Helicopter clocked speeding violations (80 in a 70)

[keith.e]

What is the name of your state? A: Texas

Hi, I was pulled over yesterday for doing 80 in a 70. The officer marked it on the citation as 81/70. I'm thinking about fighting it because, I'm sick of defensive driving (8 hours I'll never get back and I've done it twice before) and the fact that the price was raised from like $30 to $95 within a year an a half. That's ridiculous and I think I was unjustly pulled over to boot.

Anyhow, here's a little preface before I was pulled over. The weather - 1:30 pm, sunny, dry; Road Conditions - very little traffic. I drive a 1999 Ford Explorer Sport SUV. I was driving on a highway between 70-80mph with a pack of cars, comfortably spread out. I was in the passing lane going at an even pace with several cars. Furthermore, approximately 30 seconds to a minute before being pulled over, I set the cruise control to 74-75. I was definitely driving safely provided the conditions I was given.

Soon afterwards I was pulled over. He came out of nowhere! I'm guessing he had to have increased his speed considerably to get right up on my rear from wherever the heck he came from before actually turning on his roof lights. The officer stated that I was clocked by an airplane going 81 mph! I learned later that he meant a helicopter, but it confused me at the time. We didn't have much of a conversation. He didn't ask me any questions, he just explained and wrote the citation and I went on my way really pissed off.

I got to work and told a co-worker about it. His dad's a police captain. Anyhow, he called his dad and asked him if I should contest the ticket. He explained to me how the helicopter clocking system works, somewhat. Basically, the helicopter tracks a certain stretch of road and takes photographs marking the times of when a vehicle reaches certain points in that stretch of road. If a vehicle gets from one point to another too quickly that's when they will have the officer on the ground pull the driver over.

He also told me that I should contest it because all three officers involved in giving me the ticket would have to appear in court. This includes the person who wrote the citation, the pilot, and the person who clocked me from the helicopter. He said that the chance of all 3 making it to court is slim, especially in the summer.

Does anybody have any advice? I'm considering a Trial by Declaration to start out with. I'm hoping that they would have to make all three officers write documentation. Also, any tips would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and sorry about the long message. I look forward to any responses.

Regards,
Keith

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Your sick of traffic school and that there is more of a cost?

Simple answer......................

Stop breaking the law.

 

[You Are Guilty]

He also told me that I should contest it because all three officers involved in giving me the ticket would have to appear in court. This includes the person who wrote the citation, the pilot, and the person who clocked me from the helicopter. He said that the chance of all 3 making it to court is slim, especially in the summer.

While the prior response is entirely correct, soley for the sake of accuracy, only the citing officer and the timing officer need appear to testify (to prevent hearsay). There is no information the pilot would need to add to obtain sufficient evidence to convict.


And $95 happens to be really cheap.

 

[keith.e]

Your sick of traffic school and that there is more of a cost?

Simple answer......................

Stop breaking the law.

Wow, thanks for the great advice, old timer. Now that you've given me this advice, I think I'll forever abide by the laws and possibly do five under the speed limits! What are you, a cop? Just because I've done defensive driving school two times before (all in a span of 5 years) doesn't mean I'm some reckless driver out to intentionally break the law. Since you obviously never get tickets, maybe you don't even belong on this board, Ms. Perfect.

Like I said, I was driving at a reasonable speed, safe given the driving conditions. Why don't you give me some real advice, or stay out of my thread?

I've been reading over some of the threads on this board and often there is no advise at all, just people trying to belittle others with this self-righteous "DON'T BREAK THE LAW" bullcrap!

Thanks anyhow, bud.

 

[keith.e]

While the prior response is entirely correct, soley for the sake of accuracy, only the citing officer and the timing officer need appear to testify (to prevent hearsay). There is no information the pilot would need to add to obtain sufficient evidence to convict.


And $95 happens to be really cheap.

Thank you for your response. Although you agree with the person who posted above you, at least you were cool enough to give me a constructive response and I truly appreciate that.

I was told that the pilot would also have to show up because he and the other clocking officer in the helicopter would have to identify that it was me driving the vehicle. I was told this by a police captain, but if you are 100% sure that what you said is true, let me know because that would have a great influence on whether I take it to court.

