speeding ticket by site

[jimmyjam]

What is the name of your state?ca

My friend was driving on a two lane highway and was traveling 65 on a 55. She noticed a CHP coming towards her and she slowed to 55. The CHP turned around and pulled her over for speeding. The CHP did not use a radar/lidar but said she was giving her a speeding ticket by site. Never heard of such a thing. How does the CHP know BY SITE how fast exactly anyone is going. Can she fight this. Any advice would be great

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state?ca

My friend was driving on a two lane highway and was traveling 65 on a 55. She noticed a CHP coming towards her and she slowed to 55. The CHP turned around and pulled her over for speeding. The CHP did not use a radar/lidar but said she was giving her a speeding ticket by site. Never heard of such a thing. How does the CHP know BY SITE how fast exactly anyone is going. Can she fight this. Any advice would be great

**A: this website also gives speeding tickets too. We just estimate the speed using our pretzel logic and fuzzy math.

 

[sukharev]

Yes, and she should. Do TBD first (look it up on this site and on the web), then de-novo trial if needed.

Visual speed estimate is legit, but not precise, and given that speed of both cars was high, margin of error is high, too. With any luck, ticket would be dismissed or reduced to a non-moving violation.

 

[CdwJava]

With any luck, ticket would be dismissed or reduced to a non-moving violation.

You can't change a moving violation to a non-moving violation ... I can't think of a charge that it could be reduced to even if the DA was so inclined.

Besides, the court won't reduce it. It is what it is.

- Carl

 

[sukharev]

You can't change a moving violation to a non-moving violation ... I can't think of a charge that it could be reduced to even if the DA was so inclined.

Besides, the court won't reduce it. It is what it is.

- Carl

Maybe in the courts you have been in, that's the case. Also, you may not even see the plea bargain going on, because they only ask officer to appear at trial.

Anyhow, typically you can negotiate a plea bargain agreement with a change to a non-moving violation (like parking ticket). This is possible for small speed tickets like the one OP has. For large tickets (over 20 MPH), a typical offer is to reduce to smaller speed (and corresponding fines). Basically, you can plead guilty to anything, if you choose to do so, regardless original charge. Question is, whether DA would offer you a deal or not. They can substitute charges to whatever is agreed to, and it could be garbage dumping or anything else. I AM NOT SAYING IT WILL OR SHOULD HAPPEN, it may (in one shape or form), that's the traffic court system, a mockary of real justice.

 

[justalayman]

Basically, you can plead guilty to anything, if you choose to do so, regardless original charge. Question is, whether DA would offer you a deal or not. They can substitute charges to whatever is agreed to, and it could be garbage dumping or anything else.

Every time you guys say things like this Lynndie England comes to mind. The adjudicator in her case refused to accept her guilty plea because she stated that she was not guilty but pleading so because of a deal. Many times as well, the defendant in court is required to eloquute (sp?) the crime to the judge. If they cannot convince the judge, they can be refused to plead guilty. I realize traffic infractions are much less serious than anything I am speaking of, but how can the courts simply say ok even with this?

 

[CdwJava]

Maybe in the courts you have been in, that's the case. Also, you may not even see the plea bargain going on, because they only ask officer to appear at trial.

Okay ... WHAT are you going to reduce a speeding violation to? Parking? An equipment violation? Unless the offense is a lesser included offense, it ain't gonna happen. And if it does happen (and while I have never heard of it being done, I am willing to concede that there are abherrant traffic court commissioners out there that might allow it), then the court might be seen as suborning perjury as the defendant would have to admit to a crime they did not commit.

- Carl

 

[poppakeith]

And if it does happen (and while I have never heard of it being done, I am willing to concede that there are abherrant traffic court commissioners out there that might allow it), then the court might be seen as suborning perjury as the defendant would have to admit to a crime they did not commit.
- Carl

Happens with great regularity in traffic cases....that the defendant pleads guilty to a false charge....to something he did not commit. For that matter, attorneys even recommend it in many instances, and the system encourages it.

 

[sukharev]

Okay ... WHAT are you going to reduce a speeding violation to? Parking? An equipment violation? Unless the offense is a lesser included offense, it ain't gonna happen. And if it does happen (and while I have never heard of it being done, I am willing to concede that there are abherrant traffic court commissioners out there that might allow it), then the court might be seen as suborning perjury as the defendant would have to admit to a crime they did not commit.

