NJ - 67 in a 45 - errors on mailed summons

[mronroad]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?New Jersey.

I was stopped for allegedly doing 67 MPH in a 45. The officer used radar. I was asked for my license, registration and insurance and the officer went to car for about a minute. He returned and told me that he had another call to go to and would be mailing me a ticket for 67MPH in a 45 MPH zone. (I was NOT doing 67.)

Two days later I recieved a Summons in the mail.

The Summons incorrectly lists the color of my car as BLACK, and the incorrectly states both the month and year of the expiration of my license.

The color of my car was observed by the officer as well as printed on the registration. The license expiration is clearly printed on my license.

Would these errors be grounds for dismissal, or should they be used to challenge the accuracy and attentiveness of the officer, ...thereby casting doubt on his attention while operation the radar device?


I have no points on my license and a clean driving record, but the 4pt ticket would raise my insurance. Am I better off trying to negotiate down to a 2pt ticket, ...a 0 pt ticket (with surcharge for NJ for "unsafe driving"), ...or go to trial and try to win outright?

Thanks.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by mronroad

Would these errors be grounds for dismissal

No.

or should they be used to challenge the accuracy and attentiveness of the officer, ...thereby casting doubt on his attention while operation the radar device?

No.

or go to trial and try to win outright?

And how do you figure that would happen?? You have provided NO defense of your speeding charge.

I don't believe you mentioned the tag number. If he got that right, you are sunk.

If you are exceeding the speed limit, then you are guilty of exceeding the speed limit, even if (insert your explanation here).

All the government has to prove is that you were speeding; they do not have to prove bad motives on your part.

[mronroad]

Originally Posted by JETX

No.


No.


And how do you figure that would happen?? You have provided NO defense of your speeding charge.

No, I didn't go into my defense argument. I merely asked if the incorrect information of the ticket/Summons was grounds for dismissal.

It's sort of disconcerting that people who are supposedly here to give "legal advice" are so lacking in reading comprehension skills.

[mronroad]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

I don't believe you mentioned the tag number. If he got that right, you are sunk.

If you are exceeding the speed limit, then you are guilty of exceeding the speed limit, even if (insert your explanation here).

All the government has to prove is that you were speeding; they do not have to prove bad motives on your part.

Hoo boy! Let me get this straight. If the license plate number is recorded correctly on the ticket then the State has proven its case and the defendant loses? I'm glad I'm not paying you $300 an hour to shovel the muck that constitutes your interpretation of the law at me.

You correct in that the State does not have to attribute any "bad motives" for the alleged violation in order to convict. They DO, however, need to establish a foundation upon which their "proof" relies.

Those of you without adequate legal background, and some of you that are members of the Bar but otherwise clueless, should refrain from responding to just to rack up your 'cyber social status' on this site. There indeed are defenses to most infractions, and to suggest that a defendant should not use them is utterly adsurd.

I posted in hope of getting a response to a specific question from someone that knew the law and had experience in my jurisdiction. Obviously I am seeking to have the charge dismissed either before or at trial. Comments from bafoons suggesting that it is impossible to prevail in my situation illustrate their ignorance, prejudices and lack of creative thinking potential.

If you don't know the answer; why waste your time posting? If you don't have something helpful to say; why waste my time? If you still insist on being an idiot; expect to be called out on it.

Smiling in your general direction,
mronroad

[JETX]

Originally Posted by mronroad

I merely asked if the incorrect information of the ticket/Summons was grounds for dismissal.

And of course that is NOT what you asked. Your post asked TWO questions:
1) "Would these errors be grounds for dismissal", or
2) " should they be used to challenge the accuracy and attentiveness of the officer, ...thereby casting doubt on his attention while operation the radar device?"

It's sort of disconcerting that people who are supposedly here to give "legal advise" are so lacking in reading comprehension skills.

And even more so that you can't 'count' questions.... and don't know the difference between advice and advise.

[mronroad]

Originally Posted by JETX

And of course that is NOT what you asked. Your post asked TWO questions:
1) "Would these errors be grounds for dismissal", or
2) " should they be used to challenge the accuracy and attentiveness of the officer, ...thereby casting doubt on his attention while operation the radar device?"


And even more so that you can't 'count' questions....

Oh jeeze, not another bozo with a badge.

It was ONE question.... "Would these errors be grounds for dismissal, or should they be used to challenge the accuracy and attentiveness of the officer, ...thereby casting doubt on his attention while operation the radar device? "


And, rest assured, if I go to trial, I plan to impeach the credibility of the cop if front of a courtroom full of laughing alleged traffic violators. I have no sympathy for corrupt or careless public servants.

[Happy Trails]

Originally Posted by mronroad

Oh jeeze, not another bozo with a badge.