And although $95 is cheap (and it's not cheap to me compared to a mere $30 it used to be), it's not about the money, it's about me believing I was pulled over unjustly. I've gone to defensive driving twice in my life, sixteen hours I'll never get back. I did defensive driving because I admit that I was speeding. Both times I was trying to get places quickly as to not be late. That was no excuse and the citations were justified. Even I can see that.

However, this citation just makes no sense to me. I was in no rush, the traffic was light, and I was driving according the conditions of the road, which were perfect.

Anyhow, thanks for your comment. If you know anything about Trials by Declaration, I'd be grateful for any advice.

-Keith

 

[You Are Guilty]

Thank you for your response. Although you agree with the person who posted above you, at least you were cool enough to give me a constructive response and I truly appreciate that.

I was told that the pilot would also have to show up because he and the other clocking officer in the helicopter would have to identify that it was me driving the vehicle. I was told this by a police captain, but if you are 100% sure that what you said is true, let me know because that would have a great influence on whether I take it to court.

The pilot would hopefully have been looking where he was flying, and not at the people driving below him. In any event, the timing officer is the one who actually clocks suspected speeders and radios it to the citing officer on the ground. That "chain" is will be able to testify that: your vehicle was spotted from the air; timed between marks on the road a known distance apart; your speed was over the limit; identifying information was radio'ed to the ground; you were pulled over and cited based on that info. The pilot can only credibly testify that he was flying a helicopter, which is information not needed to convict.

Of course, this entire chain of testimony is subject to cross examination, but if traffic was as light as you say, the odds of a "mistaken identification" are near zero, and the odds of bad math are always pretty low given the simplicity of the formula used.

And although $95 is cheap (and it's not cheap to me compared to a mere $30 it used to be), it's not about the money, it's about me believing I was pulled over unjustly. I've gone to defensive driving twice in my life, sixteen hours I'll never get back. I did defensive driving because I admit that I was speeding. Both times I was trying to get places quickly as to not be late. That was no excuse and the citations were justified. Even I can see that.

However, this citation just makes no sense to me. I was in no rush, the traffic was light, and I was driving according the conditions of the road, which were perfect.

The law is the law and speeding by 1mph is still speeding. I do it all the time myself, but I'm prepared to face the music should I get cited.

If you know anything about Trials by Declaration, I'd be grateful for any advice.

Your chances of success via TBD versus a "live" trial are much lower.

 

[keith.e]

Alright, thanks 'Guilty'

If it's a waste of time to do a Trial by Declaration I might skip it. I've read that if I lose the TBD I can have a second in court trial.

I'm going to fight it, but I can see that my chances aren't that great. Worst case scenario, I lose, pay court fees, and have to take defensive driving. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

It hasn't been five days since the ticket, so any other advice is more than welcome.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Alright, thanks 'Guilty'

If it's a waste of time to do a Trial by Declaration I might skip it. I've read that if I lose the TBD I can have a second in court trial.

I'm going to fight it, but I can see that my chances aren't that great. Worst case scenario, I lose, pay court fees, and have to take defensive driving. It's a risk I'm willing to take.

It hasn't been five days since the ticket, so any other advice is more than welcome.

Traffic lawyers are rather inexpensive, usually under $200. If you really hate defenseive driving classes, it might be worth looking into hiring one.

 

[marbol]

I am not a lawyer, but I'm going to chime in here anyway because I live in Texas, I've used traffic lawyers, and I've fought my own traffic tickets in Texas before several times and won.

First, I don't know what TBD is. This must be something really new. Second, make sure you really want to fight it.

My advice is if you CAN take defensive driving, then do it. But if you really want to fight it, you can.

I used to use traffic attorneys. They used to be able to delay cases for years and the chances of the cop showing up after that many years goes down. But any more, it seems the traffic attorneys don't do squat for you that you can't do yourself. Now they tend to just ask for deferred adjudication, or defesnive driving, and take more money.

Some things I've learned:

A judge will often impose the maximum sentence if you take it to court instead of paying the minimum sentence at first. Doesn't seem right, but it seems to happen.

