contesting speeding ticket

[allenou812]

Trial Tomorrow

What is the name of your state? PA

I have a trial tomorrow on a ticket I am contesting. I was pulled over on the PA TPK by an officer who was standing on the shoulder and waived me over. The ticket says 80 in a 65 by RADAR. I do not believe I was doing 80. Question: obviously the cop who pulled me over did not clock me, it was another officer. Do both officers have to testify? The officer who was working the RADAR and the one that issued the ticket? If the officer issuing the ticket is the only one that shows up, I do no believe he can say that the other officer said he clocked my car at 80 - I think that is hearsay and inadmissable. I think both officers have to be there - any thoughts?What is the name of your state?

 

[moburkes]

What is the name of your state? PA

I have a trial tomorrow on a ticket I am contesting. I was pulled over on the PA TPK by an officer who was standing on the shoulder and waived me over. The ticket says 80 in a 65 by RADAR. I do not believe I was doing 80. Question: obviously the cop who pulled me over did not clock me, it was another officer. Do both officers have to testify? The officer who was working the RADAR and the one that issued the ticket? If the officer issuing the ticket is the only one that shows up, I do no believe he can say that the other officer said he clocked my car at 80 - I think that is hearsay and inadmissable. I think both officers have to be there - any thoughts?What is the name of your state?

How are you planning on contesting this if you do not know what speed you were driving?

 

[allenou812]

In the first palce - you don't start a trial with the defense, you start with evidence presented by the prosecution. If only one officer is present and tries to present evidence to the effect that the other officer "said" I was clocked at 80 - I object - this is an outside statement offered for the truth of the matter. They then must say what hearsay exception this falls under - which is the basis of my quesiton. I don't have to say what speed I was going; at that point the Commonwealth has not proved its case and I don't have to admit to anything or make a statement against my own interests.

 

[allenou812]

Thank you - that is what I thought. Probably both officers need to be present, but the one working the RADAR might be enough.

If I thought I was going 80 I would not waste the states time on this; but I have a right to hear the officer say in court that he clocked my car at 80.

 

[allenou812]

What if, at the time the ticket was issued, the officer told me that if I contested the ticket, he would knock off the points? What if I can produce a witness who was with me in the car who heard this? Why would the officer say this?

 

[moburkes]

What if, at the time the ticket was issued, the officer told me that if I contested the ticket, he would knock off the points? What if I can produce a witness who was with me in the car who heard this? Why would the officer say this?

He has no ability to knock off points. Period.

Plus, why would contesting it cause him to do you a favor?

 

[allenou812]

I agree - but it does not change the fact. That is what the officer said.

 

[moburkes]

Well, they are allowed to lie.

 

[allenou812]

You are right - it has no bearing on the outcome of the ticket and I will not pursue it with the court. But it is one of a number of things that were wierd about the ticket and make me believe that the officer pulled over twrong car. Here are some more:

- he had been dealing with another car when I first saw him - he turned around and seemingly arbitrarilly pointed at my car and another car. (From the shoulder of a moderately crowded two lane highway)

- he did not tell me what I had been charged with, only that they were "issuing tickets today".

- when I asked him what I was getting a ticket for he started in with taking off points for contesting it.

Obvously none of this will change the outcome of the case, because I won't raise it, but I don't like it when I am pulled over for something I didn't do and if it takes time out of his day - then so be it.

 

[loulblades]

He has no ability to knock off points. Period.

This should be qualified by noting that you can meet with the officer before the hearing and attempt to negotiate. If you can come to terms then the officer can "change" the ticket and present it to the judge/magistrate.

You can try for a 3111 and pay a fine but not get points. If you don't know what that is you should have started your research sooner. I spent weeks researching before my hearings.

Oh one other thing, your speed at the time isn't what is relevant, only what can be proven (or not).

Good luck.

 

[Hey There]

PA. Code 454/ Parts pertaining to your case & where to check on how Radar can be wr

allenou812
10-21-07

Rule 454. Trial in Summary Cases.

UPPER CASE USED FOR EMPHASIS in parts pf Rule 454

(A) Immediately prior to trial in a summary case:
(1) the defendant shall be advised of the charges in the citation or complaint;
(2) (omitted)
(3) the defendant shall enter a plea.

