Traffic Hearing Officer Acted Like TV's Judge Judy

[rjames]

What is the name of your state? Florida

I could not believe what happened at trial. I received a failure to stop at a stop sign ticket a few months ago and decided to not pay the fine, but rather request a hearing. I did so because I was truly innocent. The officer assumed I ran the stop sign because he saw me pause in the middle of the intersection and look to the left, where he was parked. I only did so, not because I had failed to stop, but because I am a driver and my GPS changed the direction for me to turn as soon as I entered the intersection. It had been telling me to proceed straight, but then suddenly indicated a right turn, and then immediately changed to indicate a left turn. The aberrant behavior of the GPS is what made me pause and took each way after entering the intersection. My " trail " was by Zoom. I had prepared for trial. I had discovered prior to trial the stop sign had been moved closer to the intersection after I was ticketed as it had been apparently not been positioned in the correct spot initially. I had two witnesses who were willing to testify that they knew the sign was moved closer to the intersection a week or so after I was ticketed. I also was aware that the police were doing a ticketing operation because I saw one officer who had detained a car a few yards up the road. and I also saw the other officer lying in wait to catch someone run the stop sign. My trial was held by Zoom. I never got to tell the judge my side, in effect, my defense because she started interrupting me continually with assumptions, berating me by telling me I was " not a very good cameraman" as I attempted to live stream from the exact spot that I received the ticket. Told me that my camera work was making her nauseous, and then cut me off again as I attempted to tell what happened. She then told me my defense was that I stopped at the sign, that I should have said that in the first place, she would take the case under advisement, and then when I asked" may I say something" She said no and ended the Zoom meeting. Her conduct was outrageous, to say the least. Then I researched and found out that she described herself as "Judge Judy" of Traffic Court. Needless to say, I looked online days later and see that she found me guilty and fined me. I want to appeal.. She literally prevented me from presenting my defense, never even allowed me to state about my witnesses, made comments to belittle and intimidate me, and continually interrupted me not to clarify what I was stating, but rather to make a personal comment such as I was not a good cameraman, or that my filing was making her nauseous, or tell me I should have opened by saying I stopped at the stop sign. Please note. I never told her I stopped at the stop sign. I had stopped on the side of the exit from the apartment complex to set my GPS. I never got to state that I then actually stopped again, and this time at the stop sign. What recourse do I have. I really think that the hearing officer is abusing people at hearing in an effort to put together some footage to pitch to a tv show as the new Judge Judy.

 

[Just Blue]

https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/traffic.pdf


Scroll down and you will/should find your answer...but read through it all and you also may find the reason for her behavior.

 

[adjusterjack]

I want to appeal

Then go ahead. I don't think you will win. I don't believe that you stopped at the stop sign. I believe that you were paying too much attention to your GPS and ending up in the middle of the intersection confused as to the way to go. I think you rolled right through the stop sign without realizing it.

You were totally unprepared for court. The judge was right. You should have started with "I stopped at the stop sign."

That you were holding the zoom trial while sitting in your car at the intersection is ridiculous. What could you possibly prove by doing that? Nothing, really.

Frankly, if you can't convince me that you stopped, I don't see how you expect to convince the appeals court.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I had discovered prior to trial the stop sign had been moved closer to the intersection after I was ticketed as it had been apparently not been positioned in the correct spot initially.

So what?

You are obligated to obey the traffic signs as they exist at the moment.: the location of the stop sign on the date you were issued the ticket is what matters, and whether or not you stopped for the stop sign.

Your GPS issues are irrelevant. While GPS is a valuable aid, indecisive driving is a danger to others on the road.

You were cited for running a stop sign. The valid defense is to be able to truthfully say that you came to a full stop at the stop sign, and then proceeded with caution.