If you plead not guilty, some cities now require you to post an appearance bond. This is to doscourage you from pleading not guilty and pay up. Sometimes the bond is more than the maximum fine you would get if you were found guilty. Again, this seems unfair to me. Sometimes the bond is needed even though some people that commit other more serious misdemenours and even felonies get released on their own recognizance without needing to post bond. Again, unfair - but the judge want's his money to pay his employer (the city or county)

So, knowing this, be prepared for some judges that don't know what they are doing. Or worse, want to throw the book at you. Sometimes they make less than public school teachers. - Sorry - but sometimes they do.

If you still want to fight it, plead not guilty. But be prepared for your trial even at the hearing. The cops will be requested to be there, but also be prepared if they are not there, now, some judges will NOT dismiss the case, but rather they will re-schedule the trial. Politely - AND I MEAN POLITELY - ask the judge to please dismiss the case, because you took off work to come to this trial and were prepared and everything and you don't know if your employer will be as lenient on <insert new court date here>
If the officer isn't there because of a valid reason (and there are many) then he judge might grant a continuance - and you'll have to come back and do it all over again. So if you are REALLY nice, and state that it's a hardship to you, and if you are lucky and the police is a no show (as opposed to having a reason) then the judge might dismiss your case. If so, be sure to THANK the judge. I've even had some judges thank me back for being polite. Apparently, nowadays, people that are pre se are snotty. - although I don't know why.

But if you have to go to trial, once your trial comes up, hope the cops are not there (again). If they are there, you most likely won't win no matter what. If you had really done your homework, you could have asked for discovery, and tried to get hold of certificates of calibration or training by radar guns or officers, etc. but I've found that you will usually be denied those things if you don't know what you are doing - and sometimes even if you DO know what you are doing.

So, just hope they don't show up. If they do show up, you could continue to fight it - by asking questions, etc. but don't bother unless you really planned for a case and did find out records or things that are not right (like an expired radar operation license,etc.)

If they don't all show up, you can ask the case to be dismissed. You would ask this first of the prosecution if you can before the court starts - but you can also ask it of the judge. Sometimes the judge will just dismiss your case if they learn the cops are not there.

It's a crap shoot.

If the cops are there, and it looks like you don't have a case, ask the judge for defensive driving then and there. I believe if you are eligible, the judge might have to allow it. Otherwise, he might impose the maximum fine if you loose.

I believe you can also request a jury trial. Not sure if it's wise to do that unless it's a civil small claims suit. I know the court costs are higher if you do that. They have to impanel a jury, and pay them for their time.

-- Just my experiences....

 

[keith.e]

Thanks marbol,

I will take everything you said into consideration. Before I go to trial I know I'll have read up and prepared myself as much as possible. I'm confident in my public speaking abilities and regardless of whether or not the officers show up, I'm sure I can pull it off.

Does anybody know of any trustworthy websites that offer information, free or pay, that may help me in this situation? I want to be completely sure that I don't get screwed in the judicial system.

Thanks again for your reply.

 

[Curt581]

Marbol, you seem to be going on some mistaken impressions, so I'll try to correct a few.

I used to use traffic attorneys. They used to be able to delay cases for years and the chances of the cop showing up after that many years goes down.

It always amazes me that some people complain about delays, citing "speedy trial" violations deny their rights... while others want things delayed, so it increases the chance the officer won't remember the details.

Seems underhanded to me to try and manipulate the court's scheduling to your advantage. If you're really innocent, go to trail based on the FACTS.

But any more, it seems the traffic attorneys don't do squat for you that you can't do yourself. Now they tend to just ask for deferred adjudication, or defesnive driving, and take more money.

There are some pretty crappy attorneys out there. Just like crappy mechanics, plumbers, and doctors. That's why it's important to shop around.

Sometimes, even a good attorney can have a hard time proving your innocent when you're overwhelmingly guilty.

A judge will often impose the maximum sentence if you take it to court instead of paying the minimum sentence at first. Doesn't seem right, but it seems to happen.

It happens because courts want to clear minor cases from their calendars ASAP. Initial appearance courts often make very reasonable offers to dispose of cases. If you turn that offer down, and go to trial, expect to pay more than the initial offer if you lose because you're taking up the trial court's time... time better spent on more serious cases.