It was ONE question.... "Would these errors be grounds for dismissal, or should they be used to challenge the accuracy and attentiveness of the officer, ...thereby casting doubt on his attention while operation the radar device? "


And, rest assured, if I go to trial, I plan to impeach the credibility of the cop if front of a courtroom full of laughing alleged traffic violators. I have no sympathy for corrupt or careless public servants.

What time did you get stopped and what color is your truck?

[mronroad]

Originally Posted by Happy Trails

What time did you get stopped and what color is your truck?

Holy moley. Where the heck did you see me mention a "truck"? I don't own a truck.


Here's a link to some free reading comprehension exercizes: [url]http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/200/reading/[/url]

I suggest the "Two SIsters and a Cat" story. Unfortunately, the cat is dead.

[Happy Trails]

I apologize, it is after mid-night where I'm posting from and I was reading from a site that was about fatal flaws and the vehicle they were using for an example was a truck.

So what time did you get pulled over and what color is your vehicle?

Or should I break the questions down for you?

[JETX]

Originally Posted by mronroad

And, rest assured, if I go to trial, I plan to impeach the credibility of the cop if front of a courtroom full of laughing alleged traffic violators.

Oh, wow!!! Even if that was true, the officer is likely to be far more mature than you.... so much so that he can admit it if he is wrong (you can't) and if correct, won't suffer from embarassment (as that is a 3rd grade 'concern'.... that you can relate to).

Your only hope is..... most courts now accept credit card payments of fines.

I have no sympathy for corrupt or careless public servants.

Nor I for punk juvenile idiots who's parents failed to teach them accountability and responsibility for their actions..... and never recognizing that THEY can be at fault by always trying to blame others for their own stupidity.

Originally Posted by mronroad

...Am I better off trying to negotiate down to a 2pt ticket, ...a 0 pt ticket (with surcharge for NJ for "unsafe driving"), ...or go to trial and try to win outright?...

Negotiate.

Originally Posted by mronroad

It's sort of disconcerting that people who are supposedly here to give "legal advise" are so lacking in reading comprehension skills.

Learn to spell.

[mronroad]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Negotiate..

I tried to negotiate, but the prosecutor just didn't seem to see it my way.


Before court -

I walked into the prosecutor's office, and she and six (count them, 6) cops were in the room. I, however, don't intimidate easily. I carry with me a stack of copies of case law (in triplicate), photographs, a laptop, and The Rules Of Court in NJ.


Prosecutor: Hi there. How are you?
Me: Fine thanks, and yourself.
Pro: I'm good, except for this sleet. I see you have a ticket here for going 67 in a 45. That's a 4 pt violation. I'll reduce that to going 59 in a 45, which is a 2pt violation and normanally won't effect your insurace if you agree to enter a guilty plea.
Me: <shakes head> Thanks, but no thanks. I'm feeling lucky tonight.
Pro: Um... well, I could reduce it to a 0 pt ticket, but the fine would be higher and you'd get hit with a $250 surcharge from the state thanks to McGreevey. WOuld you prefer I did that?
Me: No, why would I want to give the state $250?
Pros: So then what do you propose?
Me: I'd like you to drop the charge.
Pros: I said I would.
Me: You don't understand. I want you to drop it ENTIRELY.
Pros: I can't do that.
Me: Then I suppose we'll just have to go to trial.
Pros: If you insisit, ...but I'm willing to reduce the charge and have you out of here in half an hour.
Me: That's very nice of you, but I've missed my plans for this evening already, and, as I said earlier, I'm feeling lucky tonight. Oh, and by the way, my request for discovery went unanswered.
Pros: I don't have a record of it. We can put this off to another night if you wish.
Me: I'm here now. I'd rather not have to come again. See you in the court room.


Later in the evening:

Pros: Your Honor, I offered to reduce the charge, but the defendant wishes to have a trial.
Judge: Sir, the prosecutor is willing to offer you a plea bargain. If you wish to accept her offer at this time, I have no objection.
Me: Thank you Judge, but since the prosecutor is unwilling or unable to drop the charge entirely, I would like the matter to be heard.
Judge: You have that right. Let's proceed.

.

[mronroad]

The cop is called to the stand and gives the usual canned answers to the prosecutor's questions. When and where he stopped me, calibration of radar and the patrol car's speedometer, tuning fork chain of custody, etc. The Prosecution rests, but not before the prosecutor states, "Your Honor, if the defendant would still like to accept my offer of a reduced charge, The State has no objection."
Me: I would like to proceed with trial, Judge.
Judge: Are you sure?
Me: Yes.
Judge: The prosecutor is making you a very generous offer at this time. I see you are without counsel, but were you my client I would strongly recommend that you take her up on it.
Me: Thank you for your concern Judge, but I would like to proceed.
Judge: You may question the witness.

