Speed trap question

[amo1977]

Nebraska, Sante Sioux reservation

So, I got a speeding ticket last week. Stretch of highway I travel pretty regular in the fall. Well about 6 weeks ago they changed a stretch of about 1/2-3/4 of a mile. It goes from 65, to 55 and then for roughly about 100 yards on a curve it drops to 45. Right on the sharp part of the curve, the patrolman sat. He was visible, but not till right around the curve. Hind sight, it was the tribal police that pulled me over. I have a friend who's Grandpa was the sheriff there and she has told me previously that they only have juristiction over the tribe. If your not tribal, you can request the sheriffs department or state patrol. Usually, they won't respond right away and the tribal police will let you go. I signed the complaint (ticket) so Im screwed on that, and there was a deputy on the highway 5 miles away anyway.

I went back the next day in daylight, and speed limit signs and well as reduced speed ahead signs are posted. I took pics with GPS coordinates. I need to double check, but will assume that he was sitting inside the 45 MPH zone to clock me. The officer did knock it down from 65 in a 45 to 55, but when I was sitting there, I finally said after he explained where the signs were at I said "so in a stretch that had been 65 you slow it way down to a 45 for a whole 100 yards" with a dirty look. He grinned back and said "its a safety issue". Was I speeding yes. What I find annoying about it is, not only is it a trap, but due to being along the banks of the Missouri River, they had a mile of guard rail. As I was traveling along to find a safe place to pull over, an oncomming vehicle stopped in its lane and got over as far as it could (which was like 2 feet) as we went by. Its just a dam poor place to safely pull someone over. He even asked me why I didn't pull over right away and I said there wasn't a safe place to pull over. He agreed with my response.

So with the background explained, is there anyway I can weasel out of this? I need to look a little bit closer at the longitude numbers. I almost think the lat and long on the ticket isn't within the 45 MPH area, but he would have clocked me behind him which most likely was in the 45 MPH zone. Thing is GPS is GPS and that's the reason they put it on the ticket. The ticket isn't a huge issue. Just annoys me. He played nice by knocking it down. Ticket is $25 plus $49 court costs which is the point of a speed trap is generating revenue. My main pet peeve and reason I'd like to find a way to fight it is as I mentioned above, pulling people over in area that had no room to safely pull out of the lane of traffic, its just a dam unsafe place to pull people over especially if the reason for the the reduction in speed is "a safety issue"! It is a sharp curve right there, but it's also a bull shit speed trap and the law enforcement officer knows it. The county sheriff over there is a pretty level headed guy. They have a Knox County Sheriff, Santee Division. The ticket reads Santee Police Department. Well, Santee is a town on the Santee Sioux reservation. So Im not sure if he was in his jurisdiction. I'd think that he wouldn't be dumb enough to write a ticket while not in his jurisdiction. I do know I was off the reservation where I finally pulled over at. Which makes me wonder why he asked me why I didn't pull over right away. Im not sure if the county sheriff has any pull, but Im going to call and voice my opinion on how they are enforcing a safety issue unsafely (hypocrisy annoys me). Plus I signed the ticket anyway. I also don't live in that county. Otherwise I could argue with the county attorney being an elected official that if he wants reelected that its a stupid tickets to prosecute. Guess they've been nailing people left and right. I understand that I was speeding, the speed limit was posted, that it is a dangerous curve, and that I signed the complaint. Its also an unsafe, bull shit, speed trap, and they know it.

Thanks for your time and information.

 

[Taxing Matters]

My main pet peeve and reason I'd like to find a way to fight it is as I mentioned above, pulling people over in area that had no room to safely pull out of the lane of traffic, its just a dam unsafe place to pull people over especially if the reason for the the reduction in speed is "a safety issue"!

Where the officer pulled you over is irrelevant to the speeding issue. It has nothing to do with the charge you face, and you admit you were speeding. Peeved though you may be, if you make this argument in court it's not going to go anywhere.

