Disregard traffic control device in PA

[Gio7707]

State PA :

Disregard traffic control device S 75 $3111 $$A

My friend didn't realize that there was a sign posted (7am TO 9am is onway street) The officer told him to expect the ticket by mail. Which he received a couple of days later. Is there a valid defense (motion to quash) to fight the ticket ??

Any advice is highly appr.

Thanks Gio

 

[Just Blue]

State PA :

Disregard traffic control device S 75 $3111 $$A

My friend didn't realize that there was a sign posted (7am TO 9am is onway street) The officer told him to expect the ticket by mail. Which he received a couple of days later. Is there a valid defense (motion to quash) to fight the ticket ??

Any advice is highly appr.

Thanks Gio

Not paying attention to signs is not a valid defense...pay your ticket.

 

[seven53]

If there is indeed a sign posted and your friend did indeed disregard the sign, what could possibly be a valid defense?

 

[Gio7707]

If there is indeed a sign posted and your friend did indeed disregard the sign, what could possibly be a valid defense?

motion to quash, unconstitutional act

officer (plaintiff) failed to serve defendant in the proper form and proper manner as required under the rules.

 

[The Occultist]

motion to quash, unconstitutional act

officer (plaintiff) failed to serve defendant in the proper form and proper manner as required under the rules.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so for your friend's sake, you better just back off on trying to "help" him.

 

[Gio7707]

Disregard traffic control device

Thanks for all the replies , of course I post on about seven boards at the same time and it is amazing what different results I get. However this board seems to be just onesided and since researching the case I know that the most relevant issue here is that the plaintiff did
not serve the defendant properly (besides no mail received yet).

 

[FlyingRon]

Thanks for all the replies , of course I post on about seven boards at the same time and it is amazing what different results I get. However this board seems to be just onesided and since researching the case I know that the most relevant issue here is that the plaintiff did
not serve the defendant properly (besides no mail received yet).

I don't know what the other sites are, but you'd be advised not to rely on them. You seem to be confusing your traffic ticket with a civil action. The cop is not a "plaintiff" and "service" doesn't apply.

 

[Gio7707]

http://www.motorists.org/fightticket/home/traffic-tickets-big-business/

Check it out !

 

[FlyingRon]

And where does on that page (or any of it's linked pages) say squat about getting out of ticket due to service issues or calling the police a "plaintiff"?

 

[elena77]

if your friend did not notice the sign it's his fault and the judge will tell you "there was a sign". Thinking logically, if you get run over by a driver who did not see you, can he use "I did not notice him" as a defense?

 

[Gio7707]

Of course the driver is in default, I am not defending that. The fact is that the officer did not give hime a ticket at the moment of the violation (expect it in the mail). For example an older case :

The officer did search the trunk of a driver, he did not have a search warrant. The case was later dismissed because the officer did violate the law by not having a search warrant.
This goes similiar with "not being served properly".

 

[>Charlotte<]

The officer told him to expect the ticket by mail. Which he received a couple of days later.

the plaintiff did not serve the defendant properly (besides no mail received yet).

So, which is it?

 

[The Occultist]

Of course the driver is in default, I am not defending that. The fact is that the officer did not give hime a ticket at the moment of the violation (expect it in the mail). For example an older case :

The officer did search the trunk of a driver, he did not have a search warrant. The case was later dismissed because the officer did violate the law by not having a search warrant.
This goes similiar with "not being served properly".

That is not a like comparison.

Look, it is not uncommon for traffic stops to result in a citation being mailed out to the defendant at a later date. The SoL on a traffic violation are going to be a little more than 5 minutes, alright?

 

[Orcons]

That is not a like comparison.

Look, it is not uncommon for traffic stops to result in a citation being mailed out to the defendant at a later date. The SoL on a traffic violation are going to be a little more than 5 minutes, alright?

I think part of the confusion here is caused by the fact that the requirements vary by state. Does anyone know if it is legit in PA to mail a citation? In my state, MA, this would not be valid. Except in some extreme cases, a citation has to be handed to the violator so what happened to this individual would not fly in MA. Having said that, based on the info on these boards, it appears that most states allow citations to be mailed.

The critical question for the OP is what is allowed in PA, not what you can find on some generic web site.

 

[quincy]

Usually in Pennsylvania, a citation will be handed directly to the person by the police officer at the time of the offense, however it is allowable for an officer to mail the citation with valid reason. There is no specification as to what a valid reason is, as far as I could tell.