I received a speeding ticket today (corner of Route 50 and N. Edison, eastbound on 50, laser sped trap, for our Northern Va. readers). I happened to have glanced at my speedometer at the bottom of the relevant hill, and the officer claimed that he clocked me way above that speed at the top of the hill (and I wasn’t braking or stopping short at the bottom!).
Needless to say, I plan to challenge this ticket. Two blegs: First, under the charge description, it says “OPS 6 + 663.7.” What the heck does that mean? Second, is there any good basic manual out there for challenging laser tickets, especially with reference to Virginia law?
OrenWithAnE says:
File a few continuances and the officer will likely miss the hearing for an instant win.
July 26, 2010, 4:16 pmmrex says:
The “OPS” reference looks like a description of the location on the road where the alleged infraction took place. It looks like a surveying reference.
With respect to your defense, hire a lawyer who specializes in this. That person will move your hearing before a good judge on a day when the copy will not show. This worked for me years ago. It is not worth your time, Professor.
July 26, 2010, 4:18 pmSebastian the Ibis says:
Pay the $100.00 and have a traffic ticket mill take care of it for you. It helps the local legal economy, and they can do it much much much more efficiently than you can.
July 26, 2010, 4:21 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
That OPS 6 + 663.7 is probably the Office of Public Safety administrative code citation for the issuing of speeding tickets/speed limits.
July 26, 2010, 4:22 pmNoonan says:
I got a parking ticket last week for $250 U.S. DOLLARS. I think I have an 8th Amendment claim.
July 26, 2010, 4:23 pmRVALawyer says:
http://vacle.org/php-bin/ecomm4/products.php?product_id=622
July 26, 2010, 4:24 pmis the book you are looking for. That being said, good luck. Next technical defense on the science of laser radar that I see win in court will be the first.
Paul says:
Agreed — hire a ticket clinic on your behalf. They’ll be about the cost of the ticket, but it’s worth it. I’m not sure how but they always get them dismissed.
Btw, the old ‘continuance’ thing never works anymore — that’s really just urban legend at this point.
July 26, 2010, 4:24 pmDave N. says:
Have your speedometer checked. It won’t cost much for a reputable shop to do it and if your speedometer is inaccurately low some jurisdictions will dismiss your citation.
Also, plead “not guilty” and hope the prosecutor is a VC regular. :)
July 26, 2010, 4:24 pmzuch says:
You lawbreaker, you!
I never speed (much to my wife’s annoyance if not exasperation).
Good luck on challenging it. You could swear up and down that you were going 20 MPH under the speed limit the whole time (and be sure of it yourself), but when it comes down to an officer’s gun and your word, the officer wins. Your only hope is that they don’t show up in court.
Trying to explain that you saw your speed at the bottom of the hill, and that you must have been going faster then than at the top (when you admittedly weren’t watching) is not likely to be persuasive when up against a laser gun that clocked you at some point as speeding.
I’d say save myself the money and bite the bullet.
Or use the line that I’ve always wanted to use should the proper circumstances ever arise: “But officer, I’m almost out of gas, and I was just hurrying to the gas station to get there before I ran out and caused a safety problem….”
Cheers,
July 26, 2010, 4:25 pmDavid Bernstein says:
OK, any recommendations for a good Arlington “ticket clinic?” The ticket will cost over $100, plus the increase to my insurance.
July 26, 2010, 4:26 pmMurgatroyd says:
It’s conceivable that the cop’s laser device was out of calibration. I’ve been told that (in some states at least) radar and laser speed guns must display a calibration sticker, and that the calibration must have been performed within the past 30 days for the speed estimate to be acceptable in court. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this; IANAL, and I haven’t had a speeding ticket in a loooong time.
Good luck!
July 26, 2010, 4:26 pmJ. Aldridge says:
That is a good strategy. I fought two over a stretch of 10 years and in both cases the officer never showed up. Lasers are tougher to beat then radar.
July 26, 2010, 4:30 pmTHN says:
If you were going above 80 mph, this could be more of a pain than you realize. Virginia law automatically defines driving in excess of 80 mph as reckless driving. Reckless driving is a Class 1 misdemeanor, with maximum penalties of 12 months in jail and a $2500 fine.
Virginia law specifically allows the court to reduce the charge at trial to improper driving if your degree of culpability was slight. The attorney for the Commonwealth handling your case also has the authority to reduce the charge to improper driving at any time prior to the court’s decision. Improper driving is just a traffic infraction with a $500 maximum fine, not a Class 1 misdemeanor like reckless driving.
If you were below 80 mph, disregard all this.
July 26, 2010, 4:30 pmWaste93 says:
With laser readings officers frquently also write the distance you were at when they took the speed reading. Though that distance seems a bit far for that to be the case. You could always call the issuing agency and ask. They or the court should know since they would have seen those kinds of notations before.
July 26, 2010, 4:30 pmMaryG says:
Are you sure your insurance will be affected for a one-time speeding ticket?
If clocked by radar, why not just man up and pay the cost. Get over it, surely your time is not worth the fight.
You’re too young to fight this thing, spending your family and job time and surely precious spare time, for … “the principle of the thing.”
And no, it probably won’t make as interesting blog fodder as you’re envisioning now…
July 26, 2010, 4:31 pmMaryG says:
“That is a good strategy. I fought two over a stretch of 10 years and in both cases the officer never showed up.”
10 years? Holy Jesus.
And people wonder why the court system is clogged…
July 26, 2010, 4:32 pmDavid Bernstein says:
BTW, I once tried to help a friend with a speeding ticket, and, whaddayaknow, the cop didn’t show, and the ticket was dismissed. My wife, meanwhile, once got a DC ticket dismissed because the officer wrote that she had a DC drivers’ license out of habit, when she had a Va. one.
I’m wondering if this particular ticket isn’t valid because it references Va. Code 46.2-878:
§ 46.2-878. Authority to change speed limits
The highlighted language may doom me, but it’s a bit weird to be prosecuted under this section, and not the more specific and relevant section (whichever one that is!)
July 26, 2010, 4:32 pmgrendel says:
If you were speeding, just pay the ticket.
July 26, 2010, 4:37 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Not the first time an Arlington cop has tried to screw me. Last ticket I got was for a “red light” that was actually out. Told the cop the light was out. Didn’t believe me. Went back and took pictures. Judge dismissed it. Won’t have such hard evidence this time, but I’m pissed that the cop is either lying, incompetent, or has faulty equipment.
July 26, 2010, 4:38 pmht4 says:
Good luck taking this to court… you will need it. You will not win unless the officer is a no show, or they do something stupid like forget to bring the calibration reports on their laser, or bring an old one. As respected as you are in legal circles, your word will be disregarded by the traffic court. It seems like the only court in the country where the sworn testimony of the accused is totally worthless. Sorry, but them’s the facts of life. Physical evidence is all that will save you. Take discovery. Find out where the officer was hiding. Check lines of sight. Check calibration reports on the laser gun. Demand a jury trial. Be a royal pain in the arse. Then wake up and realize that this is not worth your time and effort. That’s the way it is designed.
Don’t worry, your righteous indignation will fade in a day or two.
Just a thought: the fact that you have to ask this question may imply insufficient notice of the nature of the charges. You can always try the constitutional challenge to your speeding ticket. It may not work, but at least you will have a good time, and might get lucky.
July 26, 2010, 4:38 pmToby says:
Years (Decades?) ago, San Diego cops had a ticket quota. Woe betide anyone who did anything on the last few days of a month. My brother got a ticket for “running a green light” on the 30th…
July 26, 2010, 4:46 pmfwb says:
You need to request the records of certification and recert of the officer concerning operation of the unit. You also need to request the instrument calibration records (both initial and continual calibration). I don’t know about laser systems BUT standard radar is supposed to be verified daily before use, at least where I live.
July 26, 2010, 4:48 pmOfficers must recertify in the operation of the equipment at some specified period of time, often yearly or even quarterly.
bee says:
Or you could just, you know, drive more slowly in the future.
July 26, 2010, 4:49 pmd-berg says:
Please go to motorists.org – the site of National Motorists Association. They were the leading force behind the repeal of national 55 MPH speed limit back in the day and they are the real advocates for the drivers nationwide today. They have manuals for fighting tickets and such. A clean alternative for a ticket clinic, and should be easy for a person in a legal trade.
July 26, 2010, 4:49 pmTransplanted Lawyer says:
Whatever you do, don’t let it get to a hearing on the merits.
Most judges, once they hear the proper foundation for the use of a laser or radar device laid down, stop caring about the rest of the merits of the cases. In your case, the officer only needs to testify that he had a clear line of sight between his laser gun and your car, which he will. After that, the laser doesn’t lie, so unless you can establish a defense, you’re toast. I don’t know about Virginia, but the only four affirmative defenses to speeding tickets here in California are as follows:
1. The defendant is a physician who was responding to an emergency call in a marked emergency response vehicle (e.g., a licensed ambulance);
2. Double jeopardy (previous trial on the merits in court of valid jurisdiction);
3. Speeding was required by federal law, rule, regulation, directive, or order; or
4. Speeding was necessary to comply with an order of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act.
Chances are, you won’t be able to say, “President Obama told me to speed over that hill!”
I’d be surprised if there were affirmative defenses other than these under Virginia law. Point is, if it comes to the merits in a trial with the cop there, you’re going to lose.
Which is why it’s good advice to hire someone who knows the procedure — not just on the books but the day-to-day procedures of the courthouse that will handle your ticket — to arrange things such that when the hearing on the merits comes, the cop won’t be there and the Commonwealth will not be able to offer any evidence at all.
Or your could just pay the ticket, maybe take traffic school to keep your insurance rates down, write it off as a bad experience, and ease up on the gas in the future there, Prof. Earnhardt.
Good luck.
July 26, 2010, 4:50 pmFredosaurus Rex Friday XIII says:
Nothing less than extensive discovery and collateral proceedings will do.
July 26, 2010, 4:50 pmDavid Bernstein says:
If nothing else, in Virginia, you can appeal to a jury, if you’re willing to pay the appeals cost. I can tell you that if I served on an Arlington jury, I wouldn’t have the same presumption in favor of the police that traffic judges generally do.
July 26, 2010, 4:53 pmSammy Finkelman says:
How does the officer know that he ticketed the right car?
July 26, 2010, 4:55 pmBryan says:
Note the item about”traffic engineering investigation” – that goes to the MUTCD which states must follow for federal funding. That manual for uniform traffic control says speed limits should be set by analysis of traffic and not by whim. All too often speed limits are set by whim.
Then there’s the insurance angle, which is nontrivial.
There are many things you can do. Discovery can be used to obtain officer training certification and equipment calibration records and other materials that need to exist and be in order for the citation to stand. Then you can get into the citation itself to determine exactly what it is you are accused of violating as well as any potential errors in that document. In court, you’ll have the opportunity to ask the officer about the road, about conditions, about traffic, and about other factors that may have influenced his judgment.
You also need to look at the statutes involved. Many times, “driving safe” has precedence over following speed limit signs. That means that following the speed limit could be unsafe and your questions for the officer could show this.
Around here, it appears that the highway patrol will usually appear to testify but the city cops and the sheriff deputies often don’t. I’ve seen one case where the cop was brought in but could not recognize the defendant so the case was dropped.
If nothing else, you will get your money’s worth. If enough people stood for their rights, maybe traffic citations would trend towards safety rather than revenue.
July 26, 2010, 4:57 pmjosh says:
Must disagree w much of the commentary above. I have challenged virtually every moving violation I’ve ever gotten (not that many — all in the City of Chicago) and have gotten every single one thrown out. I say, either roll up your sleeves and challenge it yourself, or hire one of the ticket clinics as suggested above. To me, the key is to approach the prosecutor before the hearing, let him know you actually are a lawyer w a clue and let him know you have good grounds to challenge it. They are usually pretty sane.
July 26, 2010, 5:01 pmMaverick says:
DISTANCE x TIME = SPEED
====================================
60 MPH = 5280 FEET in 60 SECONDS, or
1 MILE in 1 MINUTE
====================================
663.7 FEET in 6 SECONDS, or
6637 FEET in 60 SECONDS
6637 FEET / 5280 FEET = 1.25
SPEED PER LASER GUN = 75 MPH
=====================================
6637 FEET PER MINUTE x 60 MINUTES = 398220, FEET PER HOUR
398220 / 5280 = 75.4 MPH
=====================================
Quod erat demonstrandum
July 26, 2010, 5:03 pmKevinQ says:
Transplantef Lawyer had some good points. I worked for a local prosecutor in Ohio. Here are some of my observations:
July 26, 2010, 5:05 pm1. Don’t count on the cop not showing for trial. It’s hot outside, the court has a/c, and he’s probably getting paid overtime.