 

[quincy]

... My trial was held by Zoom ... she started interrupting me continually with assumptions, berating me by telling me I was " not a very good cameraman" as I attempted to live stream from the exact spot that I received the ticket. Told me that my camera work was making her nauseous, and then cut me off again as I attempted to tell what happened. She then told me my defense was that I stopped at the sign, that I should have said that in the first place, she would take the case under advisement, and then when I asked" may I say something" She said no and ended the Zoom meeting. Her conduct was outrageous, to say the least. Then I researched and found out that she described herself as "Judge Judy" of Traffic Court. Needless to say, I looked online days later and see that she found me guilty and fined me. I want to appeal.. She literally prevented me from presenting my defense, never even allowed me to state about my witnesses, made comments to belittle and intimidate me, and continually interrupted me not to clarify what I was stating, but rather to make a personal comment such as I was not a good cameraman, or that my filing was making her nauseous, or tell me I should have opened by saying I stopped at the stop sign. Please note. I never told her I stopped at the stop sign. I had stopped on the side of the exit from the apartment complex to set my GPS. I never got to state that I then actually stopped again, and this time at the stop sign. What recourse do I have. I really think that the hearing officer is abusing people at hearing in an effort to put together some footage to pitch to a tv show as the new Judge Judy.

You were in your car at the intersection during your Zoom hearing?

 

[rjames]

Then go ahead. I don't think you will win. I don't believe that you stopped at the stop sign. I believe that you were paying too much attention to your GPS and ending up in the middle of the intersection confused as to the way to go. I think you rolled right through the stop sign without realizing it.

You were totally unprepared for court. The judge was right. You should have started with "I stopped at the stop sign."

That you were holding the zoom trial while sitting in your car at the intersection is ridiculous. What could you possibly prove by doing that? Nothing, really.

Frankly, if you can't convince me that you stopped, I don't see how you expect to convince the appeals court.

Think what you want. I do not care. You are wrong. I was at the scene because I know that officers are given the benefit of the doubt as if their testimony is gospel. I was ON FOOT to film. I attempted to show the hearing officer via zoom that I could see the ticketing sting in operation from where I was stopped and would have been incredibly dumb to not be very vigilant and aware while driving...including stopping at the stop sign . I am not dumb. Secondly, you are incorrect that I should have started with I stopped at the stop sign. The hearing officer's INSTRUCTION was " after the officer speaks you can ask him questions. It will then be your turn to tell me what happened. She did not stay " IMMEDIATELY" state your defense the moment you open your mouth!!! Secondly, my GPS is mounted in such a manner that I can look ahead see the road and the GPS. My GPS was set before I pulled up about 10 yards up to STOP at the stop sign and then proceed. I paused briefly mid intersection and that is all. I may be a layperson but I know GD well I had a right to tell my side without a judge continually interrupting me, making disparaging remarks to intimidate and belittle me, and then tell me what my defense it!! If you are an attorney then you should know that much too!!!!

 

[rjames]

https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/traffic.pdf


Scroll down and you will/should find your answer...but read through it all and you also may find the reason for her behavior.

I have not read it yet but thank you.

 

[rjames]

You were in your car at the intersection during your Zoom hearing?

You were in your car at the intersection during your Zoom hearing?

No I was on foot. I only wanted to show that I had a clear vantage point when I pulled to the side of the apartment complex exit to see the ticketing operation that was being conducted about ten yards ahead of me. I would have been dumb to run a stop sign. I am not dumb. After setting my GPS I proceeded a few yards, stopped, and then proceeded through the intersection. I paused briefly in the intersection and then proceeded straight ahead as I was originally headed. I am telling you. That police officer was not paying attention. He just interpreted my pause as me stopping because I had run a stop sign and then spotted him. I saw him when I stopped the first time to set my GPS and again, when I stopped at the stop sign and looked both ways before moving into the intersection. I just feel that I was told it would be my turn to speak and less than 20 seconds into me telling my side the hearing officer started her nonsense and histrionics. I really wish I had a transcript of the recording or the proceeding. You and everyone else would see that I did not have anything amounting to a fair hearing. The only reason I mentioned about the stop sign being moved and not to state that I did not see it. I just had read online that an improperly placed stop sign is an automatic defense here in Florida.