If you plead not guilty, some cities now require you to post an appearance bond. This is to doscourage you from pleading not guilty and pay up.

No, it's not. It's to guarantee your return to court. Nothing more. Just like bail on a criminal case.

Sometimes the bond is more than the maximum fine you would get if you were found guilty. Again, this seems unfair to me.

That's why it's called a BOND, not a fine. See above.

Sometimes the bond is needed even though some people that commit other more serious misdemenours and even felonies get released on their own recognizance without needing to post bond. Again, unfair

That's because if you fail to appear, your bond is forfeited, and the case is essentially over. No further action is taken, unless you reopen the case.

Criminal cases are different. If you fail to show up for those, the bond posted is forfeited, AND a warrant is issued for your arrest. If you get stopped again, you get arrested and go to Jail until you post bail, or are produced in court. Signature or personal recognizance bonds are issued only for minor offenses, unless the judge has compelling information that the defendant is guaranteed to appear for the next court date.

If you still want to fight it, plead not guilty. But be prepared for your trial even at the hearing.

I certainly hope you are. Scheduling a trial based strictly on the hope that the officer won't show up is reckless... and arrogant in the extreme. Most judges take a dim view of such antics, and will either force the issue if the cop does show up, or will access the maximum fine and points for wasting the court's time. They have much more important things to do than play games with you over a measly speeding ticket, especially when you know you're guilty.

But if you have to go to trial, once your trial comes up, hope the cops are not there.

Make sure you understand that officers failing to answer a subpoena is definitely NOT the norm. Most police agencies will punish or suspend an officer that ignores a subpoena. It's a court order to give testimony, and not to be viewed lightly.

If they are there, you most likely won't win no matter what. If you had really done your homework, you could have asked for discovery, and tried to get hold of certificates of calibration or training by radar guns or officers, etc. but I've found that you will usually be denied those things if you don't know what you are doing - and sometimes even if you DO know what you are doing.

That's what pretrial motions are for. Go ahead and ask for certifications, etc. The vast majority of us have all of our documentation ready to rock.

Despite what you or others that share your opinions think, we do our best to be as professional as possible. We don't deliberately stop cars and make stuff up on people that aren't violating. There are way too many people out there that really are speeding, to pick on someone that isn't. We occasionally make honest mistakes, but it's rare... and that's what trials are for.

And top it off with the fact that nearly ALL of us have a speed tolerance. My own is 15 over the legal limit. As was posted earlier, 1 over is illegal. If you think you're doing 13 over, instead of the 17 over my radar says, you still have no valid complaint if you get cited. You're still speeding either way !

The intial appearance court is gonna offer you defective speedometer anyway. If you refuse that offer, I'm gonna make you look foolish at trial.

You were already given a warning. The warning was the white sign that said "Speed Limit 55". I don't give a rip if the road is empty, you're Mario Andretti, it's a sunny day, or you drive a brand new BMW 750.

 

[keith.e]

Thanks for the reply Curt581. Have any of your citations been contested? If so, how often does the defendant you're up against win his/her case? Either way, I'd appreciate any tips you could offer to give me a fighting chance. You probably don't give a damn about my plight though.

I don't deny I was going over 70. My problem is that I feel slighted by a flawed system designed to drain money from taxpayers to keep the flawed system running. I wasn't in a hurry. I was approximately ten minutes away from work, and my shift was starting thirty minutes later. There were no cars visibly in front of me. I set the cruise control. If I was putting people in danger I would just accept it and pay the ticket or take defensive driving, but like I said, I was driving safely provided the driving conditions. Maybe officers should be made to "give a rip" about the driving conditions and not solely on speed limits.

I'm sure nobody will care in court. If I need to be underhanded and manipulative, I may go that route. I don't want to, but I'm not going to let a system that I don't respect in some aspects, push me around. This was just pettiness in my opinion and I'm going to fight it regardless of whether or not my chances of winning are high, and regardless of the people here who are strict law abiding citizens.

I'll keep you all posted about my progress, victory or defeat. Any other comments/suggestions are as usual, appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Curt581]

Have any of your citations been contested?

Yes, quite a few. Probably 90% of those that do, it's someone like yourself, hoping I won't show.

