MA Speeding ticket 65-70 in 30.

[LBE]

Hi. I recieved a speeding ticket in Massachusetts and am looking for some advice. I contested the ticket once already and I have a court date coming up later this month and I'm looking for some advice. The ticket is for "Speed greater than reasonable." Suprisingly, it is only a $100 fine for an estimated speed of 65-70 mph in a 30 mph zone. I have a previously clean record btw. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

The short version: An off duty detective saw a similar vehicle to mine drive by his house twice at 65-70 and called it in. He did not get the plates or any unique way of identifying the vehicle according to his filed report. Another officer pulled me over about a block away 20 minutes after the vehicle was called in. The officer wrote the ticket based on the off-duty detectives claims that my vehicle was the one he saw. The ticket was for a road I had never driven on that night.

The long version:

The circumstances of this make it a little odd. I dropped off a friend at about 2:45 am and started home at 28 mph. I have a digital speedometer and I'm sure of my speed because I was watching it and even used the cruise control as soon as the cruiser came up behind me. The police cruiser came up behind me at great speed and tailgated (within 6 ft) for a little less than a mile before pulling me over.

I was asked numorous questions by at least 3 officers. They asked where I was coming from, where I was headed to, and how fast I'd been driving etc. Their manner of questioning was extremely aggressive and I gathered by the numerous cruisers parked behind me that they were after someone for something. The detective asked many leading questions and twisted every answer I gave. When asked what roads I had driven on, I answered that I was not sure of the names of all the roads but listed the main ones that I knew of. When asked if I had at any point exceeded the speed limit I said that, due to hilly terrain etc, I may have gone a 1 or 2 mph over the limit but had tried my best not to exceed the limit. When asked if I had taken a direct route I said that I didn't know of a direct route. I was asked whether I had driven all main roads, I said that I hadn't because there was no way to get to where I was going on all "main roads". When asked if I had been in a hurry, I said that I was having a conversation with my friend and wanted to finish it before dropping him off so I was was taking my time.

The detective started telling me that he had seen me speeding and on a nearby specific road at 65-70 mph and I told him that that was impossible. He then told me that I was "full of ****" and that I was only "making this harder" on myself. After all, "How many cars are there driving around a 2 am? Who else could it be?" He told me to admit guilt and stop "bull****ting" him. He said that if I contested the ticket, he would show up to the court and tell the judge "everything." By the way, those were the words he used. I told him that I would not be pressured into admitting guilt or even some implied admission of guilt for an offence which I did not commit.

After three waves of roadside interrogation the officers had a huddle and decided to give me a "speed greater than reasonable" ticket for $100 for doing 65-70 mph in a 30.

The answers that I had given were twisted in the police reports filed by the officer who issued the ticket and detective that saw the car
. They said that I admitted to driving on side roads at a speed greater than the limit and that while I had was born and raised in the town could not tell the officers what roads I had driven on.

When I contested the ticket, I was told that, as I already had the minumum fine, the ticket could not be reduced. I was also told that because there was a question of what the officers actually saw, that I might want to appeal to get the officers there in person. I appealed.

Aside from any general advice, I am curious about a few specific points.

1. The vehicle observed speeding was never identified with a plate number or driver description and was going 65-70 on an unlit twisty street. Are they allowed to give me a ticket based on the fact that my car matches the general description?

2. Does the fact that the detective who saw the car was off-duty and not a traffic officer matter?

3. Does it matter that the vehicle was observed speeding by the detective, yet the ticket was written by a traffic officer with an "estimated speed"? Can one he write the ticket based on someone elses estimate?

4. How should I justify my statements in court? Should I simply try to avoid them, or actually take the time to explain the context?

5. When I was pulled over, I observed the detective read the badges off my car to the other officers. He looked at my vehicle like it was something new to him and didn't appear to know what it was. It is a first year model so that's understandable. The detective's report describes the car he saw as a "Black Mazda RX-6". There's no such thing as an RX-6, and all cars are black on an unlit street. There's RX 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. I have a Black RX-8. Is the fact that the detective, whose report is the basis for my ticket, misidentified the car something worth mentioning in court? Furthermore, my car was written on the ticket as a "Mazda Sedan" which it is not. It is a two door (suicide rear doors too, but they don't count on the registration etc) sports car. The fact that they misidentify my car twice in their paperwork and didn't even appear to know what it was when the pulled me over makes me question their ability to identify any car going by 65-70 on a twisty unlit road.

It's quite frustrating to be fighting a ticket that belongs to someone else. I think the fact that I was rather vague with my answers due to intimidation looked like a sign of guilt and is partially why I was issued the ticket. Being 18 years old and driving a sports car didn't help either. I also think that the detective was taking a stand by getting half a dozen cars brought to the area for the car he called in and didn't want to back down.

This ticket seems less than bulletproof but I'm not sure how to prove it.
If you read this whole thing, thanks. I hope hearing a different speeding ticket story than most is interesting. Any and all advice on this would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

[j0npeterson]

Man that sucks! Sorry to hear about all that bull.

I'm no expert, but if you're a local to the court, you might as well just try and appeal -- wouldn't hurt right? Seems like to me your story is reasonable and credible. No one can neither verify or discount yours or the officers claims; I would suspect that a reasonable judge might just clear it because lack of anything substantial.

Once again, you might as well try.

Good luck to you!

[poohmantbb]

Originally Posted by LBE

1. The vehicle observed speeding was never identified with a plate number or driver description and was going 65-70 on an unlit twisty street. Are they allowed to give me a ticket based on the fact that my car matches the general description?