 

[rjames]

So what?

You are obligated to obey the traffic signs as they exist at the moment.: the location of the stop sign on the date you were issued the ticket is what matters, and whether or not you stopped for the stop sign.

Your GPS issues are irrelevant. While GPS is a valuable aid, indecisive driving is a danger to others on the road.

You were cited for running a stop sign. The valid defense is to be able to truthfully say that you came to a full stop at the stop sign and then proceeded with caution.

According to what I read of the FL statutes an improperly placed stop sign is indeed a valid defense, as is actually stopping at the sign. I had both facts on my side but did not get a chance to state that. Secondly, if my pause in the intersection ( not a single car anywhere is sight beside the police car parked 40 yards to the left and the officer and stopped car about thirty yards in front of me). If my pausing was what I got a ticketed for, then I would have been guilty of that and paid it. Not being ticketed because an officer thought I did not stop at the sign because he saw me pause mid intersection and look in his direction.

 

[quincy]

I am glad to hear that you didn’t film from your car during the Zoom hearing.

A Republican State Senator from Ohio was caught attending a Zoom meeting while driving (ironically on the same day the Ohio legislature was considering a bill that would crack down on distracted driving) and a California plastic surgeon attended his traffic court Zoom hearing while he was operating on a patient.

A judge might legitimately imitate Judge Judy and react unkindly to someone who was distracted in that manner.

Were you cited under Florida’s distracted driving law? How much is the fine?

 

[Taxing Matters]

A couple of problems that I see here. First, you were charged with failing to complete stop at the stop sign. So your defense has to be focused on that: whether you did or not did not stop as required. You do that either by (1) undermining the cop's testimony as to what happened when you do your cross-examination of the cop and (2) when it is your turn to present your case, you present whatever evidence you have that would support that you did stop as required. If all you have for (2) is your own testimony that you stopped, you need to be able to do a decent job at (1). That's because when it boils down to just your word versus the cop's and you've not undermined what the cop said, the judge is almost certainly going to believe the cop. After all, as the defendant contesting the ticket facing a fine, you have an incentive to claim you stopped, and that bias undercuts the strength of your testimony. I don't see anything in your post about exactly what the cop said and what effort you made to challenge that on cross examination. It also doesn't seem like you ever testified that you did, in fact, stop as required.

Second, the issue of the traffic sting operation isn't really relevant. The cops are allowed to hang out and wait for people to blow through the stop sign. The fact that they do that does nothing to help the court determine one way or the other whether you stopped as required. Similarly, the stop sign placement likely also doesn't matter. Unless you had some law (statute or case law) saying that you could not be convicted of the offense if the sign was placed too far back then that doesn't help you. Did you have any authority to give the judge regarding why the stop sign change was relevant to your case? If the answer is no, then bringing up the stop sign change would be seen by the judge as simply a distraction from the issue in the case.

Third, the testimony about the GPS likely also wouldn't help you. I don't really see the relevance it has to the issue of whether you stopped as required. But I can see the potential for that testimony to lead the judge to think that you were paying more attention to the GPS than your driving, which would serve to undercut your claim that you did properly stop.

Now I didn't see the hearing and can't comment on how it went or whether the judge made any legal errors. It seems that traffic court appeals in Florida are not new trials. Instead, they appear to be regular appeal hearings. That's significant because it means that (1) the appeal is based on the record of what happened in the hearing -- you don't get to introduce anything new in the appeal that you didn't raise at the hearing and (2) the appeals court will be looking only at whether the judge made any errors of law. The appeals court will generally not look at the judge's determination of the facts. So, for example, if the judge decided the cop was credible and accepted as fact the cop's version of what you did at the intersection, the appeals court won't review that. In that kind of regular appeal, you have to point to some error of law by the judge, e.g. that the judge misapplied the law to the facts, the judge made a wrong decision on a motion that was made in the case, etc. So what error(s) would you raise and what law will you use to support your position? These appeals are not easy for a lot of nonlawyers to do.

