Court hearing for ticket coming soon need some advice.

[Sora1421]

What is the name of your state? PA

Ok hello I have posted here before but my trial is coming up soon and i need some last minute advice to strengthen my case. The whole incident happened on a two lane back road which actually has a speed limit of 40MPH however the section that it happened on had no speed limit sign. In PA a back rural road i know that the statutory for a 2 lane rural road is 45MPH. Okay so here is what happened.

I am 17 and had my license for only a month at the time of when i was pulled over. It was around 9:40 at night with perfectly clear conditions, and I was coming home from a friends house with a friend in it. I turned off of a main intersection onto the back road that leads towards my house. I turned onto the road a bit fast due to it being dark and i could not see my turn off until a second more than i would have liked to have seen it, either way i pulled onto the road safely and proceeded to continue up the road while increasing my speed a little which i needed up going probably around 42 or 43. I went up a hill and as i got to the crest i started coming down it and noticed that a white car was behind me and not really tailgating but closer than i like to drive so i hit the gas a little to speed up and make a little room which i would have returned to my normal speed; i probably reached 50mph but i doubt the cop remembers any speeds anyway. The car behind me however sped up as well which made me a little nervous so i keep speeding up but not really too much just enough where i figure i could get enough. There was a left handed turn up ahead which was not really all that sharp but just a 30 foot or so moderate turn. I slowed down a bit enough to where I knew i could take the turn at a good safe speed. I went around the turn at a reasonable speed while remaining in the lines, never skidding or making any marks or audible sounds, never going off the road, or anything like that. Honestly i took the turn just fine and it didn't seem really that fast for the type of turn to me. There actually was another car coming around the turn at the same time and i knew this and saw his headlights and i made the turn just fine without ever coming close to hitting him or going off the road.

Anyway though once i got done with the turn i noticed that the white car behind me had flashing lights all of a sudden and my heart just sank. The cop came up to me and basically asked for my licence and registration and asked if i had any drugs, weapons, or anything like that in my car. As he was looking over them he said he also was "95% sure that he was going to get into a high speed chase" obviously because of me speeding up initially to make some room for a nice drive home. He then said that I took the turn too fast for my level of experience and i quote he said "If you had been driving for 50 years i could see where it would be okay" I then told him that the car i drive in is a Beretta Z26 that my dad put custom shocks and struts to help me stay on the road at sharp turns and he said "it doesn't matter what your car can do it's what you as a driver can do".

Now I may not be a lawyer but correct me if i'm wrong, if it's what the driver can do and not the car and I was able to successfully make a turn perfectly at what he considering was "too fast for my experience" wouldn't that mean obviously that my driving abilities at least on that turn were up to par? I mean i never skidded or squealed or went of either side of the road or crossed lines so what was I at fault for, successfully making a turn?

I also want to say that the violation was for "DRIVING AT A SAFE SPEED" and read "Op turkned onto xxxxx road at a high rate of speed and continued to speed up as I followed" and no the k is not a type-o the officer really thinks that there is a K in turned. The last time i checked turning onto a road successfully under the speed limit and speeding up alone wasn't a crime. Either way I will take any advice anyone can give me to develop a solid case for a chance.

I am 17 and I can't afford a ticket. I always drive safely becuase my mother was killed in a car crash and at no time did I ever think i was driving too fast at all. Thank you for your time to read this and please i don't think i can pay the increase in insurance if i am found guilty.

 

[trieroffact]

Bring a picture of the curve. If there is no posted warning signage with a reduced speed for the curve then the PENNDOT has determined that slowing down for the curve is not necessary.

A sad fact is that many LEO's do not know that curves are super-elevated and the curves are designed to the posted speed for sight distance so that slowing down is not required.

You'll need to have questions ready for the officer.

If the travel movement around the curve was unsafe, why did my vehicle not leave the travel lane?
Why was there not a reduced speed curve warning?
What was the horizontal curve radius?
What is there a "special" speed limit on that curve if it is not posted?