2. That being said, if you challenge the ticket, you might be able to negotiate with the prosecutor. Many jurisdictions are willing to convert it to a non-moving offense (no points, no insurance increase) if you pay a bigger fine. YMMV.
3. If you actually get to trial, expect the officer to testify, ‘I’m trained in visually determininggthe
rb1971 says:
Second the recommendation for motorists.org, and sixth (more?) the call for hiring a lawyer specializing in traffic tickets. Normally they can get some kind of reduction just because they know the local system and players. I don’t think getting a specific individual is all that important as long as they are connected.
That said, before you wasted a lot of money and time I’d check to see if your insurance rates would go up and, if not, probably just pay the ticket, or if generally available in VA, possibly go to court to see the judge in person and get the speed on your ticket reduced (with the fine staying the same). This advice would change if you were ticketed for a particularly low speed (where they often won’t reduce it), or particularly high (where you might be subject to reckless driving or similar charges).
By the way, there are any number of reasons you could be going faster at the top of a hill than at the bottom, even if you were using cruise control. If you are like most people you’ll get a little off the gas coming down a hill, and drag and friction might slow you down. Or you could have changed gears (or had them changed for you) without really changing engine speed. If you were using cruise, the computer in your car might not properly compensate. All of this is very car- and speed-dependent so really just speculation, but you probably know whether you were actually speeding and by (at least approximately) how much.
July 26, 2010, 5:05 pmMalvolio says:
I spent a day in traffic court last week and noticed:
1. Defendants acting pro se argued innocence and lost.
2. Lawyers argued technicalities and won and lost in equal numbers (plus, yes, a lot of cops were out).
I wanted to sit by my wife, who does not speak English, but the judge said only lawyers and certified interpreters (which the county would provide, months in the future). I was thinking of pointing out that she was forcing the defendant to choose between her right to counsel and her right to a speedy trial, but at that point, my wife was telling me she was innocent. The county produced a video of her speeding through a red light at about 30 MPH. My wife has trouble with the word “kitchen”; “no lo contendere” is beyond her.
July 26, 2010, 5:07 pmApperception says:
You weren’t braking down a hill?!
Officer shoulda tacked a reckless driving citation onto that.
July 26, 2010, 5:08 pmKevinQ says:
Stupid phone. Continuing point 3: He will testify that he visually measured your speed, and just used the laser to confirm his measurement. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld this recently. It’s a good line of testimony.
As somebody else mentioned, get your spedometer checked. You’d be surprised how far off they can be.
K
July 26, 2010, 5:11 pmerp says:
In Florida, you can take a very simple test online, pay a fee of about a hundred bucks and that takes care of it. No points on your license, no increased insurance premium, no court time and no classes.
July 26, 2010, 5:17 pmht4 says:
Really? You may want to check that.
July 26, 2010, 5:18 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Very small hill, but a hill nonetheless.
July 26, 2010, 5:25 pmMike says:
One chronic speeder has told me that he is always courteous to the officer and that he always requests a trial by correspondence. While officers show up to air conditioned courthouses and, in some jurisdictions, get paid time and a half to do so, while testifying verbally, generally police officers don’t like to write, get no overtime or bonus time for submitting evidence in a trial by correspondence, and rarely submit their written testimony into evidence. The chronic offender has beaten two tickets this way. I’m in California, though, YMMV indeed.
July 26, 2010, 5:27 pmSRS says:
Better you than me, sorry. I came very close to getting cited at the same place this morning.
RVALawyer provided the link to the only manual for defending traffic cases in Virginia that I am aware of. You should take a look at the technical defenses (incomplete citation, misidentified location, etc.), but a challenge to laser on the merits will almost certainly fail. Even if you have a technical defense, you may want to hire a lawyer, if you really want to challenge it. I don’t know of any traffice specialists in Arlington.
Good luck.
July 26, 2010, 5:43 pmDon Miller says:
My brother got pulled over last weekend. Conversation went something like this
Officer: I pulled you over this evening for going 50 in a 35
July 26, 2010, 5:44 pmBrother: I believe this is a 50 zone, oh look there is a sign right there
Officer: License, registration, proof of insurance
Officer goes back to his car
10 minutes pass, another officer arrives, Officers have conference
1st Officer returns, hands back paperwork, “Sorry about that, you are free to go”
Elliot says:
I beat the last one I got when I went to court and asked the officer how often they have to be certified to use the radar equipment. He asid every six months(not exactly sure what it was). I asked when he was last certified, and he said he was a certifier and didn’t need to be certified. The judge dismissed it.
July 26, 2010, 5:50 pmMark Horning says:
One should never, ever break down a hill. If required to maintain your speed you take your foot of the accelerator; if you need to slow down you downshift.
For David, I’ve beaten tickets before when the officer did not show up, when the oficer failed to have his calibration paperwork with him, and where the officer failed to have a copy of the required “engineering and safety report” ustifying the prima facia speed limit.
From a prinicpled standpoint, to me it’s acutally more important to fight it and make certain that in doing so I cost the county/city more money in court expenses than they recieve in “velocity tax” than it is to actually win. If enough folks made it a negative sum game then eventually these yahoos might start doing something productive rather than simply shaking down motorists for cash.
July 26, 2010, 5:51 pmDJR says:
As much as I disagree with DB on just about everything, I offer the following:
1. His rates will go up, I guarantee it.
2. Remember that this is a real live court case, and you are a litigant entitled to a fair contest of the facts.
3. Contact the state’s attorney to let them know you intend to contest the ticket. Ask for the officer’s service record, records of his training and certification to use the speed detection equipment, documents showing the age, maintenance, and calibration of the laser, the owner’s manual, the serial number and manufacturer, and the police department’s speed trap guidelines and ticketing quotas or targets. Research the equipment to find out any known issues.
4. Write out your cross-examination of the officer. Look to any trial practice book on cross examination, though Lubet is pretty good. First rule: LEAD. Do not ask open ended questions. Second rule: Do not ask the ultimate question. The propositions you will want to try to establish are: (a) The read-out was wrong because the officer did not use the equipment correctly (maybe it moved when he was measuring the speed, maybe he didn’t know how to use it correctly, maybe he read it wrong); (b) the equipment was malfunctioning (because it was not property serviced or calibrated); (c) the officer is lying (they better have a quota if you want to convince anyone of this, though you might do some online or other research that would turn up credibility problems for the officer. Search for his name in Virginia state trial cases, e.g.).
5. Get your speedometer checked and bring something written showing that you did so. If it is right, your credibility will be enhanced because you believed you were right enough to go do this. If it is wrong you could get a break because you didn’t realize you were speeding.
6. Next time this happens: a) Always say you weren’t speeding and that you looked at your speedometer. b) Make sure you ask to see the read-out of the equipment before you leave the scene. c) Never admit to being in a hurry for any reason.
July 26, 2010, 5:52 pmDJR says:
One more thing: The best cross-examination is a performance by YOU, not by the officer. You say everything and he says “yes.” E.g.:
You know how a speed laser works?
You point it at the vehicle?
You depress the trigger?
The laser bounces of the vehicle?
It bounces back to the detector?
And it measures the speed?
You can’t move the detector, right?
It has to stay perfectly still?
Etc.
July 26, 2010, 5:57 pmDilan Esper says:
First, I assume the cop was an anti-Semite.
Second, plenty of cops don’t show up. Plenty of cops do. In California, you basically have a lottery where if you win (cop doesn’t show), you get the thing dismissed, and if you lose (cop shows up), you lose the opportunity to go to traffic school. But don’t expect to win on the merits– traffic judges always believe cops. (By the way, even though I think that’s a crappy policy and cops lie, it’s also worth noting that lots of citizens lie to get out of traffic tickets too. So there’s no good answer here.)
Third, on a public policy level, I actually wished we switched to a system where it was a lot more difficult to convict people of traffic offenses. With video and photo technology, it should be possible to require a clear video/photo radar shot taken by the officer for any offense short of reckless driving. This would make it much, much more difficult for cops to lie to meet ticket quotas (which, by the way, should also be not only flatly illegal but punishable by multi-year prison sentences if they are either imposed OR suggested by a police officer with any sort of supervisory or management authority) or to raise revenue. The word of a police officer alone should NEVER be sufficient to convict someone of a minor traffic offense– there’s simply too much incentive to lie and not enough incentive to deter lying.
July 26, 2010, 5:58 pmit was 1990, after a social distortion concert says:
I used that exact line as a teenager and was given a warning.
July 26, 2010, 6:07 pmptt says:
Do you mean you didn’t stop or that you stopped and then proceeded with caution?
July 26, 2010, 6:08 pmJardinero1 says:
You might check the VA statutes and see if the posted limit was statutorily valid.
In Texas the speed limit can turn out to be invalid. In Texas, the state proscribes the correct speed limits on different types of roadways and local communities are required to post signage accordingly. To differ from the state proscribed limits, local communities must perform engineering traffic studies which justify a different or lower speed limit. Smaller communities in Texas sometimes post lower speed limits without a supporting traffic study, thus the posted limit is unlawful.
My own town has twenty mile per hour limits all over the town(even on a four lane boulevard!) and no supporting traffic study to justify them. State law proscribes a limit of thirty on residential streets. The local cops write tickets all day for going twenty-five to thirty miles per hour, a lawful rate of speed in residential areas in Texas. Summary dismissal can be had by requesting a copy of the non-existent traffic study and presenting the non-existent study to the judge. Your typical driver is unaware of this and usually pleads no contest.
July 26, 2010, 6:20 pmyup says:
I’m not sure how the law is in Virginia, but in California you can contest citations by mail. As said previously, cops like overtime in court, but hate paperwork. A website that can help is http://www.ticketassassin.com, but I believe it’s only relevant to CA.
July 26, 2010, 6:20 pmRoss Williams says:
Ask for the source code for the laser gun. Its necessary for your defense to refute evidence from the laser gun. But the company will balk at a request and the prosecutor may dismiss the ticket. This was done a few years ago with a radar detector.
July 26, 2010, 6:25 pmI also have no idea what I’m talking about, but you may make sense of it
byomtov says:
IANAL, but a friend who is, and sometimes defends speeding tickets, tells me that the calibration issue that others mention is a good one. Even if the equipment is properly calibrated, the record-keeping is often sloppy.
July 26, 2010, 6:28 pmarch1 says:
David,
You don’t say whether this “very small hill” was also a very non-steep hill, but if so it is entirely possible that your car decelerated while going down the hill (due to the forces of internal friction + rolling resistance + wind resistance exceeding that of the minor component of gravity parallel to the roadway). And the faster you were going at the top, the likelier this is since wind resistance (at least) increases w/ the square of speed.
The truth looks more and more irrelevant to the outcome of your dispute the further I read, but the truth is that both your speedometer and the cop could be correct.
[Oh - FWIW you can determine whether you were in fact screwed by repeating the drive under identical conditions. Just remember that one of those "identical conditions" is reproducing the identical terminal velocity at the bottom of the hill - so whether or not you're innocent (think about it) you'll be risking another ticket in the name of science:-]
July 26, 2010, 6:28 pmOrin Kerr says:
It’s interesting to me how many people have a strong sense that they know how to beat (or not beat) the ticket. My best sense is that it the answer depends widely on (a) whether the violation is criminal or civil in your jurisdiction, with challenges being much easier in criminal jurisdictions, (b) the common practices and norms in your particular courthouse, and (c) the magistrate you draw.
As for challenging the cop, in my experience in the EDVa, the best efforts were usually those that successfully argued that the cop was pointing the laser at the wrong car. But successful challenges were very rare, at least in the federal court system.
July 26, 2010, 6:38 pmDilan Esper says:
Welcome back Professor Kerr!
July 26, 2010, 6:44 pmOrin Kerr says:
One more thought: If you’re serious about fighting the ticket, and your defense is that you looked at the speedometer at some other time and your recollection is that it was a particular speed — and you don’t think you were going faster than that when your speed was measured — you might want to have your speedometer tested. Speedometers can be a few miles an hour off, and a judge isn’t likely to take your argument seriously unless you can at the very least offer testimony that is grounded in a speedometer that the judge has evidence was working properly. (The argument is still pretty tough, as you don’t know your speed at the time the measurement was taken, but given that your argument hinges on your speedometer reading even just at another time, it’s good to have that tested.)
July 26, 2010, 6:49 pmSpeedy Lawyer says:
I’ve received a number of traffic citations over the past few years and have beaten them all. My strategy is always to first be impeccably polite to the officer during the stop and to avoid admissions of any sort. If the officer doesn’t turn the stop into a warning, I always choose to appear. I then study the rules of civil or criminal procedure and paper the officer as permitted by those rules until he rues the day he pulled me over. I have yet to work a case like that where the officer doesn’t violate the rules (and due process as a consequence) that doesn’t tee-up a motion to dismiss.
