Incomplete Ticket -Robic/Vascar

[Nick M]

What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania

Hey, I know in most situations an incomplete speeding ticket will not be dismissed. However to calculate my speed the officer used Robic aka Vascar aka a stopwatch and failed to enter a time for "Secs. Timed." He did put the "Miles Timed" and my alleged speed. Considering you would need the "Secs. Timed" to calculate my speed could the ticket me dissmissed? I ask because I am skeptical of my alleged speed and the lack of the "Secs. Times" only increases that skepticism.

Thanks for your help.

-Nick

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: Hey, I know in most situations an incomplete speeding ticket will not be dismissed.

A: Wrong.



Q: However to calculate my speed the officer used Robic aka Vascar aka a stopwatch and failed to enter a time for "Secs. Timed." He did put the "Miles Timed" and my alleged speed. Considering you would need the "Secs. Timed" to calculate my speed could the ticket me dissmissed?

A: No.

 

[lwpat]

In PA normally your best option is to negotiate for a 3111a which is a no points ticket. Failing that, you may be able to get a dismissal if the officer cannot come up with the seconds on the stand. This will depend entirely on the judge.

If you intend to go to trial you need to sit in on some other court cases in front of the same judge so you will know the correct procedure.

 

[Nick M]

Thanks for the info. I'm really hoping to get it reduced to no points, but I will certainly keep in mind the idea that he might not have the seconds timed. I'm debating whether or not to hire lawyer. If I get the points there is a chance I will have my license suspended due to the few points I already have.

 

[loulblades]

Make copies of both sides of your ticket and send your payment certified, receipt requested.

Getting a 3111 is a good option to just pay a fine (the toll for exceeding the speed limit whether you were or not). The missing elapsed time in and of itself may not provide grounds for dismissal but that it limits your defense might.

Also check the cal. date and the cal station then verify it is listed in the current issue of the PA Bulletin.

See this story if you (or anyone else) think the elapsed time missing (or incorrect) is not potentially an issue:
http://travel.3dresearch.com/index.html

Good luck.

 

[tranquility]

I don't know the intracacies of speeding ticket defenses, and don't care to, but I do know algebra. I don't know if it makes a difference, but don't we know the number of seconds timed to within a reasonable degree of accuracy?

I assume we have a speed in miles per hour. We have a miles timed entry. If a person is going, say, 60 miles an hour and was "timed" for 1 mile, how many seconds was the person timed?

I'd say it was about 1/60 of an hour. Let me see now, carry the 7, multiply by 4 and, the square root of 3 is...Well let's just say that one should be able to calculate the answer. If that is enough to satisfy the law I don't know.

 

[loulblades]

I don't see where it would be up to the accussed to provide missing info for his/her own prosecution. It is up to the state to provide the basis for the charge.

 

[tranquility]

I don't see where it would be up to the accussed to provide missing info for his/her own prosecution.

No, but if you're responding to me, it shows the box as being redundant. Rarely are such things required for prosecution. Especially if a prosecutor (or officer) can fill in the answer in court.

 

[loulblades]

No, but if you're responding to me, it shows the box as being redundant. Rarely are such things required for prosecution. Especially if a prosecutor (or officer) can fill in the answer in court.

Redundant or not it is part of the evidence. The speed is calculated from the distance and time not the other way around.

 

[tranquility]

Again, if there is a specific statute or case law which requires *that box* be filled in, all bets are off. However, an officer who testifies how he does things will be relevant and competent evidence as to the seconds timed if he has listed the miles per hour and the miles timed.

It's called math. It's generally accepted to be true. I bet a judge can take judicial notice of math.

 

[loulblades]

It's called math. It's generally accepted to be true. I bet a judge can take judicial notice of math.

Sounds simple enough but if you think it is then here is a copy of the link that I provided earlier for your perusal. You will have to step through it or go to the item titled "A Little Math":

http://travel.3dresearch.com/index.html

 

[tranquility]

Um...if A/B=C, you can give me any two of the variables and I can derive the third. Got it? If there is a problem with margin of error or whatnot, that is irrelevant to our result--except for the fact the margin would be bigger the less significant figures we use.

If you want to claim the very nature of the ticket is wrong because of the margin of error, that's an entirely different argument which is more of an attorney and many thousands of dollar argument, not a pro per writing an internet forum argument.

 

[loulblades]

Um...if A/B=C, you can give me any two of the variables and I can derive the third. Got it? If there is a problem with margin of error or whatnot, that is irrelevant to our result--except for the fact the margin would be bigger the less significant figures we use.

If you want to claim the very nature of the ticket is wrong because of the margin of error, that's an entirely different argument which is more of an attorney and many thousands of dollar argument, not a pro per writing an internet forum argument.

Actually I may have pointed you to the incorrect page, if you look at the page District Justice you will see that the math is not so easily accepted.

Also you are still missing the point that a time is required to support the speed (of course if this were radar that wouldn't be the case). So if the time the officer has is wrong, then the speed can't be supported. Potentially leaving the elapsed time off could be deemed prejudicial but I don't have any experience in that area so I will leave that to the accused to research.

Oh another thing

Again, if there is a specific statute or case law which requires *that box* be filled in, all bets are off.

First off I don't know that I could find a statute that says any of the blocks have to be filled out (haven't looked), the citation more or less provides the instructions for the info required. Saying what you said (ie: "all bets are off") indicates an "open and shut case". Any defense attorney willing to take money from my wallet would not refer to such a thing.

A note to the accused: If you are bringing the missing elapsed time up as a defect in the citation, it must be brought up in your first hearing (if you get that far) in case you need to appeal later.

 

[tranquility]

Also you are still missing the point that a time is required to support the speed (of course if this were radar that wouldn't be the case). So if the time the officer has is wrong, then the speed can't be supported.

I am not missing that point. My point is that it can be cured with the testimony of the officer.

Please stop referring to things which have nothing to do with your point. That page is not binding and came out differently from the way you are arguing here. All it is is some guy saying "Here look at this. It came out different from the way we think it should. Injustice!"

For the math disinclined, if A/B=C, then A=C*B. See, the equal sign is the trick. If you do the same thing to both sides of an equal sign, IT STILL EQUALS!

Again, maybe there is some case law which says we can trust a cop to write down an accurate figure, but can't trust him to use the machine to multiply or divide properly. Sometimes the requirements (Like the use of a tuning fork on certain radars.) are technical and only a person experience with the technique in that state can say if it is legal or not. But, math is math. A cop testifying he doesn't make stuff up is going to fly as evidence if he combines it with his usual proceedure on putting down the speed.

 

[loulblades]

I am not missing that point. My point is that it can be cured with the testimony of the officer.

Please stop referring to things which have nothing to do with your point. That page is not binding and came out differently from the way you are arguing here. All it is is some guy saying "Here look at this. It came out different from the way we think it should. Injustice!"

I reference the aforementioned to show a situation where a person had to go all the way to the PA Superior court to get a dismissal because a police officer and a magistrate couldn't deal with the "simple" math.

For the math disinclined, if A/B=C, then A=C*B. See, the equal sign is the trick. If you do the same thing to both sides of an equal sign, IT STILL EQUALS!

That cracks me up, but time is not the answer to this equation, speed is (And no, working it back is not the same thing even if it yields a "correct" answer).

Although the banter on here can be such a blast I hope the accused individual (wherever he is) will do his research and fight this.

Good luck.