§ 3361. Driving vehicle at safe speed.

No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, nor at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.


It appears you did not violate this law.

 

[JIMinCA]

First of all, about 95% of what you discussed is irrelevant. Your post is very defensive and unilaterally argumentative. You cannot base your defense on emotional responses.

trieroffact has some good points. I think your strategy should be based on the fact that you did not cross any lines or go off the road. You could question the cop on his following distance. He told you he was 95% confident he was about to get in a high speed chase, so obviously his driving tactics had become overly aggressive. This may have had an effect on your driving. I'd question him about it, but I wouldn't make that the centerpiece of the defense.

You should ask the cop how fast you were going and how he could substantiate his claim of your speed. Did he measure your speed via radar? If so, exactly which point of the curve did your speed indicate you were driving too fast? Did he pace you? If so, how long had he paced you for? And, if you were varying your speed (as he noted on the ticket) how could he have accurately paced you?

I think the big one is, you need to get him to admit to making the statement of "if you had been driving for 50 years, it would have been ok". You need to do this in your cross examination of the cop. There are some serious problems with his statement that you should capitalize on:

1) He didn't know your age when he pulled you over. He didn't know if you did have 50 years driving experience. Therefore, he has compromised his probable cause for making the intial stop.

2) The statute does not consider age or experience of a driver. If the speed was ok for one driver, it was ok for all drivers according to the statute.

3) If you would have had more than 50 years driving experience, you'd be about 70. That would certainly not be the prime of your life. How could the average 70 year old with the average degredation in eye-hand coordination, response times, etc. have been safe to make the turn at that speed if you weren't?

The bottom line is that is a very subjective statute. Unless you can discredit his position, you will loose. You have to make him appear to have been overly aggressive and just looking for an excuse to pull someone over (or get in a car chase). It won't be easy, but it can be done. Good luck.

 

[Zigner]

§ 3361. Driving vehicle at safe speed.

No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, nor at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.


It appears you did not violate this law.

That's where our OP is sunk...

 

[trieroffact]

The "assured free site" distance cited is factored into the design speed of the highway. A 45 mph highway has curves than are designed to that speed.

If the curve did not have the "assured sight distance" for the rated highway speed then an advisory speed limit sign, warning drivers of a curve ahead would have been posted.

Note: the advisory speed is not enforceable itself but the signage is in place to alert the driver that the curve has sight distance limitations or is not super-elevated properly to allow a vehicle to complete the curve safely.

The primary fact here is that the vehicle did not leave the travel lane and by the officer's own note did not screech the tires.

I agree that the tailgating / aggressive coming up from behind should be noted as well. Most driver's will tend to speed up to maintain safe spacing when an aggressive vehicle is approaching from the rear. So that testimony should be entered. If he was catching up so quickly then (a) he was not obeying the law himself and (b) you were not going that fast.

 

[JIMinCA]

The "assured free site" distance cited is factored into the design speed of the highway. A 45 mph highway has curves than are designed to that speed.

If the curve did not have the "assured sight distance" for the rated highway speed then an advisory speed limit sign, warning drivers of a curve ahead would have been posted.

Note: the advisory speed is not enforceable itself but the signage is in place to alert the driver that the curve has sight distance limitations or is not super-elevated properly to allow a vehicle to complete the curve safely.

The primary fact here is that the vehicle did not leave the travel lane and by the officer's own note did not screech the tires.

I agree that the tailgating / aggressive coming up from behind should be noted as well. Most driver's will tend to speed up to maintain safe spacing when an aggressive vehicle is approaching from the rear. So that testimony should be entered. If he was catching up so quickly then (a) he was not obeying the law himself and (b) you were not going that fast.

Good point about the "assured sight distance". While the statute is fairly subjective, it still has to be substantiated by something.

 

[JIMinCA]

That's where our OP is sunk...