Your mileage may vary, and your pocketbook will most certainly be better off not wasting the time necessary to beat the system.
July 26, 2010, 6:56 pmNathan says:
Don’t discount the suggestion about the traffic engineering investigation. The law you cited says:
“Such increased or decreased speed limits and such differentiated speed limits for daytime and nighttime driving shall be effective only when prescribed after a traffic engineering investigation.”
I recall a news report a few months ago that said states were woefully behind on such studies and that almost no speed limit were backed up by one.
I think your best bet is to find out if that particular stretch of road has one, and if not, argue that the speed limit is ineffect.
July 26, 2010, 6:59 pmJ says:
I feel it’s worth pointing out this gem of a case:
State v. Magee
167 Wash.2d 639, 220 P.3d 1224
Wash.,2009.
AND, if you want to get an idea of the lengths he went to and the technical hurdles, check out his 7 page appellate brief:
Andrew L. MAGEE, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Respondent.
2009 WL 2331954
Supreme Court of Washington.
Appellate Brief (Approx. 7 pages)
I especially like this part: Mr. Magee, in compliance with RALJ 7.2, timely and properly filed and served his brief. Subsequently, the Prosecuting Attorney failed to comply with RALJ 7.2, and did not timely file, nor serve a brief upon Mr. Magee, whereupon Mr. Magee, as set forth by the Prosecuting Authority in Appendix 1, set a hearing date to have his appeal granted.
Becoming aware of this, the Prosecuting Attorney proceeded to attempt to dupe Mr. Magee into asking the Superior Court for an extension for them (the prosecuting *12 attorney) to file their brief, stating, in a telephone message left with Mr. Magee:
… Hi Mr. Magee, this is Grace Kingman calling from the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, and I’m calling in regard to your RALJ appeal on a traffic infraction that occurred down here in Pierce County and, um, I noticed that you have set the oral argument for this Friday, October 28, and I just wanted to let you know that, um, obviously our brief isn’t done, I will have it done probably by Friday, [October 28, 2005] by this Friday, but that doesn’t give you time to review it and respond if you choose, or just, you know, help you prepare for your, um, for your oral argument, so I was wondering if you wanted to continue your oral argument for a week or two, um, or the oral argument, rather, for a week or two, um, give you some, a chance to consider our brief, um, and so forth, so, um, let me know what you think about that, I am at 253-798-6629, again, my name is Grace Kingman, I’m the attorney that is in charge of the RALJ appeals, um, normally we meet the deadlines, but, I actually was out of the office for a couple of weeks … so we sort of got behind . ..
July 26, 2010, 7:06 pmWaste93 says:
More likely they would increase the fines so they can keep making a profit.
July 26, 2010, 7:06 pmJack G says:
“at least in the federal court system”
Federal court? Why would a traffic ticket be in federal court?
July 26, 2010, 7:06 pmCarLitGuy says:
+/- 3% seems to be the industry standard on speedometer calibration. That said, non factory wheels and/or tires can render that figure meaningless. More of an issue than it used to be, with the explosion of oversized rims and increased availability of varying tire sizes.
If your vehicle is not equipped with factory original tires, almost every tire manufacturer, on their web site, provides a calculator for comparing the current rolling diameter of your equipped tires to the factory originals (assume you have your owner’s manual to look those up).
Last time I had the pleasure, it was no lo contendre for me. I was speeding. Appeared to see if the officer would. Court in Fl was very organized. Officer stood up, opened his book, showed his certs, equip calibration, etc for the judge, then the court called every person that officer had ticketed during the period. No lo, based on the way the judge had decided all evening, was cheaper than the ticket, so….
July 26, 2010, 7:08 pmFredosaurus Rex Friday XIII says:
Search and seizure is serious business.
July 26, 2010, 7:12 pmDukeboy01 says:
Police officers don’t have quotas. We can write as many tickets as we want to.
*Insert rimshot here*
Thank you. Remember to tip your waitresses and the 9:30 show is different than the 7:30 show.
I love it when people contest tickets. Traffic court starts at 1730 hours and my regular shift ends at 1600. By contract, I get a minimum of 2 hours pay at time- and- a- half for court appearances scheduled outside of my regular duty hours. One of two things happen: The violator demands a hearing at his preliminary appearance. The hearing is scheduled for two to four weeks later and I have a standard little checklist of all the silly crap he’s going to ask for like when the RADAR gun was last serviced, when I was certified, etc. I show up, the violator sees me and wusses out because his whole defense depended on me not showing up. He pleads guilty and I get 2 hours O.T. for 15 minutes of my time.
Or the violator demands his trial in front of the magistrate. We sit through the rest of the docket and have our little hearing. On a heavy docket, this takes longer then the minimum two hours I was getting paid anyway, so mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money to me. The violator goes through his little checklist of RADAR records, certification dates, and I present it all. At the end of it, the magistrate finds the violator guilty anyway.
Now, I’m probably a little better prepared than some (maybe most) other cops would be. So maybe the guy who wrote you won’t show up or won’t have his RADAR certificate or whatever. But probably he will.
Here’s the thing: Do you want to get out of the ticket or do you want to excercise your ego? If you want to get out of the ticket, then show up about a half hour before court and find the county attorney who is stuck working the traffic docket that night. Tell him/ her you’re very sorry and then give him/ her the hardest luck story you’ve ever thought up about your poor wife suffering from leoprosy and your sixteen kids who all need new shoes and how you can only afford to feed twelve of them every day so you have to do a lottery every morning to see who gets fed that day only that doesn’t work because you used to have seventeen kids but then one of them lost the lottery every day for two months and is now with Jesus.
Point out that you’ve never got another traffic citation, say that you’re willing to stipulate probable cause, but that you really, really, really can’t afford a ticket right now and then ask if there is anything that can be done to mitigate this situation. Boom. In my county, you’ve got diversion. You plead guilty. The fine, points, and all other penalties are suspended and as long as you don’t get another ticket within 180 days, the charge is dismissed. No points. No fine. No hike in insurance rates.
Or stand on principle, make the cop some easy OT so he can buy his sixteen kids new shoes, and probably lose any way.
July 26, 2010, 7:13 pmFredosaurus Rex Friday XIII says:
I don’t know what sort of cars you people are driving, but I drive a fairly new Honda, and my speedometer indicated speed in the 70 mph to 80 mph range is almost always within 0.5 mph of the speed indicated on my GPS navigator.
July 26, 2010, 7:15 pmOrin Kerr says:
“Federal court? Why would a traffic ticket be in federal court?”
If you speed on a federal park land, and you’re ticketed by a United States park police officer, your speeding ticket will be adjudicated in federal court before a federal magistrate judge.
July 26, 2010, 7:18 pmSteve 2 says:
Uh no. I didn’t bother reading further.
July 26, 2010, 7:29 pmFredosaurus Rex Friday XIII says:
Any SCOTUS speeding ticket cases out there?
July 26, 2010, 7:31 pmSeaDrive says:
Must be the latest thing.
July 26, 2010, 7:39 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Some years ago I might have agreed about not contesting the ticket, but remember: Lautenberg has been upheld. You’re not pleading guilty to a fine. You’re pleading guilty to a fine, plus whatever other penalties (that they pretend aren’t penalties) they decide to tack on twenty or thirty years from now.
Always contest it, the alternative is signing a blank check you might regret someday.
July 26, 2010, 7:40 pmIsland says:
5280 feet in one mile. check
60 seconds in one minute. check
6 seconds is one tenth of a minute. check.
one tenth of a mile is 528 feet. check
Now Where did that 663.7 feet come from?
lawyers and math….
July 26, 2010, 7:42 pmrfg says:
Source code refers to the code loaded into the laser gun’s processor that controls how the gun operates, including the method used to calculate speed.
Source code is a key part of the system and often is the main difference between brands- no manufacturer is going to give it up without a fight. I definitely don’t on my designs, and neither does anyone else I know in my business (industrial controls & automation).
July 26, 2010, 7:45 pmFub says:
That’s a relief. I was afraid it was another new interstate commerce clause thang.
July 26, 2010, 7:49 pmJoe Malchow says:
Godspeed. I received a ticket last night for allegedly making an illegal right-on-red at an empty intersection 0.1 miles from my home. The officer tailed me for a bit, threw on her K-band radar to see if I was exceeding the 25 MPH limit (which only prompted me to brake from 25 MPH to 20) and during the stop found time to ask if I’d had anything to drink (no) and why I hadn’t replaced my car dealer’s temporary plates with the proper ones yet (didn’t receive them). It’s a lovely way to live.
In situations where 1) I’m not guilty and 2) I would stand to gain by developing a reputation as a difficult-to-extort driver, I always contest. If nothing else, judges are happy to have an interesting person to speak with after 2.5 hours of DUIs and pot.
Your enemies’ pleasure can be attenuated if you bring a laptop and get some work done while waiting, creating the (correct) impression that the court date is fadging profitably for you.
July 26, 2010, 7:50 pmApperception says:
Never, eh.
OK then. Plowing through stopped vehicles. Gotcha.
July 26, 2010, 8:04 pmbillb says:
If you decide to fight it, please do blog about your experience. I’m highly interested in the process a lawyer (and a teacher of the law) goes through in the system and how that compares to the experience of non-lawyers.
July 26, 2010, 8:04 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
If the court lets you choose, get a continuance to a Friday afternoon appearance before a long weekend to increase the chance of a no-show by the cop (e.g., the Friday before Labor day). I selected Christmas Eve afternoon and only 2 cops showed up for the ~20 or so hearings. As we walked in the bailiff said, “you guys have no idea how lucky you’re about to get”.
OPS means On Base % plus Slugging %.
July 26, 2010, 8:07 pmMaverick says:
=============================================
ht4 says:
Maverick: DISTANCE x TIME = SPEED
Really? You may want to check that.
=============================================
Thank you ht4.
The correct formula is: Velocity = Distance / Time.
Maverick.
=============================================
“OPS 6 + 663.7” is the officer’s notation on the citation. That is what David wanted explained.
Island, check what David says about the citation, and you will see reference to the 663.7.
July 26, 2010, 8:10 pmSteve Horwitz says:
FWIW, between my wife and I we have had three speeding tickets on local roads in the last 10 years. Each time I wrote to the relevant county’s district attorney’s office and asked to plead down the charge. I argued that I had a clean record (the pair I got were 10 years apart), wasn’t driving recklessly, and was otherwise following the rules of the road. In all three cases, the ticket was plead down to a non-moving violation (normally something like “failure to obey a traffic sign”) and involved no points. The fine was comparable to that of the speeding ticket, if not less.
The time to write one letter and the 44c stamp makes it worth a try.
July 26, 2010, 8:11 pmzuch says:
That’s a job for Southern state prisoners….
Cheers,
July 26, 2010, 8:20 pmzuch says:
… and you were speeding. MRPC Rule 8.4 (c) and (d)….
Cheers,
July 26, 2010, 8:26 pmOwen H. says:
What an interesting theory. I’m curious though; where exactly do you find a right to break the law? Truly, it reminds me of the arguments against red-light cameras, as if there is some basic right to not being observed while breaking the law. Good thing most criminals don’t have the means to simply tie their cases up in litigation forever, as you suggest.
As Chris Rock said, first rule is to obey the law. If you aren’t speeding, then them running speed traps as revenue generation doesn’t matter.
July 26, 2010, 8:28 pmOwen H. says:
Truly, a friction-free slippery slope you envision.
July 26, 2010, 8:29 pmDilan Esper says:
One of two things happen: The violator demands a hearing at his preliminary appearance.
I love this, because it shows you what a **** at least one cop is.
The person you ticket is a SUSPECT. Not a “violator”. A SUSPECT. YOU have no right or power to declare the person guilty. Only a court can do that.
Part of the problem is to cops with big egos and a judge-jury-and-executioner complex, all we are is “violators”.
If we want to live in a free society, it should be a lot harder for traffic violations to be proven.
July 26, 2010, 8:40 pmDilan Esper says:
If you aren’t speeding, then them running speed traps as revenue generation doesn’t matter.
Sure it does. Part of the problem with traps is they are designed to make it more difficult for people to obey the law. Which confirms that many police officers are jerks when it comes to tickets.
The point of speed enforcement should be to make it as straightforward as possible for people to drive in a safe manner. You know what I actually like? Those signs that tell us our speed and tell us to slow down. Those things are great. Instead of making the police department tons of money, they slow us down. That’s the way things should work.
In contrast, a trap is designed to take law abiding citizens, put them in a situation where it is difficult for them to continue obeying the law, and then ticket them when they don’t. That’s not designed to slow us down– the whole point of using a trap is to make it difficult for us to slow down so the police department can steal our money.
July 26, 2010, 8:44 pmMalvolio says:
Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers, say, “Ask yourself, which costs more, new brakes or a new clutch?” (Hint: it’s the latter.) Of course, on a long hill, your brakes may overheat and fail. And of course, downshifting is only a possibility with a standard transmission.