Me: May I approach the bench, Judge?
Judge: You may.

I hand the judge and prosecutor 14 copies of case laws from the State Supreme Court. The judge laughs and jokingly asks the prosecutor if she's sure that she doesn't want to dismiss the case outright.

Me: Judge, there is no Judicial Notice of the use of moving radar in this jurisdiction. I motion for this this matter to be dismissed.
Judge: Motion denied.

Me: I motion for dismissal, as the officer never testified that he calibrated the radar device AFTER he pulled me over. If is established and recognized scientific method that is you calibrate an instrument before and**************
Judge. Denied. You may question the officer about any subsequent calibration if you so wish.
Me: Judge, the State has rested and has failed to establish that the radar unit was working accurately AFTER the officer stopped me.
Judge: You may question the officer about that...
Me: It is not the defense's burden to solicit facts which are essential to the prosecution's case.
Judge: Denied. Please move on.

I begin questioning the cop.

Me: Officer, can you please tell the Court why you decided to lock your radar onto the vehicle?
Officer: I observed you traveling at a high rate of speed.
Me: I had never met you before I was pulled over. How did you know it was me?
Officer: I observed your vehicle.
Me: Can you describe the vehicle that you observed and subsequently locked your radar onto?
Officer: It was a black Porsche Cayenne.
Me: You stated it was traveling at a high rate of speed. Can You tell me how fast you estimated the vehicle to be going before you clocked the vehicle on radar?
Officer: 67 MPH
Me: How were you able to determine the speed to such accuracy just by observation.
Officer: I have completed <insert jibberish here> training course.
Me: Judge, there is no Judicial Notice in any jurisdiction of anyone being able to accurately ascertain speed by observation. I motion for dismissal.
Judge: He clocked you on radar. I am not not relying on his eyeball estimation of speed to make my determination. Motion denied.
Me: Officer, in your training, have you ever been instructed that accuracy is important in police work?
Officer: Yes
Me: Were you distracted, tired, or was anything other than your police duties on your mind on the night you pulled me over.
Officer: No
Me: Are you absolutely sure of that?
Prosecutor: Objection!
Judge: The officer answered your question.
Me: Judge, I would like to introduce this photograph into evidence. <legal BS as the photo is marked> (photo is side view of Black Porsche Cayenne)
Me: Officer, can you identify the vehicle in the photograph as the one you stiopped?
Officer: No. I have no way of knowing whether it is the same vehicle or just a similar vehicle.
Me: Exactly, officer. But is it possible that is a photograph of the vehicle that you pulled over?
Officer: Yes.
Me: Officer, please examine the Ticket/Summons. Would you please read the what you marked as color ir the vehicle.
Officer: B-K
Me: I am not familiar with a color called "B-K". Can you ex.....
Officer: Black.
Me: Officer, can you please read the expiration date of my driver's license as it appears on the ticket.
Officer: 3-05
Me: Please read the expiration date of my vehicle registration as it appears on the ticket.
Officer: 3-05
Me: Officer, are you color blind?
Officer: No.
Me: Do you have any visual impairments?
Officer: No.
Me: Any difficulty reading?
Officer: No.
Me: Judge, I would like to enter another photograph into evidence. A photo of my Cayenne.< More legal BS as it's maked> (Photo is front view of two Porsche Cayenne's parked next to each other. One is Black, on is Titanium Grey)
Me: Officer, would you please read the license plate nuber of my vehicle.
Officer: KLD-243
Me: Officer, directing your attention to the ticket, would you please read the license plate number that you recorded.
Officer: <pause> BEX-984 (I'm not using the REAL number in the photos)
Judge: Have you ever changed he license plates on your vehicle?
Me: Ojection! Judge, you are the finder of fact in this matter. I object to you taking on the role of the prosecution and I motion to .....
Judge: In this Court, I ask questions in order to clarify matters and move thing along.
Me: No Judge, I have never change the license plates on the vehicle, except when the temporaty tags were removed and the permanent plates put on 2 weeks after purchase.
Judge: Continue
Me: I would like to have copies of my vehicle registration and drivers license maked as exhibits. <Judge compared originals to copies, and exhibits were marked>
Me: Officer, drawing your attention to my registration, would you read the license plate number.
Officer: BEX-984
Me: Officer, please look at the second photo, exhibit b, and describe what you see.
Officer: Two Porsche Cayennes.
Me: And what colors are they?
Officer: Black and Grey.
Me: Officer, please read the color of vehicle maked on my registration.
Officer: Grey
Me: Officer, Please read the license plate number of the grey Cayenne in the photo.
Officer: BEX-984
Me: Judge, I motion for dismissal. The officer has incorrently identified my vehicle through his testimony and on his sworn affidavit, the ticket.
Judge: In this jurisdiction an incorrect color recorded on the summons is not a fatal flaw. Denied.
Me: Judge, it goes to the witnesses credibility.
Judge: Yes, it does. <glares at cop> But it not grounds for dismissal.
Me: Officer, Please read the expiration date of my registration as it appears on the registration card.
Officer: 3-05. And that's what it says on the ticket as well.
Me: So it does. Would you please read the expirtion of my drivers license as it appears on my license.
Officer: 6-07
Me: Officer, you are under oath. Moreover, in NJ, when you sign a ticket it is a sworn affadavit. You testified that the expiration date of my license as recorded on the ticket was 3-05. Would you like to look at the ticket again?
Prosecutor: Objection. The officer is well aware that he is under oath. Argumentative.
Me: Judge, this is cross examination.
Judge: There seems to be some discrepancies here. Please continue.
Me: Officer, you testified that the speedometer in your patrol car was accurate. Can you please show me the certified records indicating the last time it was calibrated?
Officer: I don't have the records with me.
Me: Then how do you know the speedometer is accurate?
Officer: THe department routinely checks the the accuracy of the speedometers.
Me: Are you personally involved in the calibration?
Officer: Sometimes.
Me: Prior to the date of this alleged offence, were you the last person to calibrate the speedometer on the patrol car that you were in when I was pulled over?
Officer: Probably.
Me: Probably? Were you or weren't you?
Officer: I would have to check the logs.
Me: The logs you don't have with you. Have you ever recieved any training or completed a certified course in speedometer repair and calibration?
Officer: I didn't say I repaired speedometers.
Me: Please answer the question. Yes or No.
Officer: No.
Me: Judge, I motion for dismissal, as the officer cannot provide dicumentation that the speedometer in the patrol car was accurate.
Prosecutor: The officer has testified that the sppedometer was accurate and that the department routinely calibrates the speedometers.
Me: He also testified that my vehicle was black, and that my license plate number was KLD-243.
Judge: The officer has testified that the speedometer was accutate.
Me: That's hearsay, Judge. He can provide no documentation as to the when the speedometer was last calibrated, and according to his best recollection, he "probably" was involved in the calibration, ...an activity for which he testified he has no training.
Judge: Motion denied. Are you ready to rest your case so I can rule?
Me: I have just started, Judge. I have alot more questions for the officer.
Judge: How much more? We don't have all night.
Me: I imagine, at the rate we're going, I could probably finish in an hour and a half or two hours.
Judge: <Glares at me - but not in a threatening way - almost an eye roll> I think you've made your points. Take a few minutes and finish up your questions.
Me: In the interest of Justice, I need to throughly examine this witness. Should you choose to rule against me in this matter I need to have established a record for appeal.
Judge: <chuckles - Folds his hand behind his head and leans back in his chair> Continue.