I don't know any state that prohibits officers from being out of sight when they determine you are speeding (the apparent "speed trap" you are upset about). Even California, which actually has what it calls a speed trap law, effectively defines speed trap as a set up in which the speed change occurs too suddenly for a driver to be able to slow to the new speed. The trap is thus a set up designed to create speeding offenses to generate revenue. But if you are speeding on a highway that doesn't have that kind of set up then the speeding is on you. Speeding is an offense whether you see the cop or not, and is an offense if the cop doesn't catch it, though of course in that latter case you don't get a ticket for it. It's just like the cop doesn't have to be in a place where a person planning to commit murder will see him in order to charge the person for murder after killing the target. In short, the idea is that you should be a law abiding person at all times, not just when you can see law enforcement around.

You have the right to challenge the ticket. But given your admission you were speeding, I don't see that there is any benefit for you in doing it. If I were in your place I'd just pay it and note that I need to slow down so I don't get another ticket. Even if you had a defense based on, say, challenging how the officer measured your speed, you'd spend more money doing that than what this ticket is costing you. If the points assessed on your license for it would cause the state to suspend your license, then there is something more at stake than just the money involved, and in that case fighting the ticket would be more worthwhile.

 

[amo1977]

Totally agree with paragraph #1. Paragraph #2 I understand what you're saying and basically that's the question. You say that the trap is designed that it's impossible to slow down soon enough to be under the limit. Without drawing a map to scale, that's basically what this is. #3, I haven't admitted guilt by signing the ticket. Just says I'll appear in court, or plead no contest. You're correct it's going to cost more than the ticket and that's what they are banking out. If nobody calls them out on anything then they just keep cashing speeding tickets.

 

[Zigner]

Totally agree with paragraph #1. Paragraph #2 I understand what you're saying and basically that's the question. You say that the trap is designed that it's impossible to slow down soon enough to be under the limit. Without drawing a map to scale, that's basically what this is.

You missed the part about that being in California. California law is wholly inapplicable in your situation. Taxing Matters was just using that as an example.

#3, I haven't admitted guilt by signing the ticket. Just says I'll appear in court, or plead no contest. You're correct it's going to cost more than the ticket and that's what they are banking out. If nobody calls them out on anything then they just keep cashing speeding tickets.

In other words, this is a moral crusade for you. Well, around these parts, we call it pissing into the wind.

You were speeding and got caught. You admit here that you were speeding. Pay the fine and move along.
ETA: If paying the fine would end up increasing your insurance costs, then it might be worth exploring some sort of traffic school option, if available.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

It may be worth hiring a traffic attorney in your area to represent you in court depending on the increased insurance cost and fines and your past driving record. An attorney can often plea the charge down to a non-moving infraction. Google AVVO and select your state and area. An attorney will often give you a free consult.

 

[stealth2]

is there anyway I can weasel out of this

Unlikely.

 

[adjusterjack]

Otherwise I could argue with the county attorney being an elected official that if he wants reelected that its a stupid tickets to prosecute. Guess they've been nailing people left and right. I understand that I was speeding, the speed limit was posted, that it is a dangerous curve, and that I signed the complaint. Its also an unsafe, bull shit, speed trap, and they know it.

Now you're just ranting like a 10 year old who got caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

 

[Zigner]

You say that the trap is designed that it's impossible to slow down soon enough to be under the limit. Without drawing a map to scale, that's basically what this is.

Just as a note, Taxing Matters' explanation of a "speed trap" in California is not correct. CA Veh Code § 40802 (2022) (https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-veh/division-17/chapter-3/article-1/section-40802/) defines the two instances that are considered "speed traps" in California, and neither would apply to your situation had it occurred in CA.

 

[quincy]

Nebraska, Sante Sioux reservation

... It goes from 65, to 55 and then for roughly about 100 yards on a curve it drops to 45 ... the tribal police that pulled me over ... I signed the complaint (ticket) so Im screwed on that, and there was a deputy on the highway 5 miles away anyway. ...