Speed = Distance / Time. Velocity is a vector, so “I’m going 80MPH, due west.”
Chris Rock is an optimist. The way a speed trap works is that you don’t know the supposedly posted limit, or distance between the posting and the enforcement is too short to slow down. (A cop hiding behind a billboard is not a speed trap, it’s just bad luck for you.)
July 26, 2010, 8:46 pmDilan Esper says:
A cop hiding behind a billboard is not a speed trap, it’s just bad luck for you.
That’s true, but cops hiding behind billboards, once again, are confirmation that this is all about money and cops liking to swing their genitals around rather than about safety.
The way to get safety is for cops to be open and obvious. You put a CHP unit on the freeway, traffic slows down. People are more careful. You put him behind a billboard, sure, he can make a ton of money for the state, but the only car he slows down is the one he tickets (and he may not even slow that car down– people often times speed up after they get a ticket to make up for lost time).
The whole point of traffic enforcement should be slowing traffic to a safe speed. Properly done, this will involve VERY FEW tickets and certainly no lying in wait or speed traps.
July 26, 2010, 8:50 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Okay, and I’m still not understanding what the the OPS 6 and 663.7 mean.
July 26, 2010, 9:05 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Except that my ticket was NOT written for 75, but for a significantly lower speed.
July 26, 2010, 9:09 pmMaverick says:
Malvolio:
Velocity = Distance / Time, along a vector.
David was EASTBOUND on Route 50, according to the facts, so reference to velocity is appropriate.
Where are you going out west in such a hurry?
Maverick
July 26, 2010, 9:09 pmUbu Walker says:
You can usually plea a speeding ticket down to a cheap no-point non-moving violation. Obstruction of traffic, etc.
July 26, 2010, 9:13 pmMalvolio says:
I’m not sure that that is true. Certainly, if everyone knew exactly where the cops were, all the time, the relatively small number of cops would have negligible effect on average speed. People observe the limit because they might get caught.
There’s the next question, whether everyone observing the limit would actually improve safety. I’m suspicious of that one.
July 26, 2010, 9:21 pmDilan Esper says:
Certainly, if everyone knew exactly where the cops were, all the time, the relatively small number of cops would have negligible effect on average speed. People observe the limit because they might get caught.
This is wrong, though. The cop behind the billboard has no effect on traffic speed because nobody knows he is there. Indeed, the whole point is the highway patrol DOESN’T WANT the cop to have an effect on traffic speed, because that would reduce revenue and genital-swinging opportunities for cops.
Perhaps an effect like the one you are positing would occur if cops sat behind just about every billboard. But that would be the same effect as if cops were open and obvious on the highway.
July 26, 2010, 9:32 pmDave M. says:
Diversity jurisdiction? :p
July 26, 2010, 9:35 pmDave M. says:
Diversity jurisdiction? :p [joking]
July 26, 2010, 9:36 pmfrankcross says:
Dilan, the theory is that people know the cops will be hiding and so they slow down everywhere. Because there might be a cop anywhere.
July 26, 2010, 9:38 pmPorkchop says:
Okay, so the officer says 75 mph according to his laser equipment? Is it your position that you weren’t speeding, or that you weren’t speeding that fast? If I recall correctly, that portion of Route 50 is a 50 mph zone. So it looks like 25 mph over the limit? That section is between stop lights, so it would take some work to get up to that speed unless you had no red lights all the way from Route 7 or Patrick Henry Drive. It sounds like either you hit the accelerator really hard or something is very wrong with the laser equipment.
You could always have your speedometer calibrated ($50). A miscalibrated speedometer is a defense in Virginia. That might get the speed reduced somewhat.
If you have no previous tickets, you may be able to get into a diversion program. The cost of traffic school is in the $200 range, but you are looking at $300 plus in fines and court costs if the ticket is for a speed in the 75 mph range, and then potentially significant points (3 or 4, I think) with the attendant insurance premium increase (depending on the company and your history with it, of course).
Arlington General District Court is a snakepit for the uninitiated. You would be wise to get an experience local practitioner if you really want to fight it. At the very least, you would have someone who knows the officers and the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, who may be able to negotiate some kind of reduction for you.
I assume that you can access my e-mail address, so if you want a recommendation, e-mail me.
July 26, 2010, 9:41 pmCarLitGuy says:
Island,
unless there is something wrong with my browser (a possibility), you have attributed Maverick’s math to me. I am neither an attorney, nor in a position to make suppositions as to his line of reasoning.
Fredosaurus Rex Friday XIII,
July 26, 2010, 9:45 pmuse of a GPS system to calibrate distance traveled by vehicle is not necessarily best practice, depending upon curvature of the roads, changes in elevation (possibly at issue in the example giving rise to the thread) if signifigant in either degree or duration, and strength of signal considerations. However, .5 mph / 70 mph or 80 mph would be within the +/- 3% cited.
Dilan Esper says:
Dilan, the theory is that people know the cops will be hiding and so they slow down everywhere.
Thanks for not reading my comment.
I will repeat– this would only work if you had far more cops hiding behind billboards than we have; and then, it would only have the exact same effect that having cops open and obvious will have.
If there is a 1 in 2000 chance that behind any obstructed area alongside a highway, there will be a cop, why would that ever be enough to reduce speeds? But it’s perfect for raising revenue and allowing cops their power trip, because nobody slows down due to the low risk.
July 26, 2010, 9:47 pmRichard Atwood says:
Speaking of Lautenberg, here in Jersey his fellow-miscreant, Jim McGreevey, ruined a perfectly good system of pleading to a lesser charge with no points by adding a $250 surcharge and selling 20-year bonds based on the proceeds.
July 26, 2010, 9:54 pmSorry, I apologize on behalf of all Jersey drivers for these two.
CarLitGuy says:
By chance is that OPS 6 = Over Posted Speed +6 and a mile marker, denoting the location where you were lasered? Alternately, Over Posted Speed 6.6637 mph?
(wild speculation on my part)
[edited to add a missing 6]
July 26, 2010, 10:06 pmDavid Bernstein says:
No, it wasn’t written for 75, and it won’t be a reckless driving charge. I should add that it would have been physically impossible to go 75 at that particular time and place, given traffic conditions. But is that what “OPS 6″ et al means? I checked 663.7 in the Va. code, there is nothing.
July 26, 2010, 10:08 pmSteve2 says:
May be “good” in the sense of successful, but “good” in terms of truthful it isn’t. The human eye, training or no, can’t distinguish speeds much above 20 mph. That’s why residents will insist people are speeding through their neighborhood at 40 or 50 mph even though every radar gun, laser gun, and speedometer in the world is going to agree the top speed is 30. There’s only one way to visually measure speed, and that’s with a stopwatch and fixed reference points a known distance apart.
Oh, and “Steve 2″, I already have dibs on our name and that number. You can be Steve 3, I don’t think that’s claimed yet.
July 26, 2010, 10:10 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I mean the cop swore that the light was red and that’s why he gave me a ticket, and I showed that the light wasn’t anything.
ptt:
Do you mean you didn’t stop or that you stopped and then proceeded with caution?
mean
July 26, 2010, 10:11 pmJack Frazier says:
I handle these all the time. If you are charged with “Reckless Driving” it is a class 1 misdemeanor, and you want a lawyer to help you get it reduced to simple speeding. If it is a simple speeding, you might be able to get it changed to ‘failure to pay full time and attention’ under county code. Arlington County Code Section 14.2-16. Still a fine, but no points associated with it, so it should have minimal to no effect on your insurance. Arlington County Code is located at http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/countyboard/countycode/default.aspx
Get speedometer calibrated. It may help, if testing demonstrates that the speedometer indicates that you are driving slower than actual speed of vehicle. Driver Improvement Clinic can also help, but if it is in Arlington, they have their own clinic that they prefer you take.
Don’t expect that continuances will buy you a dismissal. These cases are set for the officer’s regularly scheduled court date. All of his traffic cases for the month will be on that date, and that his assignment for the day until all cases finished. If officer not there, Police HQ is right around the corner from the courthouse in Arlington. One of his buddies will call out for him. If he has valid reason for not being there, his sergeant will make sure the court knows about it.
One final point. It is hard for defendant to negotiate with the Assistant County Attorney, he/she usually refuses to talk with defendants. Might make an exception for a lawyer. Best result short of a nolle prosequi would be plea to amended charge under county code. There are some tricks to play regarding laser speed gun, but as one of the earlier entry states, the next one I see work will be the first one.
July 26, 2010, 10:13 pmKevin R.C. O'Brien says:
Emphasis mine:
And we look down on places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe for corruption…
July 26, 2010, 10:13 pmBrian E says:
We’re all criminals, and most of us are felons. Perfect law enforcement means that we’re all doomed. Our system of law was not designed for perfect enforcement, but for judgement and discretion. This is the basic argument against speed traps as well.
July 26, 2010, 10:15 pmStormy Dragon says:
Uh, no… downshifting is what the 3 and L settings on most automatic transmissions do.
July 26, 2010, 10:27 pmanon says:
Not the first time an Arlington cop has tried to screw me.
I have had 2 different white male Arlington cops lie in court. Being I am a middle aged white male, there was no racial or gender bias with either one. But I will never believe another cop about anything, and if I am on a jury again, nullification is the word (after I’m seated and in the jury room). Especially for any case involving drugs.
You prosecutors have no clue how effective the police in this country are today at creating middle class believers in and practitioners of jury nullification.
And we won’t tell you that during voir dire….
July 26, 2010, 10:36 pmrb1971 says:
I called my cousin (police but not VA, apologies) who tells me that OPS is almost certainly “Over Posted Speed”, and that police will often but not always write this lower than whatever speed they actually clocked you. This would presumably have various benefits including making people less likely to fight and reducing suspect credibility if you and the police officer were in front of a judge he knows (i.e., “Your honor, you know I always knock 3 mph off my gun’s speed just to be a nice guy. This person is therefore a liar, etc.”)
I would think from looking at a few police radar displays online that 663.7 may be the distance from you to the police car at the time of the reading. Must be in feet but 2 football fields seems like a long way away to me. If that’s the case then your best factual argument, assuming traffic, is that the officer must have been targeting someone else but thought it was you. It might help this argument to have a speedo calibration as others have suggested, but then again that might be a wasted $50 (plus your time) depending on the judge.
Since your ticket wasn’t DWI, reckless, street racing or any other big insurance no-no, I’d probably just go to court and see what deals they are doing that day. I got a reduction from 9 over to 4 over (ie no points) years ago just by showing up. If you got the same deal and the laws haven’t changed, you’d go from 6 to 1. Note that I still paid the fine for 9 over.
Sorry this happened to you by the way. Speeding enforcement is arbitrary and capricious and I’m sure any lay person who observed your conduct when ticketed would probably have just said you were going with the flow of traffic.
July 26, 2010, 10:38 pmJack Frazier says:
Northern Virginia has big chunk of federal parkland next to the Potomac River. Major traffic route, George Washington Parkway runs right through it. If you speed there, you’ll be stopped by U.S. Park Police.
Any tickets from U.S. Park Police get heard in U.S. District Court. In this case, it would be in Alexandria (Eastern District of Virginia). This can actually be better for you because third DWI in Virginia is a felony under state law. No enhancement provision under Code of Federal Regulations.
July 26, 2010, 10:43 pmfrankcross says:
Dilan, that’s not very rational. A 1 in 2000 chance could well be enough to reduce speeds. All depends on utility of speeding vs. utility of not being ticketed for exceeding speed limit. Latter could easily exceed former by 2000x.
July 26, 2010, 10:46 pmAnonymous says:
There is not a hill on 50 eastbound.
The hill is coming down from N. Edison, and if it is “the relevant hill” it would appear that it is quite a hill, and you would be turning onto the 50.
This Google Maps link is showing the hill in question.
Good luck fighting that.
I notice that while you mention that you glanced at the speedometer, you do not state what you saw.
Just pay the damn thing, admit that you may have been speeding, and be careful not to harm yourself or someone else the next time.
July 26, 2010, 10:59 pmDilan Esper says:
Dilan, that’s not very rational. A 1 in 2000 chance could well be enough to reduce speeds. All depends on utility of speeding vs. utility of not being ticketed for exceeding speed limit. Latter could easily exceed former by 2000x.
You are assuming rational actors.
It is well established that even low-probability, high-magnitude risks tend to be disregarded. This is a low-probability, moderate-magnitude risk.
Indeed, we have the proof, which is that the flow of traffic on our highways (i.e., AVERAGE speed) is far above the limit. So obviously giving the cops this revenue raising, genital-swinging power hasn’t made even a dent in speeding. Whereas those signs I like actually work– people slow down when they see their speed displayed.