(B) If the defendant pleads guilty, the issuing authority shall impose sentence.
If the defendant pleads not guilty, the issuing authority shall try the case in the same manner as trials in criminal cases are conducted in the courts of common pleas when jury trial has been waived;
*******************************************************
however, in all summary cases arising under the Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinances, the law enforcement officer observing the defendant’s alleged offense may, but shall not be required to, appear and testify against the defendant.
*********************************************************

In no event shall the failure of the law enforcement officer to appear, by itself, be a basis for dismissal of the charges against the defendant.
**********************************************************

(C) The attorney for the Commonwealth may appear and assume charge of the prosecution. When the violation of an ordinance of a municipality is charged, an attorney representing that municipality, with the consent of the attorney for the Commonwealth, may appear and assume charge of the prosecution. When no attorney appears on behalf of the Commonwealth, the affiant may be permitted to ask questions of any witness who testifies.

(D) The verdict and sentence, if any, shall be announced in open court immediately upon the conclusion of the trial, except as provided in paragraph (E).

(E) OMITTED

(F) At the time of sentencing, the issuing authority shall:

(1) if the defendant’s sentence includes restitution, a fine, or costs, state the date on which payment is due. If the defendant is without the financial means to pay the amount in a single remittance, the issuing authority may provide for installment payments and shall state the date on which each installment is due;

(2) advise the defendant of the RIGHT TO APPEAL within 30 days for a trial de novo in the court of common pleas, and that if an appeal is filed:

(a) the execution of sentence will be stayed etc.

(b) the defendant must appear for the de novo trial or the appeal may be dismissed;

Comment

As the judicial officer presiding at the summary trial, the issuing authority controls the conduct of the trial generally. When an attorney appears on behalf of the Commonwealth or on behalf of a municipality pursuant to paragraph (C), the prosecution of the case is under the control of that attorney. When no attorney appears at the summary trial on behalf of the Commonwealth or a municipality, the issuing authority may ask questions of any witness who testifies, and the affiant may request the issuing authority to ask specific questions. In the appropriate circumstances, the issuing authority may also permit the affiant to question Commonwealth witnesses, cross-examine defense witnesses, and make recommendations about the case to the issuing authority.



Under paragraph (F)(2)(a), the issuing authority should explain to the defendant that if an appeal is filed, ANY SENTENCES including imprisonment, FINES, or restitution, WILL BE STAYED.
*********************************************************
Only the State Police can use Radar in PA. according to information stated in "Beat Your Ticket , Go to Court & Win "published by NOLO a copy which should be available through your local library.
How Radar can give a false reading is explained in detail in Chapter 6(Pages 16 thru 23) and Chapter 11 (Pages21 thru 24 ). in the same book.

Was the state police the one who clocked you with Radar?
Because two officer's were involved do pass the information along on the decision at your trial and what it was based on.

Regards,
Hey There

 

[moburkes]

Sure, a "deal" in regards to the "charge" can be negotiated, but the points are automatic, based on the violation.

 

[allenou812]

Guys - thank you for your advice on this - I really put off looking into it for too long. Here is how it played out. It took place at a PA muni court.

I was in the room alone with the officer prior to the hearing and he was the only officer there. It was the officer who issued the ticket and not the officer who clocked me on the RADAR. I knew that, if it came to it, I might be able to argue that the actual officer who clocked me was not present and that, while the reading from a RADAR gun was a hearsay exception, you still needed the officer who read the RADAR gun in court to say he was pointing it at my car. It would not be hard to establish that the officer who issued the ticket never measured the speed of my car.

My guess is that this would not work in muni court where the rules of evidence are viewed informally. And I would have to appeal to common pleas, which you have an automatic right to do. Luckily, it never came to that. Prior to the hearing I asked the officer if he remebered issuing the ticket. He said maybe. I asked him if he remembered saying that if I contested it, he would waive the points. He said that happens sometimes but we do what the judge says. Then the judge entered. The judge stated the charge, I entered a not guilty. Then it went as follows:

Judge: I am going to do you a favor and not hear any testimony from Officer X ( the officer who issued the ticket).
Me: Thank you your honor.
Judge: Are you here because you are worried about the points?
Me: Yes, YH
Judge: I'll knock this down to going 70 in a 65 which has no points. Do you accept this?
Me: Yes, YH
Judge: You will hear from my office shortly.
Me: Thank you YH.

End of trial.

A couple of thoughts:

I was pleased with the result because that was about how fast I was going. I had no defense (other than the procedural stuff) and was fully prepared to cut a check and walk out - I am glad I went with my gut and got a hearing. The officer had a grin on his face when we left the court room. I still don't know what the deal is except that the next time this happens I am going to go out a day early and get in a little pheasant hunting. What a beautiful day for it.