Unfair traffic hearing

[mringnal]

What is the name of your state? Michigan

I had an informal hearing last week for disregarding a red light in Michigan, where I am a resident. The officer was 19 minutes late for the hearing and only appeared because the court called him ten minutes after it was supposed to start.

I found some rules about the officer appearing for a hearing and this is what it 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).

I read this to the judge and asked 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.

When he showed up, 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, but gave no specific details.

When was allowed to speak again, I indicated that I have pictures indicating that the layout of the road and overgrowth along side it obstruct the signal at a bend in the road before the signal comes into view. The road on which the violation occurred is very curvy and the intersection comes into view roughly 320' to 330' ft from the intersection. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices states that at a 35 mph speed limit, a traffic signal should be seen 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 where a sight line is first achieved. 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 be excused if he /she can show that the sign or signal was obscured by rust of vegetation, or inoperative due to theft, vandalism, or mechanical failure*.
The ' * ' references requirements for proper sign placement as stated in the MUTCD.

I referenced the sources for my defense multiple times as a reason to present my evidence, but the judge was having none of it.

He basically ended by saying that officers don't give tickets there unless they are sure that there was a violation, so the violation was valid, and that was the end of it. Neither the judge nor the officer even referred to any specifics of the alleged violation as it occurred. All they did was speak in generalities about officers giving citations at that intersection only when they know it was a violation.

I had plenty of other evidence and talking points, and the judge said none of them mattered, because 100' should be plenty for a person to stop if the speed limit is 35 mph, regardless of the circumstances. I'm pretty shocked at the way the process went, and am looking for advice on whether I should just drop it and pay the fine and take the 3 points on my license, or appeal and get an attorney. There are procedures in place for these hearings that I found through Michigan government websites, and these were not followed.

[gawm]

What's your question?

[mringnal]

Is this an open and shut case if I appeal?

[sukharev]

It depends on how much money that would cost, as well as whether the appeal is actually not an appeal but a "formal" hearing of your case. I'd do it if costs are below $100, and even more so if the hearing is not an appeal, because then you still have to have officer present, and chances are he would not show up at all.