speeding ticket even though it wasnt speeding per se

[DRTDEVL]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

Great bit of research there but watch this....

For every error value that you researched and quoted, there is a "+" value and a "-" value... So while while assuming a +/- 5mph error, and if you try to argue that the OP's speed of 58mph could have been 53mph due to the stated error rate, you are also suggesting that his recorded speed of 58mph, could have been 63mph... Average both values that are "possible" and you're back at 58mph.

That is why judges won't allow you the time to present such an argument.


Its not for me to "allow" him or "not allow" him!!!

That is up to the Judge!

And not being allowed to present the argument is grounds for overturn on appeal.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by DRTDEVL

And not being allowed to present the argument is grounds for overturn on appeal.

It might be grounds for appeal ... maybe ... but if you cannot present your evidence in a manner that conforms to the law of your state, it may not be grounds for appeal.

It may well be that no technical argument can be presented absent some foundation for your opinion, or some foundation for the validity of any documents you present to the court. If the presented evidence does not conform to state law and is not permitted on that basis, you are very likely not going to have much of a grounds for appeal.

- Carl

[I_Got_Banned]

In addition the what Carl has eloquently stated, a judge does not have to sit there listening to you present pointless argument after pointless argument.

If at any point in time he/she feels that you're spinning your wheels and not going anywhere, he/she has the authority to cut you off.

And frankly, by your presenting:
1. Hypothetical arguments like "worn out tires", when in fact you have no clue as to how new or worn out those tires were, or
2. Radar +/- error rates that can only prove more guilt (70% of the time ~ from a speed of 56mph to a speed of 63mph) than innocence (30% of the time ~ from a speed of 53mph to a speed of 55mph).

.... Then you are only spinning your wheels and wasting the court's time!!!!

lastly, the court of appeals will hear your case if the judge in your case were to make a procedural error or one where he interpreted the law in an way that is inconsistent with how it is written. But to get a verdict overturned on appeal because you think the judge didn't allow you enough leeway as you had wanted.... Good luck!

[LSCAP]

This is way off the point.
His defense is that he was not in a 45mph zone. Period.
He has pictures.
He says “I was going 55 mph in a 55 zone and reducing speed to the 45MPH sign when I was stopped.”

I only meant that if he admits to three miles an hour over the 55Mph zone, he is admitting guilt, to speeding.

Though I seriously doubt the judge would say, “Not guilty to 58 in a 45, now write another ticket for 58 in a 55MPH zone,” then “guilty of 58 in a 55.”

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by LSCAP

This is way off the point.
His defense is that he was not in a 45mph zone. Period.
He has pictures.
He says “I was going 55 mph in a 55 zone and reducing speed to the 45MPH sign when I was stopped.”

I only meant that if he admits to three miles an hour over the 55Mph zone, he is admitting guilt, to speeding.

Though I seriously doubt the judge would say, “Not guilty to 58 in a 45, now write another ticket for 58 in a 55MPH zone,” then “guilty of 58 in a 55.”

You are right. The point the OP origionally made was that he was not in a 45mph speed zone. That is even written in the title of the thread!!! The problem is that some people on this site have very selective hearing (or reading). They only want to focus on tangential issues that support their predetermined opinion that the OP is guilty and he has no defense for anything he has been charged with. I'm surprised that none of them have asked the OP for any statistical evidence that the speed limit was 55mph!!!

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by LSCAP

This is way off the point.
His defense is that he was not in a 45mph zone. Period.
He has pictures.
He says “I was going 55 mph in a 55 zone and reducing speed to the 45MPH sign when I was stopped.”

I only meant that if he admits to three miles an hour over the 55Mph zone, he is admitting guilt, to speeding.

Though I seriously doubt the judge would say, “Not guilty to 58 in a 45, now write another ticket for 58 in a 55MPH zone,” then “guilty of 58 in a 55.”

LSCAP, please read post #2 and tell me who was it who started this whole discussion about the guilt or innocence of someone driving 58 in 55.

Then scroll down to posts 7 & 9 and tell me who participated in discussing the "worn tire" theory and the effect, or lack thereof on Speedometer & Radar readings.

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

You are right. The point the OP origionally made was that he was not in a 45mph speed zone. That is even written in the title of the thread!!! The problem is that some people on this site have very selective hearing (or reading). They only want to focus on tangential issues that support their predetermined opinion that the OP is guilty and he has no defense for anything he has been charged with. I'm surprised that none of them have asked the OP for any statistical evidence that the speed limit was 55mph!!!

Oh, the hypocrisy...
So how does your nagging about other peoples' post help the OP with his defense???

[LSCAP]

HUH? Oh Okay.
I said:

2) If you admit to even one mile over the limit. you're admitting guilt.
Yeah, I made a mistake. I assumed everyone knew the fight was to prove WHERE HE WAS, and NOT make a mistake and admit over the 55 by saying 58.
(Like when a cop says 80 in a 60 and the deft says “But officer I was only doing 75.…)

(7) Using the worn tire excuse.
When your tires wear down they get smaller and turn faster and your speedometer reads a speed faster than you are actually going.
For me it gives me 31 mpg instead of actual 30 MPG anyway that's what the odometer says.
Yep. Made the mistake of being sarcastic.

Plead not guilty, You have pictures. You had to do the posted speed when you got there. and deny the 58. Even one mile over, is guilty.



(9) The officer's radar tell him/her how fast he is going, and then calculates how fast the deft was going. Has nothing to do with tires.
Yep disgusted. Lost point of innocence.
This one may be a gimmick. You go to court and say I wasn't doing 58 in a 45, I was doing 58 in a 55. oops Guilty .
Again warning about admitting any guilt.

And as far as I'm concerned, the prosecution assumes radar was handed down by the almighty. The gadgets can be so far off it's unbelievable.

At least, in the old old days it was fixed in place. tested for accuracy, and then a patrol car with a verified accurate speedometer, drove past the radar point.
If what the op says is true...He only has to prove where he was.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by LSCAP

If what the op says is true...He only has to prove where he was.

Point is, and as far as I can see, even the OP is not sure what the truth is... He too is posing hypotheticals that do not make sense (i.e. "a temporary surge in a vehicle's speed when the driver downshifts")...

But an even more important point is, some people on here like to nag and complain about everybody else not benefiting the OP in any way when in fact, their same post offered no benefit whatsoever!

And I'm not talking about you LSCAP....

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

Point is, and as far as I can see, even the OP is not sure what the truth is... He too is posing hypotheticals that do not make sense (i.e. "a temporary surge in a vehicle's speed when the driver downshifts")...

The OP is very clear on what the truth is... he was not in the reduced speed zone at the location of the alleged violation.

But an even more important point is, some people on here like to nag and complain about everybody else not benefiting the OP in any way when in fact, their same post offered no benefit whatsoever!

And I'm not talking about you LSCAP....

I think you have a guilty conscience.

[vcpirate99]

ok, after all that was posted on here, it was easier than any of you would think in court. the DA came up to me to discuss the sides of the ticket and saw that i had pictures. the fact of the matter is, on one stretch of the same highway, the speeds are different in opposite directions for a few blocks. so, going northbound, the speed is 45, but going southbound, the speed is 55. the DA took my pictures over to a supervisory police officer who showed up as well as the police officer who wrote the ticket. the DA then came back to me and told me it was the police officers first week on the job and that he did not know that the speed limit was different going in the direction that i was going, and dismissed the ticket.