A. In Oregon, at least, the Officer would have to be able to identify the driver to issue a violation. If you were seen going that fast by the actual car that pulled you over, then you might be in trouble. Oherwise, they could stop you based on probable cause and cite you for a crime.

If you left the area and could have changed drivers from the time when you were speeding, you probably have a case, because you can't PC a violation (except at a crash scene).

Originally Posted by LBE

2. Does the fact that the detective who saw the car was off-duty and not a traffic officer matter?

No. Any officer can write a traffic ticket. Did you learn this watching TV?

Originally Posted by LBE

3. Does it matter that the vehicle was observed speeding by the detective, yet the ticket was written by a traffic officer with an "estimated speed"? Can one he write the ticket based on someone elses estimate?

No. An Officer can cite someone based upon another obervation and implied reasonabl suspicion.

Originally Posted by LBE

4. How should I justify my statements in court? Should I simply try to avoid them, or actually take the time to explain the context?

Just tell the trut. Don't walk in there and lie or fabricate a story. You never know what evidence the police have... and if you are lying, you will look very stupid to the judge. It won't be his first time trying a case.

Originally Posted by LBE

5. Is the fact that the detective, whose report is the basis for my ticket, misidentified the car something worth mentioning in court?

No... A officer is not a car salesman..... Unimportant. He got a close description. Just because he called in sedan (which with 4 doors, I may have to) doesn't mean anything. If he would have said it was a 1993 Jeep Wrangler, blue in color, then you may have n argument.

[LBE]

Thanks for the understanding and the advice. I appreciate the help.

In Oregon, at least, the Officer would have to be able to identify the driver to issue a violation. If you were seen going that fast by the actual car that pulled you over, then you might be in trouble. Oherwise, they could stop you based on probable cause and cite you for a crime.

-- I never was observed by any car exceeding the speed limit. The only report of a speeding car is that of the detective who saw it drive by his house twice 20 minutes prior to my being being seen and pulled over nearby. The times listed in the police reports show that the radio report of the speeder and my being pulled over were twenty minutes apart.

So yes, if it was me I could have switched drivers however I would feel awkward saying that because I wasn't even in the area when the violation was called in. I would think it if I were to point this out, the judge might take it as me saying, "Yeah I did it, but you can't prove it was me." Would it be worth it to risk even implying that?

Furthermore, according to the two filed police reports, the only description of the speeding car was that it was an "RX-6." It makes no mention of a driver description or any other description. Given the rate of speed of the vehicle, I doubt anyone could even see the driver. Also, I have tinted windows and I always keep my interior lights off, and gauges on the dimmest setting. It's impossible to see inside my car at night, especially on an unlit street. But again, I feel like if I mentioned that, I'd be implying that I commited the offense and was just trying to show that they can't prove it. While the burden of proof should be on them, I question whether or not a judge would just go with his intuition with a case like this.

Any officer can write a traffic ticket. Did you learn this watching TV?

--No, I heard from a friend that an off duty officer cannot write tickets, only testify as a witness with some added credibility. I figured that this was the reason that the detective didn't write the ticket himself. The on duty officer driving the cruiser wrote the ticket based on the detectives account of the event. Still, your answer makes sense given the situation.

A officer is not a car salesman..... Unimportant. He got a close description. Just because he called in sedan (which with 4 doors, I may have to) doesn't mean anything. If he would have said it was a 1993 Jeep Wrangler, blue in color, then you may have n argument.

I guess this issue boils down to three questions:

1. Should I assume for the sake of the argument that they were correct in identifying the car despite being pretty sure they weren't? The reason why I doubt his identification of the vehicle is that my car is rather rare in this area. I've only seen 3 cars of the same make, model, and color in the last year. Seeing as it wasn't mine, I assumed he saw some different dark colored sports car. I don't see how he could have recognized an identical car by name when it went by 20 minutes earlier if he didn't know the name of mine when it was pulled over with lights shining on it. Still, he wrote in his report that he recognized it, and I'm sure he'll say in court that he recognized it.

2. Can they justify assuming that it was my car based on the rarity of the car and their assertion that the car they saw was identical? It wouldn't make sense to write a ticket to a red ford explorer just because they saw another one speed by 20 minutes earlier. Chances are that it would be a different one. If, however, they issued a ticket to a red ferarri because one was speeding in the are 20 minutes earlier, it was probably the same car .

3. If they assume that it was the same car, would that assumption be enough to not dismiss the ticket? Is this a probable cause thing, or a beyond a reasonable doubt thing? I'm sure that if they gave me a criminal case for driving to endanger it would be the latter, but "speed greater than reasonable" seems like a minor thing that they may not need to prove to that extent.

Also, does anyone know any other way I could get free legal advice? For a $100 ticket, I couldn't justify paying for a lawyer. But, given the rather strange circumstances of the ticket, I could use really use professional advice.

Thanks again for your help. This has already been profoundly helpful.

[sukharev]

MA law is great! (:-) You were most likely cited a section 90-17 (look up on ticket). Here is the link: [url]http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-17.htm[/url]

If you can prove the off-duty cop was the one that called the violation, and not the cops that followed you, he did not see you long enough (1/8 of a mile) - prove it and case dismissed! Summon the cop as hostile witness if needed. You need a city/town issued special regulation to prove speed limit was legal. If none exists (happens often), you are home free (well, almost).