Cop misinformed warning with ticket

[ND1612]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL

Hey all,

Thank you for taking the time to look into my post. About a month ago on Dec 16th, 2011 I was pulled over for speeding. I went through the whole process and the cop came back and told me "I am going to let you off with a warning and slow it down". I don't have any record of him saying this, but since that was said to me I disregarded the paper as a warning and now a month later I am being asked by the court to pay a 130 ticket that automatically made my plea guilty when I had no court date or a reason to send the ticket with a payment.

What should I do about this situation? I have no issues paying the normal 95 dollar or whatever price, but it shouldn't go on my record because I was completely unaware that I was being ticketed.

 

[tranquility]

It goes on your record because you were speeding.

 

[CdwJava]

Get a copy of the citation and see what it says. I believe that in some states, they might use the same form or a warning as for a citation, and the only difference might be whether a box is checked or not.

Get a copy of the citation if you no longer have yours, and then take care of it as you can.

 

[ND1612]

reply

It goes on your record because you were speeding.

Yes, that may be true. However, in IL you can often select "guilty with supervision" and the avoid it going on your record, additionally keeping the insurance from going up.

 

[ND1612]

reply

Get a copy of the citation and see what it says. I believe that in some states, they might use the same form or a warning as for a citation, and the only difference might be whether a box is checked or not.

I no longer have my copy, as I thought it was a warning. I am going to call and see if they can mail me a copy of it though.

 

[sandyclaus]

This could end up being one of those "should have looked at what you were signing" situations.

I know that if the cop told me it was a warning, but still made me sign a ticket of some sort, I would have looked over that ticket to make sure I didn't have to pay for anything.

If you get a copy of that ticket, and it turns out that it was actually a ticket and not just a warning, it would be YOUR fault that you didn't pay attention to the paper you were given and follow the instructions given on it. Had you read it sooner, then you could have paid the amount demanded or done as instructed sooner, and avoided the additional penalty.

 

[ND1612]

reply

This could end up being one of those "should have looked at what you were signing" situations.

I know that if the cop told me it was a warning, but still made me sign a ticket of some sort, I would have looked over that ticket to make sure I didn't have to pay for anything.

If you get a copy of that ticket, and it turns out that it was actually a ticket and not just a warning, it would be YOUR fault that you didn't pay attention to the paper you were given and follow the instructions given on it. Had you read it sooner, then you could have paid the amount demanded or done as instructed sooner, and avoided the additional penalty.

Agreed. Sneaky cops... sounds corrupt.

 

[Zigner]

Agreed. Sneaky cops... sounds corrupt.

Oh brother

 

[sandyclaus]

Agreed. Sneaky cops... sounds corrupt.

How exactly is that being sneaky? Learn to accept your personal responsibility for the situation. You chose not to read the papers you were given. That is not the officer's fault.

And perhaps YOU are mistaken about them only giving you a warning (maybe because you wanted it so much). Maybe the officer said, "Consider this a fair warning, and slow it down next time."

 

[ND1612]

How exactly is that being sneaky? Learn to accept your personal responsibility for the situation. You chose not to read the papers you were given. That is not the officer's fault.

And perhaps YOU are mistaken about them only giving you a warning (maybe because you wanted it so much). Maybe the officer said, "Consider this a fair warning, and slow it down next time."

Take a joke much? I was not blaming the officer to clarify. I was simply stating that if an officer of the law tells me what he is giving me is a warning, then I trust that what he is saying is true.

I was not at all stating that it wasn't my responsibly to check what he is giving. Clearly I was speeding, fine, I'll pay the ticket. I just would need to know that it actually was a ticket so I can avoid paying excess amounts of cash.

 

[sandyclaus]

Take a joke much? I was not blaming the officer to clarify. I was simply stating that if an officer of the law tells me what he is giving me is a warning, then I trust that what he is saying is true.

I was not at all stating that it wasn't my responsibly to check what he is giving. Clearly I was speeding, fine, I'll pay the ticket. I just would need to know that it actually was a ticket so I can avoid paying excess amounts of cash.

And I repeat... if you had actually taken a moment to LOOK at what you were given, you would know for sure EXACTLY what you could and could not expect, instead of assuming.

 

[ND1612]

reply

And I repeat... if you had actually taken a moment to LOOK at what you were given, you would know for sure EXACTLY what you could and could not expect, instead of assuming.

Again, WASN'T stating I should have looked at what was given to me. Just stating what the cop had said. I am fully aware that I should have looked, not stupid. Obviously, I did not look at it a second time. I was posting the question about if it is worth the process of going back to the court about it to get supervision a lower fine.

 

[sandyclaus]

Again, WASN'T stating I should have looked at what was given to me. Just stating what the cop had said. I am fully aware that I should have looked, not stupid. Obviously, I did not look at it a second time. I was posting the question about if it is worth the process of going back to the court about it to get supervision a lower fine.

Only if you are willing to answer the same question to the judge about why you never looked at the ticket. (You say you did not look a second time? If you actually looked at the first time, you wouldn't have needed to look a 2nd time.)

After all, "if it ain't in writing, it never happened."

 

[wrongsometimes]

Take a joke much? I was not blaming the officer to clarify. I was simply stating that if an officer of the law tells me what he is giving me is a warning, then I trust that what he is saying is true.
.

They say this all the time, just so people don't get upset. Then you drive off and they laugh and laugh.

 

[ND1612]

reply

Only if you are willing to answer the same question to the judge about why you never looked at the ticket. (You say you did not look a second time? If you actually looked at the first time, you wouldn't have needed to look a 2nd time.)

After all, "if it ain't in writing, it never happened."

My response to that would be that I am only human and when it is 2am and the cop tells me something that I should be able to trust in justice system, then I shouldn't need to check a second time. I am not denying the fact that I was speeding. My issue is with the fact that I shouldn't have to double check someone else's work. If I hired someone to finish my basement than I should not expected to know all the studs are aligned for the wallpaper to be supported properly. I should be able to look at the finished product or progress and say thank you. The similar applies with a cop. If he says stay back or stop, I trust it is for a good reason until he says I should proceed. If I was to assume that I can go when I want, I could be killed. If I cannot listen and believe a cop over a small issues, such as a ticket, then what trust can I place that he telling me to stay away for a good reason?