 

[quincy]

Saying you stopped at the stop sign and then “paused mid-intersection” is not all that great of a defense, as a note.

 

[Zigner]

I had prepared for trial. I had discovered prior to trial the stop sign had been moved closer to the intersection after I was ticketed as it had been apparently not been positioned in the correct spot initially. I had two witnesses who were willing to testify that they knew the sign was moved closer to the intersection a week or so after I was ticketed.

What proof do you have that the sign was placed incorrectly? Hint: You would likely need some expert testimony...

 

[rjames]

A couple of problems that I see here. First, you were charged with failing to complete stop at the stop sign. So your defense has to be focused on that: whether you did or not did not stop as required. You do that either by (1) undermining the cop's testimony as to what happened when you do your cross-examination of the cop and (2) when it is your turn to present your case, you present whatever evidence you have that would support that you did stop as required. If all you have for (2) is your own testimony that you stopped, you need to be able to do a decent job at (1). That's because when it boils down to just your word versus the cop's and you've not undermined what the cop said, the judge is almost certainly going to believe the cop. After all, as the defendant contesting the ticket facing a fine, you have an incentive to claim you stopped, and that bias undercuts the strength of your testimony. I don't see anything in your post about exactly what the cop said and what effort you made to challenge that on cross examination. It also doesn't seem like you ever testified that you did, in fact, stop as required.

Second, the issue of the traffic sting operation isn't really relevant. The cops are allowed to hang out and wait for people to blow through the stop sign. The fact that they do that does nothing to help the court determine one way or the other whether you stopped as required. Similarly, the stop sign placement likely also doesn't matter. Unless you had some law (statute or case law) saying that you could not be convicted of the offense if the sign was placed too far back then that doesn't help you. Did you have any authority to give the judge regarding why the stop sign change was relevant to your case? If the answer is no, then bringing up the stop sign change would be seen by the judge as simply a distraction from the issue in the case.

Third, the testimony about the GPS likely also wouldn't help you. I don't really see the relevance it has to the issue of whether you stopped as required. But I can see the potential for that testimony to lead the judge to think that you were paying more attention to the GPS than your driving, which would serve to undercut your claim that you did properly stop.

Now I didn't see the hearing and can't comment on how it went or whether the judge made any legal errors. It seems that traffic court appeals in Florida are not new trials. Instead, they appear to be regular appeal hearings. That's significant because it means that (1) the appeal is based on the record of what happened in the hearing -- you don't get to introduce anything new in the appeal that you didn't raise at the hearing and (2) the appeals court will be looking only at whether the judge made any errors of law. The appeals court will generally not look at the judge's determination of the facts. So, for example, if the judge decided the cop was credible and accepted as fact the cop's version of what you did at the intersection, the appeals court won't review that. In that kind of regular appeal, you have to point to some error of law by the judge, e.g. that the judge misapplied the law to the facts, the judge made a wrong decision on a motion that was made in the case, etc. So what error(s) would you raise and what law will you use to support your position? These appeals are not easy for a lot of nonlawyers to do.