Have you ever said a positive word about anything??

 

[The Occultist]

Have you ever said a positive word about anything??

I feel that giving realistic responses that will actually apply in the courtroom setting is more helpful than your delusions that every poster is innocent no matter what.

 

[loulblades]

...You should ask the cop how fast you were going and how he could substantiate his claim of your speed. Did he measure your speed via radar? If so, exactly which point of the curve did your speed indicate you were driving too fast? Did he pace you? If so, how long had he paced you for? And, if you were varying your speed (as he noted on the ticket) how could he have accurately paced you?....

I am not sure that bringing up the actual speed would be prudent. The PO could say some speed above the limit but he decided to write the ticket as he did (his choice). I believe the focus should be on the evidence that supports (and discredits) that the OP was driving in a fashion that was unsafe.

...The bottom line is that is a very subjective statute. Unless you can discredit his position, you will loose. You have to make him appear to have been overly aggressive and just looking for an excuse to pull someone over (or get in a car chase).

Yes it is very subjective and can be applied at will like when a PO is irked about something or another. I did get one of these in the past because I rolled a car over when going around a bend. It was actually better that I rolled the car than made the bend and hit one or both of of the PO cars stopped in the middle of the road that witnessed the whole thing but I did manage a dismissal due to "technical" issues. (oh I digress once again back 30 years).

It won't be easy, but it can be done.

This is true.

Good luck.

I second that.

 

[JIMinCA]

I feel that giving realistic responses that will actually apply in the courtroom setting is more helpful than your delusions that every poster is innocent no matter what.

Did I go to sleep and wake up in communist China? In the country I am from, every poster IS innocent until proven guilty... no matter what!! Furthermore, every poster has the right to mount a vigorous defense. I think comments like yours may be more at home in a country that doesn't value freedom as much as America.

 

[Hey There]

Sora1421 12-18-07

According to Beat Your Ticket, Go to Court & Win, Pa. has 4 methods to check the speed a driver is going. Pacing,aircraft,VASCAR, radar.
Errors that can occur in all of these methods are explained in CHAPTER11, Pages 11 thru 25.
The book also states that the officer is not required to appear at the first trial. Rule 454. on the website PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 05-2399The law enforcement officer who issued or filed the citation (the ''affiant'') need not appear for the summary trial. The allegations in the citation may be recited on behalf of the issuing law enforcement officer, and that individual is authorized to ask questions of any witness who testifies.
This is not to say that preparing for a trial if the officer is present and also preparing for trial with the officer not present is not more difficult, only that the defence is still the same with or without the officer.
*********************************************************

However the first verdict can be appealed with a jury trial and the officer is required to be present.
*********************************************************
A website that instructs the driver on court procedure is reached through Google by typing in Plea bargaining on a speeding ticket and going to the website:
Speeding Ticket -- Fighting or Plea Bargaining -

********************************************************
Best Regards,
Hey There

 

[Zigner]

Sora1421 12-18-07

According to Beat Your Ticket, Go to Court & Win, Pa. has 4 methods to check the speed a driver is going. Pacing,aircraft,VASCAR, radar.
Errors that can occur in all of these methods are explained in CHAPTER11, Pages 11 thru 25.

Not disagreeing with your statement, but I do want to point out that our OP was NOT cited for speeding...

 

[Zigner]

Have you ever said a positive word about anything??

Absolutely yes...I'm positive!

 

[The Occultist]

Did I go to sleep and wake up in communist China? In the country I am from, every poster IS innocent until proven guilty... no matter what!! Furthermore, every poster has the right to mount a vigorous defense. I think comments like yours may be more at home in a country that doesn't value freedom as much as America.

Oh lord. This concept is an attempt to protect the innocent. That doesn't mean every guilty person should be let off scot-free

 

[lwpat]

See if they will let you plead guilty to a 3111a which is no points and I ahtink no insurance increase. Since you are a minor they may require one of your parents to be present.