100mph in a 50 zone.

[Maestro64]

Best thing you did was to keep your mouth shut and not say a thing, and getting a lawyer for that speed, the fact you did not say a thing will give your lawyer something to work with.

On the question is the officer trained to us LIDAR, you would expect them to be, however, not always and some states do not have training requirements, but if your lawyer does his job right he would do a discovery request on all the officer training.

And no your not paranoid for not putting too much information on this site, I know of a few cases where the officer walked into court with printed information the person posted to the web about their ticket and what happen and it was used against them in spite of the fact the documents were hearsay.

Lastly, You Are Guilt summed it up for you for NY, you might look into mass transit if your lawyer is not successful.

Make sure your lawyer is familiar with LIDAR if he is not, find another since LIDAR ticket can be beatable since getting a valid speed depends on the officer doing a number of things right and it is easy to cause LIDAR to get a false high speed, research Pan and Slip errors with LIDAR.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

my 2cents

I have never seen a cop pass muster on LIDAR. Either : a) cert. of cal. gets knocked out b) trooper is woefully undertrained or rec. no training at all in the unit he uses c) trooper cannot testify well enough to get LIDAR cert. of cal. into evidence

You likely would need a LIDAR expert to be ready to testify about how easy it is to get a 100 MPH reading from a stationary object (and it aint hard) as well as other defects of LIDAR; given that it is a 100 MPH case.

RADAR is better for traffic cases as the scientific theory behind it is more sound for its actual operation; LIDAR's panning issues alone make it unsuitable.

Of course, you'll have to attack the officer's ability to measure speed by his eye -- biggest crock out there -- but courts can take notice of this testimony.

I would depose the cop too. Lots of work to beat a LIDAR ticket but most LIDAR readings can be found to be faulty.

 

[HighwayMan]

"Undercover" officers do not perform traffic enforcement. I highly doubt he was in plain clothes and not uniform.

Highway Patrol uses unmarked cars but they are always in uniform. If it was a precinct summons auto he may have been dressed somewhat "casual" but still in a recognized uniform.

If this officer was using Lidar then he was Highway Patrol - I don't think Lidar is used in the precincts yet. In which case your attorney will do nothing for you except cost you more money - alot of it.

License suspension is automatic and guaranteed - nothing the judge can do about it.

And you (OP) are being ridiculously paranoid. There is no way the precinct of occurrence and the roadway can be used against you. Where on Earth do you get that from?

 

[HighwayMan]

I have never seen a cop pass muster on LIDAR. Either : a) cert. of cal. gets knocked out b) trooper is woefully undertrained or rec. no training at all in the unit he uses c) trooper cannot testify well enough to get LIDAR cert. of cal. into evidence

You likely would need a LIDAR expert to be ready to testify about how easy it is to get a 100 MPH reading from a stationary object (and it aint hard) as well as other defects of LIDAR; given that it is a 100 MPH case.

RADAR is better for traffic cases as the scientific theory behind it is more sound for its actual operation; LIDAR's panning issues alone make it unsuitable.

Of course, you'll have to attack the officer's ability to measure speed by his eye -- biggest crock out there -- but courts can take notice of this testimony.

I would depose the cop too. Lots of work to beat a LIDAR ticket but most LIDAR readings can be found to be faulty.

I hate to say this, but you sir are a MORON.

You know nothing about the New York City Police Department, you know nothing about the DMV Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB), you know nothing about the rules of evidence in the TVB, or the required elements of testimony.

All you do is post misleading nonsense which serves only to confuse people looking for advice. You are dangerous.

 

[HighwayMan]

On the question is the officer trained to us LIDAR, you would expect them to be, however, not always and some states do not have training requirements, but if your lawyer does his job right he would do a discovery request on all the officer training.

There is NO discovery in the Traffic Violations Bureau. And the officer is not required to present ANY printed documentation of his certification. His evidence is testimonial. If the officer fails to testify on direct about his training and qualifications then it's an automatic not guilty.

And no your not paranoid for not putting too much information on this site, I know of a few cases where the officer walked into court with printed information the person posted to the web about their ticket and what happen and it was used against them in spite of the fact the documents were hearsay.

And this would mean nothing in this case. No Administrative Law Judge will pay any attention to this since it is totally irrelevant to the case. Tell me, what ties the motorist to someone on an anonymous internet forum named "Zigma"? Nothing, that's what. Totally irrelevant.

