What is the name of your state?
What is the name of your state? Michigan
I had an informal hearing today for disregarding a red light in Michigan. The officer was 19 minutes late and only appeared because the court called him ten minutes after it was supposed to start.
Michigan law states:
1.14 The Informal Hearing
A. Failure of Officer to Appear
Effective January 1, 2006, MCR 4.101 was amended to address a police
officer’s obligation to appear at informal hearings. At the bottom of page 18,
replace the text in this subsection with the following language:
A police officer is required to appear at an informal hearing requested by a
defendant to whom the officer issued a citation. MCR 4.101(C)(2). Unless an
officer’s absence is excepted as provided by the rule, the court must dismiss
without prejudice any case at which the issuing officer fails to appear. Id. In
its entirety, MCR 4.101(C) states:
“(C) Appearance by Police Officer at Informal Hearing.
“(1) If a defendant requests an informal hearing, the court
shall schedule an informal hearing and notify the police
officer who issued the citation to appear at the informal
hearing.
“(2) The attendance of the officer at the hearing may not be
waived.
“Except when the court is notified before the
commencement of a hearing of an emergency preventing
an on-duty officer from appearing, failure of the police
officer to appear as required by this rule shall result in a
dismissal of the case without prejudice.” MCR
4.101(C)(1)–(2).
Nevertheless, the hearing went on and I asked the judge if this case should be dismissed. He said they typically give 15 minutes and further will not dismiss it if they know he's on his way in.
The hearing continued. The officer had no documentation whatsoever with him. (After taking oaths) The judge asked him what happened and he said I was driving on the east-west road and he saw me run a red light so gave me citation. I then spoke and informed the judge that I wasn't driving on the East-West Road, I was driving North. The next time the officer spoke, he indicated that he was thinking of a different incident and now he recalls my incident.
Then it was my turn and I indicated that I have pictures indicating that the layout of the road and overgrowth obstruct the signal and entire intersection. The road on which the violation occured is very curvy and the intersection comes into view roughly 320' to 350' ft from the intersection. the MUTCD states that at a 35 mph speed limit, you must be able to see a traffic signal from 325' unless a sign is posted warning of the upcoming intersection. There is no such sign. Anyway, the judge said he knows the intersection well and the area is regularly maintained and all the signs are posted properly.
I had topographical photos as well, estimating the distance to the overgrowth. I was not allowed to present any of my evidence because the judge stated that he knows the intersection and that everything is in order.
The New Magistrate Traffic Adjucation Manual for Michigan states that a defendant cited for disobeying a traffic signal may show that the sign or signal was obscured by rust of vegetation, or inoperative to to theft, vandalism, or mechanical failure*
the "*" references requirements for proper sign placement and the MUTCD.
He basically ended by saying that officers don't give tickets there unless the are sure that there was a violation, so the violation was valid, and that was the end of it.
I had plenty of other evidence and talking points, and the judge said none of them mattered, because 100' foot should be plenty for a person to stop, regardless of the circumstances. I'm pretty shocked at the way the process went, I could appeal based on the failure of the officer to appear, but maybe someone has input whether this is advisable.
What is the name of your state? Michigan
I had an informal hearing today for disregarding a red light in Michigan. The officer was 19 minutes late and only appeared because the court called him ten minutes after it was supposed to start.
Michigan law states:
1.14 The Informal Hearing
A. Failure of Officer to Appear
Effective January 1, 2006, MCR 4.101 was amended to address a police
officer’s obligation to appear at informal hearings. At the bottom of page 18,
replace the text in this subsection with the following language:
A police officer is required to appear at an informal hearing requested by a
defendant to whom the officer issued a citation. MCR 4.101(C)(2). Unless an
officer’s absence is excepted as provided by the rule, the court must dismiss
without prejudice any case at which the issuing officer fails to appear. Id. In
its entirety, MCR 4.101(C) states:
“(C) Appearance by Police Officer at Informal Hearing.
“(1) If a defendant requests an informal hearing, the court
shall schedule an informal hearing and notify the police
officer who issued the citation to appear at the informal
hearing.
“(2) The attendance of the officer at the hearing may not be
waived.
“Except when the court is notified before the
commencement of a hearing of an emergency preventing
an on-duty officer from appearing, failure of the police
officer to appear as required by this rule shall result in a
dismissal of the case without prejudice.” MCR
4.101(C)(1)–(2).
Nevertheless, the hearing went on and I asked the judge if this case should be dismissed. He said they typically give 15 minutes and further will not dismiss it if they know he's on his way in.
The hearing continued. The officer had no documentation whatsoever with him. (After taking oaths) The judge asked him what happened and he said I was driving on the east-west road and he saw me run a red light so gave me citation. I then spoke and informed the judge that I wasn't driving on the East-West Road, I was driving North. The next time the officer spoke, he indicated that he was thinking of a different incident and now he recalls my incident.
Then it was my turn and I indicated that I have pictures indicating that the layout of the road and overgrowth obstruct the signal and entire intersection. The road on which the violation occured is very curvy and the intersection comes into view roughly 320' to 350' ft from the intersection. the MUTCD states that at a 35 mph speed limit, you must be able to see a traffic signal from 325' unless a sign is posted warning of the upcoming intersection. There is no such sign. Anyway, the judge said he knows the intersection well and the area is regularly maintained and all the signs are posted properly.
I had topographical photos as well, estimating the distance to the overgrowth. I was not allowed to present any of my evidence because the judge stated that he knows the intersection and that everything is in order.
The New Magistrate Traffic Adjucation Manual for Michigan states that a defendant cited for disobeying a traffic signal may show that the sign or signal was obscured by rust of vegetation, or inoperative to to theft, vandalism, or mechanical failure*
the "*" references requirements for proper sign placement and the MUTCD.
He basically ended by saying that officers don't give tickets there unless the are sure that there was a violation, so the violation was valid, and that was the end of it.
I had plenty of other evidence and talking points, and the judge said none of them mattered, because 100' foot should be plenty for a person to stop, regardless of the circumstances. I'm pretty shocked at the way the process went, I could appeal based on the failure of the officer to appear, but maybe someone has input whether this is advisable.