[mronroad]

Me: Officer, you testified that you calibrated the radar device before clocking me with the instrument. Did you calibrate the unit again after stopping me?
Officer: Yes
Me: Officer please show me the entry on the calibration log indicating the calibration after the stop.
Officer: I don't have the log with me.
Me: Judge, I motion for dismissal, as the officer cannot produce documentation that the radar device was calibrated either before or after I was allegedly clocked doing 67 MPH.
Judge: You should have asked for that in discovery.
Me: I did, bt the prosecution never supplied me with any discovery.
Prosecutor: We have no record of the defendant's request.
Me: Respectfully, even if I had not requested discovery, the officer's testimony is hearsay under the best evidence rule where a document exists that can be produced. Here is a copy of my letter requesting discovery, and a follow-up letter sent last week when I still had not received discovery.
Judge: These letters are addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" and were sent to the court clerk's office. In this municipality requests for discovery should be sent to the police department.
Me: I had no way of knowing that. The court clerk's office is right next to the police department. If it was too much trouble for the clerk to pass the request along, she at least could have advised me of the proper office to send the request to.
Judge: How much longer do you think this will take?
Me: I guess it depends on when you decide to rule in my favor.
Judge: <chuckles> I decided that when the officer gave testimony pertaining to the second photograph. As the state is unable to produce evidence as to the accuracy of the radar device, Defendant's motion for dismissal is granted.
Me: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Your honor? You have addressed me as judge throughout these procedings.
Me: I was trying not to be prejudiced either way, but, ...in light of the evidence....
Judge. <laughs> Have a good evening, ...and try to slow it down when you drive in this town, ...I would rather not have to hear the rest of that list of questions you have on some other occasion.