On the other hand roadway, precinct of occurrence, and officers command code will provide some insight as to exactly what this motorist is up against.

 

[HighwayMan]

And yes, you were speeding, but is it a speeding ticket? Did you get charged with 56 over the limit or with reckless driving?

If its only a 56 miles over the limit speeeding, then expect 11 points on your license, which will suspend it, $360 - $1200 in fines (plus court costs) and up to 30 days in jail.

No jail in NYC for anything adjudicated at the TVB - it's an administrative tribunal.

Honestly, (and it's not intuitive) anyone in a similar situation would be FAR better off getting charged with reckless driving (misdemeanor) under the VTL then a speeding infraction. Criminal court plea bargains and chances are you would be able to avoid any points on your license at all.

 

[HighwayMan]

PS: 40+ over is an 11-point violation, which is, coincidentally enough, also the number of points it takes for the DMV to suspend your license. And since all 11 will hit at once, I do not think even taking the 6-hour class will be of any help (points-wise, at least. It does knock 10% of portions of your insurance coverage).

No, the class is useless since it would be after the conviction and after the suspension was imposed. It only helps, for suspension purposes, if you take it prior to reaching the 11 points.

Well, the class wouldn't be useless - it will still save on insurance and reduce your point total towards your NEXT suspension. But as far as the penalty in this case is concerned, it means nothing.

 

[Zigma]

"Undercover" officers do not perform traffic enforcement. I highly doubt he was in plain clothes and not uniform.

Highway Patrol uses unmarked cars but they are always in uniform. If it was a precinct summons auto he may have been dressed somewhat "casual" but still in a recognized uniform.

If this officer was using Lidar then he was Highway Patrol - I don't think Lidar is used in the precincts yet. In which case your attorney will do nothing for you except cost you more money - alot of it.

License suspension is automatic and guaranteed - nothing the judge can do about it.

And you (OP) are being ridiculously paranoid. There is no way the precinct of occurrence and the roadway can be used against you. Where on Earth do you get that from?

HighwayMan and everyone else,

Thank you for your insight. I appreciate the advice. I suppose a suspension is better than a revoke. How long would a suspension be? From what I have been told, It could be 30 days, lawyer could push 31 for a restricted license, correct?

The officers really had jeans and a t-shirt. It took me by surprise but it's true. The very top of the ticket states "NYPDHP" I can only assume that’s New York Police Department Highway Patrol. The "In Violation of (Section and Subdivision" was left blank.

I apologize for being paranoid but again, this is the first time I've ever been in trouble with the law. Nevertheless, this took place at Interstate 895, The Sheridan Express way.

The lawyer which I have asked to represent me has over 25 years of experience dealing with traffic violations, was a former judge and prosecutor. How good he is, I have no idea but I pray he is not someone out to simply grab my money and rush out of court. I am hopeful I could some how establish some type of rapport with him but he is in and out of court all the time.

I am disappointed in myself for putting myself in this situation. The only thing I can do now is move forward, expect the worse and pray for the best.

Does anyone recommend an excellent traffic lawyer in the New York City area?

 

[You Are Guilty]

HighwayMan and everyone else,

Thank you for your insight. I appreciate the advice. I suppose a suspension is better than a revoke. How long would a suspension be? From what I have been told, It could be 30 days, lawyer could push 31 for a restricted license, correct?

The officers really had jeans and a t-shirt. It took me by surprise but it's true. The very top of the ticket states "NYPDHP" I can only assume that’s New York Police Department Highway Patrol. The "In Violation of (Section and Subdivision" was left blank.

I apologize for being paranoid but again, this is the first time I've ever been in trouble with the law. Nevertheless, this took place at Interstate 895, The Sheridan Express way.

The lawyer which I have asked to represent me has over 25 years of experience dealing with traffic violations, was a former judge and prosecutor. How good he is, I have no idea but I pray he is not someone out to simply grab my money and rush out of court. I am hopeful I could some how establish some type of rapport with him but he is in and out of court all the time.

I am disappointed in myself for putting myself in this situation. The only thing I can do now is move forward, expect the worse and pray for the best.

Does anyone recommend an excellent traffic lawyer in the New York City area?

Look, it's a speeding ticket. Your life s not over. It is going to cost you some cash and inconvenience, but frankly, if you think about all the stuff you've done in the past couple decades that you didn't get written up for, the average cost is probably not all that much.