I always do.

In those cases, it's pretty annoying to have to come to court on an off-day, only to be told the defendant is pleading guilty because I'm there. A waste of a day I could have spent home with my family. Yeah, I get paid, but for what?

If so, how often does the defendant you're up against win his/her case?

It's exceedingly rare. Like being able to count them on one hand in 15 years. One or two have been dismissed just because the court has a jury trial in another case scheduled. I've yet to lose a case based on merit.

Either way, I'd appreciate any tips you could offer to give me a fighting chance. You probably don't give a damn about my plight though.

Not especially... considering your next statement.

I don't deny I was going over 70.

My problem is that I feel slighted by a flawed system designed to drain money from taxpayers to keep the flawed system running.

The system may be flawed, but that's because it's run by people, designed for people. People make mistakes. Still, it's better than any other system yet invented.

And just for edification, it was NOT designed to drain money from taxpayers just to keep it running. That's just shifting blame because you don't want to accept responsibility.

The justice system has three acceptable means of punishing law breakers.

1. We can Jail them.

2. We can sanction their driving privilege.

3. We can fine them.

Which would you prefer?

If those three are not acceptable, what do you suggest?

Ignore them? Let people drive anyway they want?

I was driving safely provided the driving conditions. Maybe officers should be made to "give a rip" about the driving conditions and not solely on speed limits.

Based strictly on your opinion. So other people should be held to a standard, but not you. Not this time.

Bottom line, there has to be a standard. There has to be a limit which is applied to everyone all the time. Otherwise, it's all subjective and NO ONE will be treated fairly. What you propose would actually broaden police authority in deciding who gets a ticket and who doesn't, beyond what now exists.

One person could say doing 10 over on a clear day on an empty road isn't unsafe. Another would say it's safe to do 30 over in a school zone, because he thinks he drives better after a few beers to calm his nerves. Who decides?

I don't want to, but I'm not going to let a system that I don't respect in some aspects, push me around.

That's it in a nut shell, isn't it?

Nobody is gonna tell you what to do, right?

This was just pettiness in my opinion and I'm going to fight it regardless of whether or not my chances of winning are high, and regardless of the people here who are strict law abiding citizens.

Knock yourself out.

When you get tired of taking off work, tired of waiting for your case to be called, tired of paying to park at the courthouse... Ask yourself WHO is being petty?

Since you KNOW you were speeding

 

[lwpat]

Texas Speeding Ticket

A trial by declaration is not allowed for a Texas speeding ticket. Laws vary depending on the state which is why that is required information. The officers do not have to be there on your first court date because it is only an arraingment. You can also skip it if you enter a written plea of not guilty and request a trial. Both officers would have to show on that date or you could ask for a dismissal.

Sounds to me like you best option is traffic school or a deferment. If you go to court and lose they can charge you more. Ask the clerk if they accept online school. Here is a link for more information.

http://www.trafficschoolonline.com/?lcode=4013

 

[keith.e]

Curt, I didn't expect an opinion similar to mine from you. You're a cop set in cop ways. Thanks for your comments nonetheless.

Is our traffic law system really the best? I'm sure some people could argue with that. I don't know, but I find that hard to believe.

I didn't say to simply let people drive the way they want, but there should be more than just strict enforcement of some traffic laws. In regards to speeding, I'm talking about taking other things into account -- weather, traffic (whether it's heavy or light), instead of just speed. Sure, it's my opinion, but it makes sense. If you assumed I was talking just about my situation, you assumed wrong.

As far as it being subjective, it already is. You said yourself that your limit is "fifteen over." Officers pull people over all the time at various speeds over the limit. They aren't made to follow a standard. It's subjective to each officer's own limit. How is that fair to each person who's pulled over? You have people speeding, but getting off because they're going below a certain officer's limit. I wish you'd have been the one who clocked me.

As for the "who decides" comment. The officer should be allowed to make that decision. Officers go according to speed instead of taking all the factors into account and that's because they are required to do that. I think that it would give officers a lot more credibility if they were allowed to take environmental and traffic elements into account.

I'm still fighting the ticket. Spending 50 hours fighting for something I believe in is worth more to me than admitting guilt to a faulty traffic law.