July 26, 2010, 11:19 pmHarvey says:
A true story: A westbound driver notices traffic police monitoring eastbound traffic. Driver begins flashing her lights to alert eastbound drivers approaching the trap, i.e., advising them to obey the law. For this sound advice she receives a citation for “interfering with police.” Justice in action.
July 26, 2010, 11:20 pmPeter Shalen says:
It must be great to be able to get free advice from all these lawyers when you have a speeding ticket :-)
July 26, 2010, 11:27 pmKurt M. says:
I had a speeding ticket in Arlington not to long ago, also with Laser. Cop standing on the street with a hand held laser gun.
I had the case continued twice for non-tactical reasons. The third time I showed up, the cop was there. I was the third case called in the morning docket. The two people before me had plead out.
I asked for the calibration certificate : he had it.
I asked for the record showing that the used the same serial number gun for tracking my car: he had the log.
So, I got creative. I asked some questions about the traffic rate (he didn’t know). I asked some questions about conditions (cloudy). I asked how far my car was away from him at the time he clocked my car (400 feet).
I then asked him if he was aware of the fact that laser beams spread out in width as the beam travels in length. He said he was aware of that. I then asked him if he knew what the rate of the spread was. He said “I wouldn’t even hazard a guess.”
Bingo. I said I was done with questions. The judge asked me if I wanted to give any testimony. I said no, but could I give a closing remark. Judge said OK.
I said, “Your honor, the commonwealth admits that a laser beam spreads out as it travels, but they say them won’t even guess at the rate. It could be an inch, a foot, a yard – we have no idea. The commonwealth said I was 400 feet away, so this makes a difference. We cannot be sure what vehicles were within that width, so I submit there is a legally reasonable doubt.”
Judge says, “Well, I think the rate is something like half an inch, but there was no testimony on it, so I am going to dismiss the case.”
As I walked out, I couldn’t help but wondering since I was the third person up how many people after me were going to pull the same strategy.
Of course, I utterly deny that I was speeding, and I am pleased that justice was done in this case.
If you go to court, let us know. I may show up for this :).
Good luck!
July 26, 2010, 11:32 pmCassandra says:
With the right encouragement, I could build you a little box you can place on a table before the cop, who will swear that it is sitting still on the table, that will be shown to be speeding when the he is asked to point his laser at it. Simple laser physics.
July 26, 2010, 11:40 pmanomdebus says:
This looks like something of a hill (note: looking west or head onto the direction of travel suggested):
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=is+that+david+in+the+sedan&sll=37.996163,-95.712891&sspn=45.058638,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=N+Edison+St,+Arlington,+Virginia&t=h&ll=38.866544,-77.121449&spn=0.008838,0.022488&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.866481,-77.122414&panoid=AO5fpf9JCDmuhAXlJLMa5A&cbp=12,265.29,,0,11.96
He did say that it was not much of a hill, though it looks to me like it could sustain a car’s speed through the actual incline.
July 26, 2010, 11:46 pmBuck Turgidson says:
Contrary to what someone wrote above, testing the speedometer costs at least as much as a 15-20 mph over limit tickets in East Coast states (more in some, less in others).
I was once ticketed 100 ft from my driveway, supposedly going 40 mph–although I got pulled over in the next block, once I passed the cop. The feat was physically impossible, but our apartment building, at the time, was used for the local speed trap as there was a wide right turn the street made around the building, with the driveway just on the right side of the turn–i.e., in full view of the cop. There might have been someone going around the curve at 40 mph, but it is simply impossible to get out of an uphill driveway (about a 10% incline from garage to driveway exit over about 70 ft), make a sharp right turn into a fairly busy street (even without stopping, which is a really foolish thing to do, given that lots of cars do go around the bend at 40mph) and accelerate for 100 ft (or even 800 ft) to reach 40 mph. So the whole ticket was a work of fiction. Nonetheless, in that jurisdiction, all tickets are handled at the town hall and the rate of “not guilty” on formal challenges is less than 1%. The best you can hope for is for the city attorney to “offer” minimal offense of 5 mph over, with the corresponding $50-$90 ticket and anywhere from 1 to 3 points (depending on jurisdiction). Most speeders take the offer because it reduces the points (in that state, you are allowed 12 points in 12 months–you insurance does not go up, but your license is then suspended except for job-related driving).
One great story I had was a of a parking ticket in an unnamed jurisdiction, where I was 1) legally parked at a meter, 2) the meter has not yet expired at the time we got back to the care after the ticket was already issued, 3) the ticket was dated two hours before we parked at the meter and 4) I had store and bank receipts from another town 25 miles away 3 minutes before the ticket was supposedly issued (and another store receipt from the time when we were actually parked). I checked the ticket and it had the correct license place number. I immediately went to town hall and showed them the ticket and all three receipts. The clerk told me it was all irrelevant. I ripped up the ticket into confetti and left the pile in the clerk’s window. I never heard from them again–the whole thing might have been an off-the-books scheme.
Boston cops used to habitually set up a speed trap at the end of one of the airport tunnels. That would slow one lane to a crawl, once the flashing lights were within view, and many people would cross over to the other lane (without speeding) to avoid the pile up. They would then be ticketed for crossing the solid white line between the lanes. Those who showed up for the hearing would have their tickets summarily dismissed (except in rare cases of criminal complaints or those whom the cops specifically identified as being hostile), which represented less than 25% off all tickets issued–even though one of the four cops involved in the ticketing would be present for the hearings. It was all a revenue generating scheme with no legitimate purpose. Eventually, a local court ordered them to stop using the tunnel exit as a speed trap (because it harmed public safety rather than improving it) and the state recently passed a law requiring changing lanes to avoid a stopped emergency vehicle, so those tickets would have been invalid if issued today.
Another odd Boston story was when the old Boston Garden was still up. Someone used to set up a parking lot under the highway for the Celtics and Bruins games. It all looked legit because there were police cars always parked near the entrance into the supposed parking lot, the lot was surrounded by a chain and there was a uniformed attendant collecting lot fees on entrance. Except when the fans came out, the lot would be gone and the cars towed. This happened every single games, despite regular complaints. The cops did nothing for years! Eventually, a court put an end to the scheme, but, by then, the old Garden was already about to be torn down, as was the highway. Several Boston cops were indicted in an unrelated case for getting kickbacks from an illegal towing operation (they would issue illegal tickets for perfectly legitimate parking and get cars towed). The only reason this ever got to court was because the towing company people got greedy and started stealing from the inside of the cars.
July 26, 2010, 11:56 pmMLS says:
These are all interesting (and some humorous) comments, but it seems to me that they are not directed to at least four key issues presented here, namely:
1. Was the officer fully trained and certified to operate the specific device he/she used?
2. Was the device actually used by the officer as required to secure an accurate reading of speed?
3. Were other variables present (e.g., other vehicles, weather conditions) that could result in an error?
4. Was the specific device used by the officer properly tested and calibrated in accordance with manufacturer supplied specifications/directions such that it can be determined that the device was working properly at the time the ticket was issued?
At least 4 above may require the prosecution to provide an expert witness.
In matters such as this it seems to me that people are much to quick to assume that an officer knows what he/she is doing in operating the laser, and that the laser is accorded an almost irrebutable presumption that it is working perfectly.
A case that touches on these and other issues can be found at http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2920.asp. The case talks about substantive matters attendant to the government’s burden of proof. Virginia law may very well contain some different substantive elements, but it seems doubtful that what must be shown to satisfy the state’s burden of proof is one of them.
July 27, 2010, 12:07 amef says:
My take:
OPS = Over Posted Speed
6+ means by more than 6 mph. (as opposed to recording the actual speed)
667.3 is probably the distance, since a laser will give a very precise measurement.
The known distance, along with identifying the officer’s position would allow you to identify the exact location your speed was (allegedly) measured.
Also I seem to recall that the laser has a spread of a couple degrees. A quick calculation would give you the footprint of the beam at that range. If it is large enough it may have included other vehicles, though I am not certain that would be persuasive in court.
With today’s technology it seems inexcusable that there is no recording device included on speed guns. The cost of providing for the recording and storage of 15 – 20 seconds of video is negligible and would make most cases simply a matter of reviewing the recording. Even better, it would be a huge boost to the credibility (and a check on misbehavior) of the police by removing the testimony of the officer as the determining factor in court. Having the video would make it very difficult to “screw” Joe Public with bogus tickets.
July 27, 2010, 12:10 amef says:
relevant to a couple of comments is this:
The beam of a laser gun is easily aimed at a traveling vehicle, such as yours, and scanned across the front grille area at a typical 400 to 600 feet. At those distances, the laser beam is about 12″ to 22″ wide, depending on manufacturer of the laser gun.
Not really significant an effect at that range.
July 27, 2010, 12:18 amDave Hardy says:
Many yrs ago got ticketed for parking in the cross-hatched area of a Metro lot (major snow and ice storm left no real choice). Went to Arlington Kiddie Court. The officer hadn’t bothered to get the vehicle registration and, when asked why she believed I had parked that car, could only reply that I was the one who showed up for this hearing.
Judge still upheld the ticket, saying this was city court or traffic court or whatever, with the implication that silly things like proving the defendant had done it weren’t going to stand in the way of collecting a fine.
July 27, 2010, 12:19 amDavid Bernstein says:
For the record, it was the officer, not me, who claimed that he clocked me at the “top of the hill.” I’d just call it an incline. Either way, no way I was going the speed claimed.
July 27, 2010, 12:20 amMLS says:
BTW, the accuracy of a laser gun reading is also a function of the distance between the officer and a vehicle. The greater the distance the greater the likelihood that even the slightest movement of the laser gun by the officer can easily result in readings of speed that overstate actual speed by a significant amount.
July 27, 2010, 12:22 amDiversityHire says:
I contested a ticket in California. The police officer was wrong on the facts and had an attitude a lot like Dukeboy01 has on display above. The officer ticketed me for making a right on red w/o stopping; I hadn’t stopped because the intersection has a green arrow on display for the first half of the red cycle. I explained this to the police officer when he pulled me over. He didn’t listen, but did attempt some macho-cop monologuing and posturing. His departure from the scene was more dangerous than anything else that occurred at that intersection during our time together.
I returned a few days later, took some measurements and notes, drew a crude diagram, and wrote down the traffic and signal patterns as best I could figure them out.
The officer showed-up for court well-prepared. Mine was the first case, we were both early. He was restrained and polite. No more macho bullshit. He’d brought a fancy diagram of the intersection printed on poster-size paper. I figured it was all over, I would lose. Then he started to speak. He spoke slowly and deliberately. Maybe he was trying to portray “respect for authority” or “seriousness of the process”, but it came off as “bully caught by principal” or “little Jimmy in trouble with daddy”. The judge smiled a little at his mispronunciations. When he tried to explain his diagram it was pretty clear that he didn’t understand the intersection.
I read through the questions I’d prepared: how many west-bound lanes, what was the signal pattern, how long did each signal last, were the lights controlled solely by a timer or did they respond to sensors/transducers. Did he still think that the diagram as presented accurately represented the intersection? How many east-bound lanes were there at the intersection? Etc.
Without trying or meaning to, I tied the guy up in knots with simple, factual questions about the intersection. The judge let it go on way too long, but I thought I was losing and just kept asking questions. Finally the judge, smiling said, “Oh, ok, I think we’ve established some reasonable doubt.” She dismissed the case. The officer left quickly, w/o his diagram. I figured I didn’t want to get in his way so I took a seat in the back of the room.
None of the rest of the cases were dismissed; the other officers didn’t exude the treacly fakeness my witness had, but nobody asked them any pertinent questions either. They all seemed way too stupid to be adult human beings, much less entrusted with a modicum of authority; all seriously, shockingly dumb. Anyone w/ average or above verbal skills and intelligence— and an enabling judge—could totally humiliate them: Give it a shot. Plus, they likely won’t pick up on it, so everybody wins.
July 27, 2010, 12:49 amanon says:
WOW! What a way to get free legal advice!
July 27, 2010, 12:50 amORID says:
One day I’m going to amend the California Constitution to make it unconstitutional to give points or cause any other penalty other than a $50 fine for going 20% more than the speed limit. Additionally it will be unconstitutional to change the speed limit without due process, etc. etc. and prior to the date I start gathering signatures.
I don’t see why propositions like this don’t enjoy great success… or even an effort..
July 27, 2010, 12:53 amSometimeDefenseAtty says:
I practice extensively in the area of criminal defense, mostly traffic-related issues, in North Carolina. Based on my experience, I suggest the following:
1. I have never seen anyone prevail at a trial of a minor speeding ticket. After all, judges and ADAs are regular humans with common faults — as a result, they tend to consider those that request a trial on a speeding ticket petty blowhards. I disagree with that attitude, but it exists.