... speed limit signs and well as reduced speed ahead signs are posted ... The officer did knock it down from 65 in a 45 to 55 ... Was I speeding yes ...

...The ticket reads Santee Police Department. Well, Santee is a town on the Santee Sioux reservation. So Im not sure if he was in his jurisdiction. ... I understand that I was speeding, the speed limit was posted, that it is a dangerous curve, and that I signed the complaint ...

In a previous agreement between the Sante Sioux Reservation and Knox County, the Sante Sioux Reservation shares with Knox County both traffic enforcement and the County jail, so jurisdiction would not be an issue.

Because signs were posted warning of “reduced speeds ahead,” you should have been able to go from 65 to 55 and then 55 to 45 without a problem. Sharp curves often have reduced speed limit signs posted, especially if (as you say) the road is relatively narrow, is lined with guard rails, and borders a river.

I don’t know what success you will have trying to fight the ticket unless perhaps the speed limit signs were somehow hidden. I think the ticket’s speed reduction from 65 to 55 is probably the best you can hope for and the cost of fighting it probably not worth your time and expense, but it is always an option.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Just as a note, Taxing Matters' explanation of a "speed trap" in California is not correct. CA Veh Code § 40802 (2022) (https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-veh/division-17/chapter-3/article-1/section-40802/) defines the two instances that are considered "speed traps" in California, and neither would apply to your situation had it occurred in CA.

Mine not the literal explanation of the CA, but the requirement for the engineering study involves determining what changes in speed can be made safely, and jurisdictions intending to set up a money making speed trap will set it up so that it's not possible to slow down in time, thus guaranteeing they'll catch speeders. That's the classic set up you'll see some small towns use to generate money off a state highway passing through their town. A bit like using a hand grenade thrown into a lake to do your fishing: the dead fish just rise up to the top of the water with no real effort made by the fisher person. In CA the way is set up, that kind of speed trap can't legally be done, though its law is broader than that.. Thus my use of the word "effectively", though on re-reading my post I concede I could have explained it better.

Even in states without the more detailed CA law, one can make the case to the court that ticket should be invalid in a situation where the government has set it up to guarantee people will violate the law. The OP's situation, so far as I can tell, doesn't fall into that category. And even if it was set up like that, the cost to hire an expert to testify to prove it to the judge is expensive. Very expensive. People end up paying those tickets because of the cost to challenge them, but in that one specific circumstance they are rightfully angry as there was no way for them to meet the speed requirement unless they already knew from prior experience about the change in speed and started to slow down before a sign told them of the speed change.

 

[quincy]

Mine not the literal explanation of the CA, but the requirement for the engineering study involves determining what changes in speed can be made safely, and jurisdictions intending to set up a money making speed trap will set it up so that it's not possible to slow down in time, thus guaranteeing they'll catch speeders. That's the classic set up you'll see some small towns use to generate money off a state highway passing through their town. A bit like using a hand grenade thrown into a lake to do your fishing: the dead fish just rise up to the top of the water with no real effort made by the fisher person. In CA the way is set up, that kind of speed trap can't legally be done, though its law is broader than that.. Thus my use of the word "effectively", though on re-reading my post I concede I could have explained it better.

Even in states without the more detailed CA law, one can make the case to the court that ticket should be invalid in a situation where the government has set it up to guarantee people will violate the law. The OP's situation, so far as I can tell, doesn't fall into that category. And even if it was set up like that, the cost to hire an expert to testify to prove it to the judge is expensive. Very expensive. People end up paying those tickets because of the cost to challenge them, but in that one specific circumstance they are rightfully angry as there was no way for them to meet the speed requirement unless they already knew from prior experience about the change in speed and started to slow down before a sign told them of the speed change.

Small towns throughout New York state are notorious for setting up speed traps, with speeds going from 55 to a sudden 25, with very little advance notice.

The speed limits described here seem legitimate.