- Carl

I guess you have not heared of plea bargain

Well, here is the best explanation I could find. Others pretty much are a subset (including dictionary definitions). Nowhere does it say that the charge has to be a subset of a larger charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

Here are federal rules of criminal procedure. I bolded the key phrase (notice OR clause):

(c) Plea Agreement Procedure.

(1) In General.

An attorney for the government and the defendant's attorney, or the defendant when proceeding pro se, may discuss and reach a plea agreement. The court must not participate in these discussions. If the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to either a charged offense or a lesser or related offense, the plea agreement may specify that an attorney for the government will:

(A) not bring, or will move to dismiss, other charges;

(B) recommend, or agree not to oppose the defendant's request, that a particular sentence or sentencing range is appropriate or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request does not bind the court); or

(C) agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule11.htm

 

[CdwJava]

I guess you have not heared of plea bargain

Sure I have. And there is a recent CA case that forbade pleas to crimes that were not committed. So you can't plead guilty to having a tail light out if you had been speeding and there was no allegation of a tail light being out! I can't recall the cite off hand, but I received word of it last year. It was not common but there were counties that would allow people to plead to charges that were completely unrelated to offenses that occurred. This is not lawful ... though it may still be a practice somewhere. After all, who's going to complain?

- Carl

 

[garrula lingua]

I have seen it done.

When a criminal court is tied up because a Commissioner/Pro Tem isn't available in Traffic Court, and along come 10+ traffic trials in the middle of a heavy calendar of Prelims and arraignments and Readiness Hearings...

The accused can plead no contest because it is in his/her best interest to do so (see People v West pleas).

Prosecutors, stuck in that position, can sometimes get caught up in 'settling' infractions, which they normally don't appear on.

The easiest manner of resolving the issue is for accused to answer the DA's question:
Is there some other offense which you believe you are guilty of, rather than how you're charged ?
or ... are you really contesting the ticket or are you trying to get the Judge to allow traffic school/ allow community service/ longer payment period ?

DAs can add or dismiss charges. Most Judges, in that position will appreciate a DA who is willing to assist in clearing the calendar. Most Deputies/Officers will agree to allow a DA to try to resolve the ticket.
If not, they can usu sit in court for six more hours and wait for their turn at counsel table.
If the ticket is serious, or the accused or Officer/Dep wants a trial; trial it is.

 

[poppakeith]

Sure I have. And there is a recent CA case that forbade pleas to crimes that were not committed. So you can't plead guilty to having a tail light out if you had been speeding and there was no allegation of a tail light being out! I can't recall the cite off hand, but I received word of it last year. It was not common but there were counties that would allow people to plead to charges that were completely unrelated to offenses that occurred. This is not lawful ... though it may still be a practice somewhere. After all, who's going to complain? - Carl

That would be a dream law, Carl. Every case not thrown out before it gets started requires a plea ....of "guilty" or "not guilty" or one of those no contention things. Guy mails in a fine, without coming to court, it is entered as a plea of "guilty", and that stands, even if the crime alleged was never committed. Sometimes the only crime is a cop making a false allegation. See what I'm getting at?

 

[poohmantbb]

Sometimes the only crime is a cop making a false allegation. See what I'm getting at?

Aaaahhh yes, because they have SOO much to gain.... get over it.

 

[CdwJava]

That would be a dream law, Carl. Every case not thrown out before it gets started requires a plea ....of "guilty" or "not guilty" or one of those no contention things.

I guess the fact that a court would have to subborn perjuty to have a person allocute to a crime they did not commit.

As I said, if the offense saves them a few points, who is going to complain? So I have no doubt that it still happens from time to time especially in cases where the plea is "no contest".

Sometimes the only crime is a cop making a false allegation. See what I'm getting at?

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... cops are evil, lying SOBs that want to do nothing but lie to the courts and masturbate while innocent people get jammed by the system.

Of course.



- Carl

 

[sukharev]

Sometimes the only crime is a cop making a false allegation. See what I'm getting at?

You are getting at nothing, my friend. There is no need to pretend that every time you get a speeding ticket you are innocent. I prefer to stick to the concept "punishment does not fit the crime". When you are punished for six years with thousands of dollars in insurance costs, it makes the whole thing look like the money collection business, and not a law enforcement. DUI, etc. I understand and don't disagree with. Simple speeding, another matter. 40 in 25 mph deserves a $100 fine, but that's it. As for the cops who give the tickets, well, I hope Carl agrees that sometimes they do make HONEST mistakes. I deeply respect their profession, and it's sad that the system is built to antagonize cops and drivers.