2. Cops show up 95% of the time. And when the cop doesn’t show up, the ADA will just take a continuance (at least that is the case in NC).
3. If you want to “fight the ticket,” you are better served convincing to the ADA to dismiss the charge than putting on a full-blown trial. Remember that ADAs deal with 100s of tickets every day. Thus, they want to get rid of your case. However, ADAs have bosses who scrutinize their daily case disposition. Thus, you have to give the ADA a reason for why a dismissal is warranted. Say the following to the ADA: (a) you are a law professor [ADAs want to extend professional courtesy]; (b) you have a completely clean driving record [i.e., no convictions] for X number of years [you should print your driving record before court]; (c) you genuinely believe that you weren’t speeding, and you have picture that show how difficult it would be to speed as fast as the officer alleges at that particular location [have the pictures handy]; (d) inform the ADA that you were “polite and cooperative” with the officer [provided that is true]; and (e) explain that you have a large family, and that a conviction on your family insurance policy will have difficult financial consequences; (f) BEG!!!; (g) be polite to the ADA
4. If the above doesn’t get a voluntary dismissal, you’ll get a reduction that won’t impact your insurance
July 27, 2010, 1:23 amThe Awful Truth says:
I used to live in Oakland, Ca in an area with some really steep hills. The general pattern is that driving uphill most drivers are going 10 MPH below the speed limit. Downhill almost everybody is above the speed limit. Some dangerously so.
So they put in the “you are going this fast” readers. All of them were placed in lanes going uphill, none downhill. A few were positioned a few yards on the other side of stop signs or red lights, were AJ Foyt would have trouble speeding.
At the time I wondered if they were really this stupid, or if someone was deliberately sabotaging the program.
July 27, 2010, 1:46 amwordsmith says:
Yes, there is. US 50/Arlington Boulevard is elevated over Carlin Springs and Four Mile Run, and then descends to grade level at Edison. It’s no black diamond, but it’s definitely downhill. Arlington County police like to hide there and clock folks on the way down. Yes, I do know from personal experience. :(
That’s funny. Google Maps is very useful, but no one in the real world could confuse traveling on US 50 with traveling on N.Edison. And by the way, locals don’t call it “the 50.”
I second Jack Frazier’s advice. The chance of an acquittal on a laser ticket is nearly nil. You might be able to plead it down, but you’ll probably need local counsel. I couldn’t get more than a minute to talk with the Ass’t Co. Atty, and he wasn’t interested in dealing with me.
July 27, 2010, 1:48 amwordsmith says:
Congratulations on the win! Nice to know it happens, however rarely.
July 27, 2010, 2:17 amHarold says:
Speed limit has nothing to do with safety. If speed limits were eliminated altogether, average speeds would rise, and accident rates would go down. The accidents that did occur on interstates would be truly spectacular. And most would occur due to drunks, not speed.
That said, plead down to a non-moving violation. That’s what I’ve done with my last few.
July 27, 2010, 5:23 ammarkm says:
If your last name was Volokh, you might pretend to speak only Russian and demand an interpreter.
Many years ago I accompanied an El Salvadoran acquaintance to court in Manassas on a charge of driving without insurance. He was guilty all right, and could afford the fine. I was hoping to get an interpreter that could explain auto insurance in Spanish. But no interpreter, so case dismissed.
July 27, 2010, 6:59 amFormerStudent says:
If this is about getting the ticket dismissed/reduced, hire an attorney. Good arguments will work on the Commonwealth as well or better than the judge, but you’ll need an attorney to make them. In economic terms the attorney is your market signal that you are serious and your arguments are worth taking the time to listen to. In Fairfax the Commonwealth won’t talk to a pro se at all. That might not be the policy in Arlington, but it sounds like it is close.
If this is about ego or something else, good luck, and be sure to let us know what happens.
July 27, 2010, 7:09 amJoe Kowalski says:
I just got done with a ticket in Oregon for failing to “Obey a Traffic Control Device”, which in Oregon means on a yellow light you are only allowed to proceed through if it would be unsafe to stop. I entered an intersection on a yellow that according to the officer turned red while I was passing through (I was not at a vantage to observe this). There had been another vehicle tailing me pretty closely, but immediately turned right at the intersection. For whatever reason the officer failed to observe this, and since this other vehicle’s presence was my only claim to having a reason to proceed on the yellow, and the only evidence of its presence was my word, I plead no contest. The municipal magistrate visibly rolled his eyes. $240 fine plus a $40, 6 hour “traffic safety school” diversion later and the whole thing goes away.
July 27, 2010, 7:12 amAdjoran says:
Before the hearing, obtain a copy of the manual for the laser gun.
Ask the officer on cross whether he is familiar with the details of calibration and verification. You may also slip in some doubt with questions – “Has the accuracy of these devices ever been challenged in court?” Most of these devices recommend a field test before each use, which is rarely actually performed. If it was not performed in accordance with the manual, you may have grounds for dismissal.
Your best hope is a dumb cop, which puts the odds slightly in your favor.
July 27, 2010, 7:12 amisland says:
Sorry. My mistake.
July 27, 2010, 7:24 amOwen H. says:
Then clearly the solution is to use speed cameras and clearly post that they are in use.
Ever consider that by not knowing where a cop might be, it encourages people to not speed at all?
July 27, 2010, 7:25 amOwen H. says:
I am also amused by how many people on a libertarian blog think the best way to deal with the issue is to force the government to spend more money.
July 27, 2010, 7:30 amSupremecourtjester says:
There are some tricks mentioned in my book, New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (West’s New York Practice Series)for trying speeding cases in general.
If the officer says he can estimate speed, drop a hard boiled egg from shoulder height and ask him how fast it was going when it hit the ground.
Ask him how he knows that the device he used is a laser device–his information is from the manual and is hearsay !
July 27, 2010, 8:46 amBill Twist says:
One interesting way to fight speeding tickets (provided you don’t actually speed) is to simply hook up a video camera in your car that can see your dashboard and out the front window, and record while you are moving. You don’t have to tell the officer about it, just show up in court with video showing at the time the officer says you were going 35 MPH, your speedometer says you were going 30.
July 27, 2010, 8:51 amDavid Bernstein says:
Lots of good advice here; remarkable that no one knows for sure what the 663.7 is.
Query: The officer was sitting in his car, not standing and pointing the gun as I normally see. Assumedly, he had the gun set up on the driver side, which is why he was pulling over people in the right lane. But how confident could he be that he got the right car if he was looking in his side view mirror?
July 27, 2010, 9:36 amDeaner says:
Call Dave Albo’s law firm. His firm handles a lot of traffic offenses.
July 27, 2010, 9:51 ambillb says:
DB: If the laser (lidar) gun is like those I see police around here using, it has optical sights on it for him to look through. I.e., he wouldn’t have been looking in his mirror, but down the sights of the laser device and through a set of crosshairs (like this guy: http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/207294-chp-now-officers-of-light). I don’t think that dash-mounted lidar guns exist due to the accurate aiming requirements. My Google searches only turn up guns.
July 27, 2010, 9:52 amMartinned says:
Ah, aren’t privacy laws wonderful? AFAIK, on my side of the Atlantic the only things that get you an increased insurance premium are motoring felonies and actual accidents. Simple speeding tickets are a matter between you and the DoJ.
July 27, 2010, 10:14 amTanker J.D. says:
The scene of the crime.
July 27, 2010, 10:18 amGaunilo says:
The first thing you should understand that there is no one in the justice system involving traffic tickets who cares in any way whether you were guilty or not. You have a ticket, they have a docket number, and you are just one more grain to feed into the wheels of justice (loosely defined)
The advice that your only real leverage is being a nuisance to them is really good. They are in general not interested in cases that cost more than they generate except on the principle that they must crush someone now and then to make the rest of the chumps comply.
From a technical point of view, the dirty secret of laser speed measuring devices is that they are not laser, but focused beams of light (lidar) and that the beam width is much wider than they admit to. That is the reason they are so reluctant to reveal any technical information. So there is a reasonable chance that you and an adjacent car were clocked at the same time. This gives room for the same basic argument against radar–how was the target identified.
But in reality, this is completely useless. I know of no one who ever prevailed in a radar case, even when the radar gun was used in freeway traffic with hundreds of cars in the radar beam. Remember that the readout doesn’t say Toyota Corolla Lic. # XXX, it simply reads 78 mph. The officer as a trained specialist (who of course would be totally baffled by the concept of inverse square dispersion of energy) is ready to testify that he knows who he clocked.
There are even studies published by the DOT that show that the reflective profile of vehicles varies by a ratio of 1:66 for least reflective to most reflective vehicles.
The testimony given by the cop will be the equivalent of this line of testimony in a burglary case:
“I am reasonably certain that a burglary took place at 7: p.m. on 3/14/10. There is a long list of possible suspects, but in my opinion as a trained officer, John Smith committed the burglary.”
None of this matters. You are guilty until proven innocent by an overwhelming body of evidence. So do what you can for the rest of us and screw up the system as best you can.
I would like to live long enough to see what the traffic system would look like if it were not profitable.
July 27, 2010, 10:49 amJoe says:
Michigan case law has certain requirements that must be met for due process, you may want to see if there is something similar in VA:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11767105803381880391&hl=en&as_sdt=80000004
1. The officer operating the device has adequate training and experience in its operation.
July 27, 2010, 11:05 am2. That the radar device was in proper working condition and properly installed in the patrol vehicle at the time of the issuance of the citation.
3. That the device was used in an area where road conditions are such that there is a minimum possibility of distortion.
4. That the input speed of the patrol vehicle was verified. This also means that the speedometer of the patrol vehicle was independently calibrated.
5. That the speedmeter be retested at the end of the shift in the same manner that it was tested prior to the shift and that the speedmeter be serviced by the manufacturer or other professional as recommended.
6. That the radar operator be able to establish that the target vehicle was within the operational area of the beam at the time the reading was displayed.
7. That the particular unit has been certified for use by an agency with some demonstrable expertise in the area.
Seamus says:
I’d be extremely surprised if Prof. Bernstein were going 80 mph on Arlington Boulevard. The road just doesn’t support that kind of speed. Especially if it was during (the paradoxically named) rush hour.
July 27, 2010, 11:25 amSeamus says:
There’s no jury trial before General District Court in Virginia.
July 27, 2010, 11:28 amThe Ghost of Spalding Smails' Booger says:
+663 is likely the distance at the time he obtained a reading. If you were moving away from him it would have been -663.
He will probably say that he made a visual estimation of your speed, which was confirmed with the use of Lidar. Your best bet is to challenge the foundation. Make sure he tested the Lidar device before and after his shift. You also need to make sure he performed the proper tests (vertical and horizontal sight alignment, etc). Ask if he personally measured the distances that he used for the testing.
With all that said, if you can take defensive driving or take probation and have the ticket wiped off your record, you should consider it.
July 27, 2010, 11:41 amA. Criminal says:
Plead insanity.
July 27, 2010, 11:44 amSeamus says:
There’s no jury trial before General District Court in Virginia.
That “Google Maps link” shows bucolic North Edison Street, not Route 50, where the ticket was issued.
July 27, 2010, 11:48 amPatents says:
It is very unlikely that anyone wins if it comes to a hearing. The trick is to talk to the police officer before the hearing and ask him to reduce the charge to something with no points on your insurance and possibly a lesser fine.
July 27, 2010, 11:50 amI once fought a ticket in an obvious speed trap (I could see the sign at the top of the hill where the limit changed to 55 and I was clocked going 56). I argued unfairness, bad treatment of the taxpayers, etc. The judge agreed with everything I said and then told me I had no case. A few years later, I talked to the police officer the morning of the hearing. He told me that every one of the dozen or so people waiting for the hearing would be pleading to a lesser charge (something like failure to heed a traffic sign, or something) having no points and a lesser fine without ever seeing the inside of the courtroom. Identical thing happened twice to me in other places.
Seamus says:
BTW, I will probably be traveling Route 50 tomorrow on my way to work, so that I can drop off my shirts at the cleaners at Arlington Forest Shopping Center, so thanks for the head’s-up.
(And on Thursday and Friday, when I follow my usual route on Columbia Pike, I’ll be sure to look out for speed traps in front of the Navy Annex (where I’ve been caught before) and hiding under the Washington Boulevard underpass (where I haven’t been caught, but where Arlington cops like to lurk, hoping to catch drivers who’ve been going 40 mph where the posted speed is a ridiculously low 25 mph).
I hate monthly ticket quotas.
July 27, 2010, 11:52 amarch1 says:
David, have you done the experiment yet?
I for one would like to know how fast you really were going at the top of that hill.
July 27, 2010, 12:44 pmJaimeInTexas says:
I read almost all of the comments. One point not raised yet: for the radar/lasr to be accurate it must also be used in a straight line. “Clocking” a car in a curve will cause a false reading. On a hill? Do not know, but my guess it would depend on the hill’s grade and where the cop was, relative, to the road’s plane.
