WI speedy trial for speeding ticket: 1 year?

[JACWY]

What is the name of your state? Wisconsin

I received a speeding ticket (citation) in Wisconsin on 8/9/2004. The trial date has finally been set for September 29, 2005. More than one year later. Is this a violation of my right to a speedy trial?

Here are the facts:
1. Citation issued 8/9/04 WI Statute #:346.57 (4) (B) [for speeding in 55 MPH one (20-24)]
2. "Not guilty" plea entered by registered mail 8/30/2004.
3. Pre-trial conference notice received 10/08/04.
4. "Pre-trial conference" held at District Attorney's Office on 12/20/2004. "Not guilty": plea was reconfirmed with the District Attorney in person at that conference.
5. "Court Trial" notice dated 5/03/2005 received on 5/05/2005. "Court Trial" date on this notice is September 29, 2005, more than ONE YEAR since my "not guilty" plea was entered.

To the best of my knowledge I did not waive my right to a speedy trial.

Not that it matters, but this was a speed trap. I have a Minnesota license and was driving a car with Minnestoa plates (a typical target in Wisconsin as I have come to understand). I have no problem appearing in person as I did for the "pre-trial" conference last December.

I do not know if this "citation" is covered in my right to a speedy trial. If it is, they surely have violated that right. What would be my best course of action? Should I move to dismiss this?

Thanks!

 

[wirry1422]

Yes, I believe the state is in violation of speedy trial laws in this case. You should look up the state statutes and regs regarding court procedure and speedy trial definitions, print that out and present that at trial along with a formal motion for dismissal of the charge.

 

[Peetie]

I don't know anything about Wisconsin law but here in New York State, there is no statute that affords speedy trial rights to traffic matters.

So, if Wisconsin is the same way, make the arguement anyway because even if there is no state speedy trial right, there is a federal constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court, Appellete Term, 2nd Department in New York has dismissed speeding tickets for that exact reasoning - even if there is no statutory right, there is a constitutional right.

The following passage is from my pro se appeal brief appealing a conviction in town court for speeding (a successful appeal, I might add):



In People v Thorpe, 160 Misc.2d 558; 613 N.Y.S.2d 795 (1994), the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, unequivocally stated:

“In answer to the defendant’s assertion in his affidavit of errors that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated, the return of the court merely asserted that the right to a speedy trial did not apply to a traffic violation. This assertion is incorrect, since the constitutional right to a speedy trial applies to all prosecutions (People v Wertheimer, NYLJ, June 5, 1986 at 15, col 5 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).”

 

[Curt581]

Here are the facts:
1. Citation issued 8/9/04 WI Statute #:346.57 (4) (B) [for speeding in 55 MPH one (20-24)]

First, it's not 346.57(4)(b). That section refers to a 15 mph limit passing an intersection marked with "School Crossing".

You were cited for violating 346.57(4)(h), which is fixed limits posted at 55 mph.

Note the handwritten " h " vs. " b "

2. "Not guilty" plea entered by registered mail 8/30/2004.
3. Pre-trial conference notice received 10/08/04.
4. "Pre-trial conference" held at District Attorney's Office on 12/20/2004. "Not guilty": plea was reconfirmed with the District Attorney in person at that conference.
5. "Court Trial" notice dated 5/03/2005 received on 5/05/2005. "Court Trial" date on this notice is September 29, 2005, more than ONE YEAR since my "not guilty" plea was entered.

To the best of my knowledge I did not waive my right to a speedy trial.

You have no right to a "speedy trial" in a civil forfeiture case under Wisconsin law.

In a criminal offense, "speedy trial" could apply, but Wisconsin requires that you file a speedy trial demand. Not doing so results in waiving the right by default.

Not that it matters, but this was a speed trap.

A "speed trap", huh?

The accepted definition of "Speed Trap" would be an area of continuous near highway speeds, suddenly being posted at a much lower speed, without reasonable warning.

You were cited in a posted 55 zone, which is the speed limit on all of Wisconsin's non-Interstate highways(and is the limit on Interstate hwys in or near urban areas).

The top speed limit in Wisconsin is 65 mph. That's reserved for rural Interstates. Since you were cited for exceeding the 55 limit by 20-24 mph, you'd have still been speeding even if it had been a 65 zone.

So how exactly does that constitute "speed trap"?


Because it was you who was cited?

] I have a Minnesota license and was driving a car with Minnestoa plates (a typical target in Wisconsin as I have come to understand).

Naaa... It's just the whole Vikings vs Packers thing.

I do not know if this "citation" is covered in my right to a speedy trial. If it is, they surely have violated that right.
What would be my best course of action? Should I move to dismiss this?

I think you should. You'll loose... but you'll be told by a Judge that you have no such right. That way, you don't have to take my word for it.

 

[Veronica1228]

Naaa... It's just the whole Vikings vs Packers thing.

No contest. It's the Packers all the way!!!

 

[JACWY]

A "speed trap", huh?
So how exactly does that constitute "speed trap"?

Because it was you who was cited?

The accepted definition of "Speed Trap" would be an area of continuous near highway speeds, suddenly being posted at a much lower speed, without reasonable warning.

Well, actually there are a number of definitions of a "speed trap."

Here is the Wikipedia definitiion, as found on the web and not much different from most of the others:

The term speed trap has several meanings, related to detection of speed limit violations.

It can refer to a place where a road-rule enforcement camera is posted.
California traffic law formally defines a certain kind of "speed trap" which is forbidden to be used by police officers as an evidence.

Still another meaning is a specific location in which police wait in concealment, hoping to catch unwary motorists speeding. For example, a police car might wait behind a bridge or overpass, out of sight of approaching motorists, then pull out once they pass. Often, this type of operation uses a radar gun to track cars' speeds.

Most commonly, it refers to strict enforcement speed limits using techniques or criteria which evidence suggests aren't purely motivated by road safety.

Hope this helps!

 

[Curt581]

Well, actually there are a number of definitions of a "speed trap."

Here is the Wikipedia definitiion, as found on the web and not much different from most of the others:

The term speed trap has several meanings, related to detection of speed limit violations.

It can refer to a place where a road-rule enforcement camera is posted.
California traffic law formally defines a certain kind of "speed trap" which is forbidden to be used by police officers as an evidence.

Still another meaning is a specific location in which police wait in concealment, hoping to catch unwary motorists speeding. For example, a police car might wait behind a bridge or overpass, out of sight of approaching motorists, then pull out once they pass. Often, this type of operation uses a radar gun to track cars' speeds.

Most commonly, it refers to strict enforcement speed limits using techniques or criteria which evidence suggests aren't purely motivated by road safety.

I think you've covered all the bases. In other words, any time police enforce highway speed laws, it's a Speed Trap.

Gotcha.

Hope this helps!

It doesn't.