 

[Taxing Matters]

By the way, Amo, I used to live in Nebraska many years ago and it was common then for cops to sit where drivers couldn't see them, and your post tells me that that practice has not changed. It was legal then and appears to be legal now. The cop hiding from traffic to catch people who are truly speeding is a perfectly good way to enforce the speed laws. So, as I said before, I think it unlikely that argument would work today any better than it did when I lived there. As for the rest, well, you already know from the discussion that it'll cost you to challenge the ticket, with no guarantee you'll win. If you want to fight it out of principle, that's your choice, if you are ok spending the money to make the effort. But I would suggest before you troop off to try doing it yourself that you consult a traffic lawyer in Nebraska to see what kind of chance you'll have with the judges that decide traffic offense cases in your area. That way you'll know what shot you have before you go spending a lot of money to challenge the ticket.

 

[quincy]

By the way, Amo, I used to live in Nebraska many years ago and it was common then for cops to sit where drivers couldn't see them, and your post tells me that that practice has not changed. It was legal then and appears to be legal now. The cop hiding from traffic to catch people who are truly speeding is a perfectly good way to enforce the speed laws. So, as I said before, I think it unlikely that argument would work today any better than it did when I lived there. As for the rest, well, you already know from the discussion that it'll cost you to challenge the ticket, with no guarantee you'll win. If you want to fight it out of principle, that's your choice, if you are ok spending the money to make the effort. But I would suggest before you troop off to try doing it yourself that you consult a traffic lawyer in Nebraska to see what kind of chance you'll have with the judges that decide traffic offense cases in your area. That way you'll know what shot you have before you go spending a lot of money to challenge the ticket.

I have family and friends in Nebraska (Lincoln). There used to be a great football rivalry between Cornhusker fans and the Wolverine fans - until the Cornhuskers stopped being good and the Wolverines became great. Haha.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Small towns throughout New York state are notorious for setting up speed traps, with speeds going from 55 to a sudden 25, with very little advance notice.

Although southern small towns have the more notorious reputations for it, small town police anywhere might set that up, though my initial reaction is I wouldn't have put NY high on that list. I do know NYC is agressive in going after parking ticket violators though. I got a parking ticket in NY while living in PA and when I didn't pay it right away or ask for a hearing, the city sent me a letter saying that if I didn't do one of those two things I'd be guilty of the offense and that it had an agreement with PA to enforce those tickets. So I paid it, of course. The only problem was that by waiting the penalty increased. Lesson learned many years ago. Philadelphia uses the approach that most traffic offenses, including all parking tickets, are exclusively civil matters. That allows it to be more aggressive in collecting since it doesn't need to observe any of the criminal procedure rules. It rakes in a lot of money with that approach, or at least did when I was in PA. I never drove down into Philly, the traffic on the trip to and from the city was a nightmare and finding parking downtown was a challenge. It was just easier and cheaper to take the SEPTA trains. Today I'd do that anyway for environmental reasons, but back then the environment wasn't at the forefront of public issues like it is today.

The speed limits described here seem legitimate.

I agree, based just on what the OP has said so far. No one likes to pay a traffic ticket, but in the words of Kenny Rogers in his classic song The Gambler:

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done

 

[Bali Hai Again]

By the way, Amo, I used to live in Nebraska many years ago and it was common then for cops to sit where drivers couldn't see them, and your post tells me that that practice has not changed. It was legal then and appears to be legal now. The cop hiding from traffic to catch people who are truly speeding is a perfectly good way to enforce the speed laws. So, as I said before, I think it unlikely that argument would work today any better than it did when I lived there. As for the rest, well, you already know from the discussion that it'll cost you to challenge the ticket, with no guarantee you'll win. If you want to fight it out of principle, that's your choice, if you are ok spending the money to make the effort. But I would suggest before you troop off to try doing it yourself that you consult a traffic lawyer in Nebraska to see what kind of chance you'll have with the judges that decide traffic offense cases in your area. That way you'll know what shot you have before you go spending a lot of money to challenge the ticket.

I agree and based on OP’s post I recommend he stays far away from the prosecutor and court. The lawyer will do everything for him and all he needs to do is pay.