Why do you think it's almost always better to hire a professional?
I shouldn't have given up. I should have objected in 2 ways; first of all, the prosecutor was not a witness to the violation, so he really had no foundation to change the charge. Second, according to code, (I found out later) to properly ammend a ticket I should have been issued a new citation. As the prosecuter didn't have a ticket book, he'd have hard a hard time doing that.

All moot, of course, because I just sat there and entered a plea.
Your initial instincts were better than your later analysis. You have gotten humiliated if you'd have done the above.

Proof positive that "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Just for edification, The DA does NOT need to issue you a new citation copy. It is perfectly legal and proper to amend a citation on the court record.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top