Thank you for your answer. The whole problem is that the hearing officer did not allow me to state my defense. Here is the exchange. She told me I would have a chance to"tell my side of the story" after the officer. And, when I started she continually interrupted, made belittling remarks and then ended the trial by ending the zoom meeting. Here is the exchange
Me: Hi your honor. As the officer stated I am a delivery driver. I deliver throughout the town. Often I am in parts of town that I do not know so I will set my GPS to plot the best route to get me back home"
Judge" Well if you are driving by GPS you probably did not stop at the sign. GPS does not tell you where traffic signs are.
Me: Yes your honor I am aware of that. I do not depend on GPS to drive for me but merely to map out a route."
Me. So your honor I had just exited the complex you can see behind me. I pulled over here and as you can see I had a clear vantage point to see the officer who was parked to the left and the officer who"
Judge" Oh, my God you are making me nauseous with those camera movements"
Me. " oh, I am sorry your honor. "
Judge" There you go again with that camera movement, making me sick"
Me: Oh, I am sorry your honor, I will just stand here and not move"
Judge" OMG you are not a very good cameraman"
Me: " So your honor as I was saying, I pulled over to the side to set my GPS"
Judge" Well you can't stop all the way back there and then think that is stopping at the stop sign looks like ten feet in front of you."
Me" Oh, I know your honor. I had just stopped here to set my GPS"
Judge" Where is the stop sign"
I then walked to the stop sign to show her.
Judge" Where is the stop line?"
I pointed my camera at the lighter-colored bricks that I assumed demarcated the stop line she was referring to.
Judge" Officer is that a painted stop line there or just decorative colored bricks?
Officer" I am not sure"
Me" It's not a painted line your honor they are lighter colored bricks"
At that point, a car came into view, stopped, and proceeded
Judge" That's a stop line" You should have started with a defense that " I stopped at the stop sign" that's your defense.
Me" Your honor, may I say something?"
Judge" no, I will take this under advisement"
She then clicked me out of the meeting

 

[rjames]

The whole problem is that the hearing officer did not allow me to state my defense. Here is the exchange. She told me I would have a chance to"tell my side of the story" after the officer. And, when I started she continually interrupted, made belittling remarks and then ended the trial by ending the zoom meeting. Here is the exchange
Me: Hi your honor. As the officer stated I am a delivery driver. I deliver throughout the town. Often I am in parts of town that I do not know so I will set my GPS to plot the best route to get me back home"
Judge" Well if you are driving by GPS you probably did not stop at the sign. GPS does not tell you where traffic signs are.
Me: Yes your honor I am aware of that. I do not depend on GPS to drive for me but merely to map out a route."
Me. So your honor I had just exited the complex you can see behind me. I pulled over here and as you can see I had a clear vantage point to see the officer who was parked to the left and the officer who"
Judge" Oh, my God you are making me nauseous with those camera movements"
Me. " oh, I am sorry your honor. "
Judge" There you go again with that camera movement, making me sick"
Me: Oh, I am sorry your honor, I will just stand here and not move"
Judge" OMG you are not a very good cameraman"
Me: " So your honor as I was saying, I pulled over to the side to set my GPS"
Judge" Well you can't stop all the way back there and then think that is stopping at the stop sign looks like ten feet in front of you."
Me" Oh, I know your honor. I had just stopped here to set my GPS"
Judge" Where is the stop sign"
I then walked to the stop sign to show her.
Judge" Where is the stop line?"
I pointed my camera at the lighter-colored bricks that I assumed demarcated the stop line she was referring to.
Judge" Officer is that a painted stop line there or just decorative colored bricks?
Officer" I am not sure"
Me" It's not a painted line your honor they are lighter colored bricks"
At that point, a car came into view, stopped, and proceeded
Judge" That's a stop line" You should have started with a defense that " I stopped at the stop sign" that's your defense.
Me" Your honor, may I say something?"
Judge" no, I will take this under advisement"
She then clicked me out of the meeting

I am glad to hear that you didn’t film from your car during the Zoom hearing.

A Republican State Senator from Ohio was caught attending a Zoom meeting while driving (ironically on the same day the Ohio legislature was considering a bill that would crackdown on distracted driving) and a California plastic surgeon attended his traffic court Zoom hearing while he was operating on a patient.

A judge might legitimately imitate Judge Judy and react unkindly to someone who was distracted in that manner.

Were you cited under Florida’s distracted driving law? How much is the fine?

No. I truly was not driving looking down at my GPS. I only paused momentarily because it went wonky in the intersection, I paused only for a split second and then continued straight. Once I plotted the route, I knew the streets to take and did not depend on GPS. I only glanced at it because it went wonky. I have my gps mounted so it is in my field of vision too while I drive.