You should hire a traffic attorney if you wish to contest. Observe what the attorney did and learn. Then, let us know.
July 27, 2010, 12:49 pmRexx says:
I just went through this in North Carolina, busted for doing 70 in a 55 zone. I was about three hours from where I live, and driving back and forth to court was not very appealing to me and I decided to hire a lawyer to see what he could do for me. The county I was charged in was unfamiliar with me, but while I was waiting to accumulate the funds to pay the lawyer the letter started arriving solicitation my business.
I made several calls, and picked one, emailed him my consent to represent me, and paid via credit card over the telephone (aren’t modern convenient just wonderful?). My lawyer pled down the speeding charge, which if I had been convicted of would have raised my insurance premiums considerable, to operating with improper equipment. The total cost to me was $225.00.
Unless you want to fight this on principle I would suggest that you take my route, talk to some lawyers who deal with this on a regular basics.
July 27, 2010, 12:50 pmJaimeInTexas says:
Check the manufacturer’s required line-of-sight for a valid reading. I am begining to wonder of “clocking” cars at the top of a hill, from the bottom is a setup designed to always increase the real speed by a certain factor. In other words, it is a designed trap.
July 27, 2010, 1:02 pmzuch says:
I was unsure for a while what the “B” setting was (under the “D” for “drive”) on my CVT (which has no ‘gears’ and thus no “2″ or “1″). Found out that this was for “brake” (as in “engine brake”) and was for use in going down long hills so as to spare the brakes from overheating…. But I’ve never had occasion to use it, despite regularly descending an 800′ 7° grade. Maybe coming back from Tahoe, but as that’s usually in winter, no real problem in brakes overheating….
Cheers,
July 27, 2010, 1:25 pmtamberlaine says:
How do you remain polite and handle an entrapment question like “Do you know how fast you were going?” If you say yes, won’t they ask for a number? For sake of argument, assume you were speeding… if you give a lower number won’t the officer consider you a liar?
July 27, 2010, 1:26 pmzuch says:
Any component of velocity not parallel to line-of-sight will contribute to overall speed, thus such inaccuracy will underestimate overall speed. Which doesn’t help your case unless you’re ticketed for going too slow….
Cheers,
July 27, 2010, 1:41 pmBill Harshaw says:
I wonder: why is the citation so cryptic? I’m sure Prof. Bernstein has a good basis for challenging, but surely if the citation were clear, it would likely decrease the percentage of citations which are challenged, thus reducing the waste of time and money on the part of the jurisdiction and the motorist. In these days of automation, surely it wouldn’t be hard to for a device to generate a printout of when it was calibrated and the other technical parameters raised in this discussion.
July 27, 2010, 1:55 pmzippypinhead says:
Because there’s a lot of major highways on Federal land in Northern Virginia, and Federal LEOs apply Virginia traffic laws per Federal regulation. The cases end up in E.D.Va. before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and are handled by junior prosecutors, usually on short-term Special Asst. U.S. Atty. details from other parts of USDOJ. When Professor Kerr was a wee pup in the Criminal Division of USDOJ, he served a SAUSA detail — he probably learned more about Virginia traffic laws than he ever thought possible… By the way, welcome back, Orin!
That’s potentially disastrous advice! There’s a well-publicized case pending in Maryland right now where a motorcyclist had a vidcam on his helmet running during a traffic stop, and he’s now charged with felony wiretapping. You probably wouldn’t end up in exactly the same trouble on the south side of the Potomac, since Virgina permits one-party consent to recording. But I’m sure the police and Commonwealth’s Attorney would still find some creative way to make you regret it.
If you’re really intent on fighting a laser ticket pro se in Virginia, about half the advice offered above is either inapplicable or just plain wrong. Three points: (1) Arlington County cops WILL show up for traffic court. (2) the judge knows enough about laser devices to understand there’s almost no possibility of a trained officer getting the wrong car or the device showing a grossly inaccurate reading (unlike radar, which has a huge cone and can even be confused by moving radiator fanblades). (3) chances are the Arlington officer who stopped you is assigned to the Patrol Section, is highly trained in traffic enforcement, and is quite comfortable testifying in court. You won’t be able to cross-examine him into submission. Either get some face time with the Asst. Commonwealth’s Atty beforehand and get him to cut the violation to a speed with fewer points, or go to trial and hope they forgot to bring the calibration certificate for the specific laser gun the officer was using (odds of that happening in Arlington = very low).
July 27, 2010, 1:56 pmDukeboy01 says:
Guess I just made the list, huh…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM
July 27, 2010, 2:01 pmCynical says:
No, any off-track error will decrease the speed reading via cosine error. However, if the gun must be swept to track the target, variations in the range of background objects could easily cause false speed readings.
A beam 2° wide will be over 23 feet across at a distance of 660 feet. A standard traffic lane is 16 feet wide. It is very likely that such a measurement could be influenced by 2 or more vehicles and a considerable amount of background clutter.
July 27, 2010, 2:13 pmhugh says:
I agree with the advice that the best thing to do is hire an attorney who is experienced in fighting traffic tickets.
The best defense to use in fighting the ticket is to say the right things to the officer who pulls you over so that he or she does not write the ticket in the first place. I have only been pulled over for speeding thee times since I began driving in 1975 and I have only been issued one ticket.
The first time I got pulled over for speeding was on the interstate in West Virginia in 2001. I was as polite as could be to the officer. After he handed me the ricket, I told him that I was a former prosecutor and used to prosecute traffic offenders. The officer then said, “If I had known that earlier, I would not have written the ticket.” Oy! Well, I learned my lesson. In 2003 and in 2005 I got pulled over. I made sure to tell the officers right away that I used to prosecute traffic violations. I was lucky that both of these stops were in the county I had been a prosecutor in; I was able to get the information out in a conversational way. “Is M*** H*** still in the prosecutor’s office? I used to work with her in that office.” Then I would spent a few minutes talking about crime and punishment in north central Ohio. I got out of both tickets.
July 27, 2010, 4:08 pmHonest Engine says:
Worked for me a few years ago in upstate New York.
July 27, 2010, 4:27 pmDon't have time to read all the comments says:
When the officer is on the stand, ask/question him on whether he’s ever been certified in the laser gun.
The laser gun has its own certification. An astonishing number of officers who use laser detection are not certified in it, esp. older officers who came through the police academy when it was exclusively radar.
Oh, and you were definitely speeding.
July 27, 2010, 4:48 pmDilan Esper says:
Guess I just made the list, huh…
“Violator” is a word that should be excised from cops’ dialogue, and cops who use it should be kicked off the force and barred from ever holding a job in law enforcement going all the way down to mall cop or rent-a-cop.
Cops who use the term “violator” don’t understand their own jobs. They don’t have the right or the power to determine who “violates” laws. Their power begins and ends with the power to detain, cite, and/or arrest SUSPECTS, who can only be determined to be “violators” by a proper judicial authority.
We have a serious problem in this country with police officers with grossly inflated egos and senses of their own power, in addition to severe problems with police corruption, perjury, racism, and using dishonest and underhanded tactics to raise revenue. So yeah, “violator” is the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. But a free society keeps police on a short leash and engrains in them the idea that their job is very limited– that person who you are stopping is a SUSPECT and a CITIZEN or PERSON, not a “violator”.
July 27, 2010, 5:21 pmTanker J.D. says:
OPS 6 + 663.7.
Maybe he was writing upside-down, and really meant “-L-E99 + 9 5d0″. Not sure that helps, though…
July 27, 2010, 6:12 pmebt says:
I wasn’t going to chime in, but compared to some of the commenters here, I’m awfully well qualified. That is to say, I know NOTHING of Virginia law, but I’ve seen the odd thing in my time. So:
- I’ve seen speeding tickets quashed because the cop failed to check the box on the line where he sets out the cite of the provision you’ve broken. Any failure to identify that provision in understandable terms vitiates your ability to understand what you’re charged with and defend yourself, so you have a potential ground for dismissal. Of course, if the judge will look at it and say, “Hell, any citizen knows what that means”, you’ll be out of luck, so you need to enquire as to just what is the accepted practice for making such citations. Maybe they teach the meaning of these numbers in elementary school in Virginia. But maybe you’ve got something.
- What kind of traffic were you in? If there were vehicles passing you, you have the prospect of establishing reasonable doubt that the speed the officer measured was actually yours, and not that of the faster cars beside you. You need to know just what equipment the officer was using and study the user’s manual, which will tell you in what circumstances the reading may be unreliable. Here in redneck cowtown Calgary, Alberta, the courthouse library keeps all the right manuals on the shelf for public inspection. Virginia may be too sophisticated for that, but I’d check for myself if I were you.
And simply for the lawyerly trivia value, there are reported cases in Canada where the sworn evidence of the driver as to his speed was accepted against the evidence of the cop. Admittedly these were radar cases, with more room for error than laser technology. And specifically, in the case I’m thinking of the accused under oath was an evangelical minister on his way to a church meeting. It being in Newfoundland, the unstated subtext was that, just maybe, the judge may have been just the right kind of evangelical Protestant, and the officer something other; the old religious passions still burn in Newfoundland, much as they once did in a lot of places. So, it is at least theoretically possible for a court to take your word and let you go; and it could actually happen if, say, the officer was locally known as a notorious anti-semite, and you were a prominent and respected rabbi. And hey, when I least expect it, that’s what you both might turn out to be.
And as to the earlier advice here: most of it is sensible, and at worst it’s of limited use, and not actually bad. In a properly organized police force, the day the ticket comes up for trial is determined, and the officer booked to go to court for that day, before the oficer begins the shift in which he writes the ticket. But not every police force is properly organized, and not every delay can be accommodated; and when you finally get to court, there’s a chance that the officer is sick, or that there’s rioting in the streets and the force needs every man; so if you fight it, you always have at least a chance. And yes, the local ticket fighters may be useless, or a waste of money, but on the other hand they just might know exactly who’s who and how things get done in that neck of the woods, so do consider hiring them, or at least paying for a chat. Treat everybody, not just the judge but the officer, and every court and police official, with sympathy, courtesy and respect; I suspect you don’t need to be told not to take any crap from them, but be very easy going about it.
And treat the whole thing as a learning experience. You’ll most likely lose, but you can get something worthwhile out of it that you wouldn’t get by mailing them a check. And if you win, you’ll feel great.
So, good luck!
July 27, 2010, 6:22 pmOwen H. says:
Yes! We must punish people for the words they use! Using non-non-PC language must be stamped out!
July 27, 2010, 6:41 pmDoug says:
Many years ago, my wife and I lived down in Colonial Heights. I got several tickets while I was there. That particular jurisdiction allowed me to go to traffic school and upon proof of completion, ticket dismissed. Try that.
July 27, 2010, 6:42 pmCountertop says:
Not sure if anyone passed on a name of local counsel yet, but your state senator, Dave Albo, is the undisputed king of the traffic ticket bar in Virginia. He has a very large practice in Arlington. It’ll cost more than the ticket, but save you a fortune on insurance.
July 27, 2010, 8:49 pmarbitrary aardvark says:
there are several people who have the ability to make your ticket go away.
July 27, 2010, 9:36 pmthe assistant prosecutor – start there with a nice note on letterhead asking for dismissal as a professional courtesy. follow up with phone call. the prosecutor’s secretary – can explain the diversion program and how things actually work. the cop. once you depose the cop, first question is oh by the way would you like to dismiss so we can go home now? your leverage here is that he already knows you’ve subpoenaed his boss.
the judge. the appeals court. i have won and lost traffic cases at each of these levels pro se, or suing a local ticket mill lawyer. my first federal case was a traffic ticket; my roommate had been speeding on his way to work at an army base.
you might be a professor, but this kind of thing is where real law happens – use it as continuing legal education.
things to know if the letter doesn’t work and if the ticket mill guy can’t fix it: what is the burden of proof? in my town it’s preponderance,and nobody wins, but half the cops don’t show up. the traffic court judge is a hanging judge, but he’s currently facing a threat of sanctions from the ethics board, and change is likely. is there a state constitutional right to a jury trial, or some other state constitutional quirk, so you can preserve an issue for appeal if you lose? please keep us posted. if nothing else is working, just print off this comment thread and send the elected prosecutor a copy.
Owen H. says:
Is there a problem with writing legitimate tickets? If someone violates the law, is it somehow unethical to enforce the law even if the primary motive is the revenue generated? Assuming that is actually the case, of course. It seems to be assumed in all cases, without being documented.
July 28, 2010, 7:00 amRobineus says:
When it is within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States, also known as exclusive Federal enclave, such as Fort Riley, Kansas. Used to be the Special Asst. U.S. Atty appearing before a magistrate at Fort Riley. Lots of traffic offenses, DUIs, etc.