Although anything is possible, and contrary to some of the other replies (and please consider their source - I am a licensed NY attorney and highwayman is a NY LEO) - I wouldn't count on your lawyer being able to dispute the use of LIDAR. Even if the LIDAR testimony gets tossed, the officer will testify that he visually estimated your speed. About the most you can hope for is a) lawyer gets enough adjournments that the citing officer fails to show at the hearing; or b) officer fails to testify properly at the hearing (there is certain info that they must state before anyone can be found guilty.) Your lawyer will be able to identify if that happens.

If you still want to speak to another lawyer, PM me and I will send you some info (and don't worry, it ain't me!)

 

[Zigma]

Thank you Highwayman, You Are Guilty, and the others who took the time to answer my questions and provide valuable advice. I know many visitors might state you all come out as rude, but I can honestly say, based on the replies I receive… it is all how one represent thyself, as an individual, show respect and understand ones position. I hope I never have to create another thread.

 

[Dillon]

No jail in NYC for anything adjudicated at the TVB - it's an administrative tribunal.

Where do I begin?

it's my understanding, The traffic summons is defective for, no Seal of a courd of Record and no clerk or judge signed the summons for starters.

I would challange personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this adminsitrative court by special appearance.

In many jurisdictions, courts that have the power to fine or imprison must be courts of Record.

 

[Dillon]

I hate to say this, but you sir are a MORON.

.

You don't know everything about the law, you know nothing about the Constitution for the United States of America, or the required elements for a valid cause of action.

All you do is post misleading nonsense which serves only to confuse people looking for advice. You are dangerous

With all due respect

 

[CdwJava]

Where do I begin?

it's my understanding, The traffic summons is defective for, no Seal of a courd of Record and no clerk or judge signed the summons for starters.

Your understanding of CA law is flawed. So long as the promise to appear form conforms to the form approved by the Judicial Council of CA it is fine and dandy. Nothing the OP has written would indicate that the information is in any way flawed. If the OP feels it is defective or fails to meet the burden of proof required, he can file for a demurrer.

I would challange personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this adminsitrative court by special appearance.

And you would lose.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Where do I begin?

it's my understanding, The traffic summons is defective for, no Seal of a courd of Record and no clerk or judge signed the summons for starters.

I would challange personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this adminsitrative court by special appearance.

In many jurisdictions, courts that have the power to fine or imprison must be courts of Record.

I would also cover myself in honey, whip my junk out and wave it at the judge, because it will likely have the same result as making any of those ridiculous arguments, but at least with my way, I'll get a cool story out of it to tell my kids.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Originally Posted by Dillon View Post
Where do I begin?

it's my understanding, The traffic summons is defective for, no Seal of a courd of Record and no clerk or judge signed the summons for starters.

I would challange personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this adminsitrative court by special appearance.

In many jurisdictions, courts that have the power to fine or imprison must be courts of Record.

Dillon,

First, as you are the token constitutionalist, you are a little bit amusing to me. i kind of like them in court .. heck I might even agree on some level with a lot of it... but so what??? The law is the law.

California has a unified court system known county by county as Superior Court. They were separate (muni/superior) some years back, now they are combined. All of them are courts of record and the Clerk of the Court (not to be confused with "Court Clerk") is the keeper of the record, as mandated by state law. There is only one Clerk of the Court each county and that is their charge and duty by law. It doesnt need to be brought up in court because it _IS_ .

As to citations, because California law specifically and in code (40518 CVC) deems an officers citation a complaint, that argument is literally a waste of air. You think you thought of that first? Ive heard it in court from these constitutionalists many times. Its doesnt work because of law. Law always gets in the way of their BS garbage.

It really does not matter that you dont agree with that in your invented belief system. There are many laws I dont agree with as obviously I am quite libertarian myself, but business dictates that I gotta deal with reality of how the courts are operating and the established law. ..

For example, I believe it is unconstitutional to keep a felon who is off parole from owning a firearm. That doesnt mean I tell felons to go get a firearm. Why? Because no matter what I think, they will go back to prison. So that is beilief that is not practical advice, even though I think the 2nd amendment is clear.. .the judge isnt going to see it my way. So you must separate belief from how it is when giving advice, as much as practical.



You see? Belief vs reality. You have beliefs. You have very little reality. Combine that with your obvious lack of legal knowledge, training, and life experience, and you, kid, arent tricking anyone... and if you were credible, would in fact be dangerous because you give advice on how you think it should be, and not how it is.