July 28, 2010, 10:00 amBeau says:
I fought a speeding ticket in Virginia about 7 years ago. As I recall, there are 12 different possible lines of attack, most of them procedural. Several of the procedural challenges involve the radar detector certification. The officer must bring a notarized copy of the certification–a photo-copy will not do, which is where many of them get in trouble. I spent about 30 hours learning this area of law, for a $100 ticket. I won, but in an unexpected manner.
The day before trial I noticed that the officer made a mistake on the ticket, writing the wrong date for the offense. On trial day I appeared in court, wearing a suit and carrying a redwell (i.e., I dressed the part). I got to court early and noticed that other lawyers were going to the prosecutor and getting deals for their clients. I got in the line, explained the date problem, and asked the prosecutor to nol pros it. She did, even though she could have proceeded–I had a clean record and she gave me a break. So much for my 30 hours of research and 12 lines of attack!
July 28, 2010, 10:23 amrhhardin says:
CHWU, an oldies station in Ontario, had a traffic warning for senior citizens, that they’re enforcing the minimum speeds on the freeway today, long ago.
The cops are everywhere.
July 28, 2010, 10:33 amathEIst says:
rhhardin says:
CHWU, an oldies station in Ontario, had a traffic warning for senior citizens, that they’re enforcing the minimum speeds on the freeway today, long ago.
Today CHWU would be charged with Interferring with Justice(or some such).
July 28, 2010, 11:28 ambadger76 says:
As a young lawyer in Chicago, I often covered traffic court for wealthy clients. Traffic judges in Chicago almost invariably ruled for a defendant who had a lawyer (and took them as priority cases, particularly if the young lawyer knew to get there early). The police officers often were late and the judges were elected.
July 28, 2010, 12:19 pmDilan Esper says:
Truly, I must have misunderstood the opposition, because any other explanations for the things I’ve read make even less sense, such as it being a violation of ones’ privacy to be observed at all on a public street while operating a vehicle.
The best argument against red light cameras is that by delaying the time between alleged violation and notification, they make it very hard to fight the ticket even when there is a legitimate ground to fight it. When you get the thing 2 weeks later, will you even remember whether you entered the intersection before the light changed? (There’s also a problem here in LA with red light cameras that are triggered by failure to stop for a right turn. This is against the law, but because nobody knows the cameras are checking for that, it turns out to be a huge revenue generator.)
The other thing I would say about red light cameras is there is great value in making traffic enforcement expensive, so that we don’t have too much of it. Yes, you want to stop people from doing unsafe things on the highways. But that’s it. When you do more than that, it’s just a tax on whoever is unlucky enough to be stopped.
If traffic enforcement is a net moneymaker for law enforcement agencies, we are going to have too much of it and that’s going to lead to oppression. If it’s a net moneyloser, you will only get the level of enforcement necessary for safety and no more.
July 28, 2010, 2:08 pmDilan Esper says:
Yes! We must punish people for the words they use! Using non-non-PC language must be stamped out!
It’s not that. It’s that the cops who think that they get to determine who violate laws are the same cops who end up using excessive force or shooting suspects who don’t cooperate. The type of people you want on a police force are the type of people who never, ever, even think that they have the right to make the ultimate determination who has violated the law. Just catch the suspects and let the judicial system do the rest.
July 28, 2010, 2:10 pmSeaDrive says:
“When I glanced at the speedometer at the bottom of the hill, I was at or below the speed limit.”
July 28, 2010, 2:12 pmDilan Esper says:
Is there some problem with stepping up enforcement against legitimate infractions?
Actually, there is. The goal isn’t to write as many tickets as possible. It is to ensure safe driving. That means a couple of things:
1. If you can ensure safe driving while writing less tickets, that is preferable; and
2. Infractions not related to driving safety do not need to be strictly enforced.
July 28, 2010, 2:12 pmpmars says:
Wow, if that is correct then you were going 30mph over the posted speed of 45mph. You’re done!
July 28, 2010, 2:31 pmpmars says:
Stop listening to the advice about fighting it. You’re gonna lose. And you can try to continue all you want, but you’re probably only going to get a couple, if that. The officer will show up (contrary to what everyone says), because he’ll get in trouble if he doesn’t. You’re going to argue against a piece of equipment used for acquiring speed and distance. They are all calibrated and there are many copies of certificate to present in court. Best advice for you is to pay it and sign up for a driver improvement course to get rid of the points…and SLOW DOWN. You got caught speeding, man up!
July 28, 2010, 2:36 pmAnonymous Coward says:
I once watched an interesting victory in Arlington traffic court. The defendant was charged with something like going 50 in a 35 zone (not the exact numbers–this was a few years ago). He asked the officer a few questions to establish exactly where the car was when he was clocked. He then produced a copy of the speed limit map for the area (which he’d gotten from the county), showing that the place where he was cited had the wrong speed limit posted. It was, say, 40 mph, not 35–different from what was on the ticket, but still less than the speed he was cited for. However, the ticket was apparently for “going above limit in a 35 zone,” and it wasn’t a 35 zone. The officer asked the judge if he could amend the charge, but she dismissed the case. The next several defendants had all been pulled over in the same area, and their cases quickly got dismissed, too.
July 28, 2010, 2:40 pmMark Horning says:
They tried that in California about 4-5 years ago. In order to “enhance revenue” the state doubled the cost of a speeding ticket.
When you have a speding ticket of $100-150 maybe 2-3% of people will contest them. When it doubled to $300 it more than trippled the number of folks who fought the ticket.
Even if half those folks just show up and ask the judge to reduce the fine or “tell their side” of th story, it still clogs upt he courts.
CA actually lowered the ticket price back down in order to increase their net revenues. Call it a “Laffer Effect” wrt speeding tickets, but there is a definate sweet spot in pricing to optimise revenue.
July 28, 2010, 2:48 pmPorkchop says:
I did a little checking for you on the meaning of “OPS 6 + 663.7.” “OPS 6″ is the departmental designation for the particular laser device that was used to determine your speed. “663.7″ is the distance at which your speed was determined.
A little reality check:
You’ve gotten lots of advice on how to cross-examine the officer on his credentials, use of the device, conditions, etc. The bulk of it presumes the stupidity, ignorance, unpreparedness, or incompetence of the officer. Has it occurred to you that he has probably testified on these matters hundreds of times, whereas you have never tried a single laser speeding ticket case? He will have the appropriate certifications with him. Since he is with the Special Operations Group (The “OPS” designation on the device indicates that), traffic enforcement is a large part of his day — in other words, this wasn’t some random officer who decided to sit on the side of the road and write tickets because he had nothing else to do at the time. They do enforcement there because that’s where people tend to speed; apparently you were one of them. I’d put your odds of successfully discrediting the officer’s testimony at close to zero. As to your testimony that you “happened to glance down at your speedometer,” you are not going to be the first driver to say that — how credible do you think that is going to sound? This is traffic court — the judge has heard every explanation imaginable on many occasions. Unless you have something better than that, you are going to lose. If you really, really think that this was a totally unjustified ticket, get a lawyer with some experience to handle it for you. Otherwise, do what Pmars said — pay the ticket and go to traffic school to get rid of the points.
A note on those who boast of having beaten multiple speeding tickets:
One ticket may be a mistake, two may be bad luck, but if one is contesting speeding tickets on a regular basis, then maybe the explanation is simply that one is driving too fast, too often. It’s really not that important that you get to the next red light before everybody else. Slow down.
July 29, 2010, 7:28 amRexx says:
A laser is coherent light, it does not fan out like incoherent light does, the beam is the same width for its entire journey.
July 29, 2010, 7:48 amRexx says:
Now I am not a cop or a lawyer, but it does seem to me that your complaint is without merit. When I, as a cop or citizen, see someone do an act with my very own eyes I do not suspect that they did the act, I know that they did the act whether it be speeding or shooting someone, and thus I know that they violated that particular law. Now in the court system I know that you are, as it should be, assumed innocent until proven guilty, but that assumption apply only to the prosecutor, judge, and jury not to any witness that maybe call to testify, including the cop. Your suggestion that any cop who used the word violator should be “barred from ever holding a job in law enforcement” seems to this layman a serous infringement on his free speech rights.
July 29, 2010, 8:05 amRexx says:
It seems to me that a person right to be faced by his accusers has been violated when the only witness against his is a camera which cannot accuse but only offer evidence.
July 29, 2010, 8:20 amdavidbernstein says:
Well, there are additional facts that support my case which persuade me that my eyesight wasn’t malfunctioning. They might not be facts that the trial judge will find persuasive (assuming the judge believes me to begin with), but they do persuade me that the officer was in fact either incompetent or blatantly lying.
July 29, 2010, 8:50 amdavidbernstein says:
If he had been trying to nail speeders, he’d have focused his laser on the left lane, I’ve seen people on 50 going at least 70, probably more. What kind of legitimate traffic enforcement goes after the slowest lane of traffic (I was in the right lane)? And, fwiw, the only prior speeding tickets I’ve gotten in 27 years of driving were two speed traps set up right off interstate highways at the bottom of hills, nailing “speeders” who had legitimately been going 65, but didn’t slow down to 35 off an exit ramp going downhill. That’s not legitimate traffic enforcement.
July 29, 2010, 8:52 amRexx says:
That there were other people going faster then you will not be an effective defense I am sure.
July 29, 2010, 10:10 amzippypinhead says:
Professor Bernstein, that line of attack isn’t going to get you anywhere. The Judge knows a trained officer using a laser gun is able to target vehicles in any lane – it’s not a static device, the officer uses sights to aim it at the front grill of a specific vehicle. Takes only a few seconds to adjust and target the next vehicle, regardless what lane it’s in. Having said that, of course one’s odds of getting a ticket at any given speed are somewhat higher in the left lane because officers know the speed demons tend to camp out in the left lane, and will often focus more of their attention there. But not all their attention…
Porkchop’s advice is dead-on. If you doubt him, take a day off before your court date and go watch an Arlington General District Court traffic docket. The County Courthouse has a pretty small group of “regulars” – which includes police officers assigned to traffic enforcement. Chances are the Judge has heard your officer testify MANY times before. Chances are the Judge already has an opinion of the officer’s credibility, and even Edward Bennett Williams’ ghost isn’t going to be able to change that opinion through cross-examination. Chances are the Judge has listened to and rejected thousands of speeding defendants’ arguments – including the ever-popular “but I looked at my speedometer right before I passed the cruiser, and it only said [something].” Now, if you have hard evidence the officer made a mistake, then go for it. But if you go to trial and your main defense is the basic “he said/she said” credibility line that you weren’t going as fast as the laser gun said you were, you’re almost certainly going to lose.
July 29, 2010, 1:32 pmPorkchop says:
Why thank you. I’ll be here all week … :-)
July 29, 2010, 3:09 pmdavidbernstein says:
I know that saying that people go faster in the left lane isn’t a defense. I didn’t say it was. Rather, this is a response to the claim that the officers are just doin’ their jobs enforcing the laws against speeders with their speed traps (which has nothing to do with the legal merits of MY case). Specifically, Porkchop’s claim: “They do enforcement there because that’s where people tend to speed;”
If this officer was trying to stop dangerous speeders, he would have been focusing on the left lane (or people zigzagging between lanes). If was was lazily trying to flag people, speeding or not (NOT in my case), dangerously or not, he would do what he did and aim his gun at the right lane, right by where he was parked. Note that since he was pointing at the top of the hill, it’s not like he had any reason to believe that anyone in the right lane was speeding, it’s just easier to pull over a right lane driver than a left lane driver, public safety re dangerous speeders irrelevant to the goal of making money for the county. Given that he never left his vehicle, I wouldn’t be shocked if he just made up the speed, or attributed the speed of one vehicle to another, assuming that no one is going to bother challenging anything short of reckless driving.
My actual defense, if this goes to trial, will be various things that I’m not going to discuss on the blog until after trial, beyond what I’ve already said.
July 29, 2010, 6:10 pmRobert says:
It is worth contesting and I will represent you for free. It is not a complicated legal defense in GDC. At Circuit, we can try different stuff, if necessary. But they may settle for a local ordinance with no points (no effect on insurance).
July 29, 2010, 9:19 pmPorkchop says:
Look, I really was trying to help you out, but you don’t seem to want to hear bad news. If you are going to win, you really need a lawyer who knows his way around that courthouse. Even then, I have my doubts, but that’s your best shot.
Why and on what authority do I say that? Well, I have been practicing law for 29 years — ten with one of those DC law firms that top law school grads want to go to, seventeen with the federal government, and a couple in a small firm since leaving the government. I’ve spent a lot of time in court, tried some big cases (all federal), done some things that made headlines. (One of my cases was a landmark in legal ethics.)
I don’t claim to be another Clarence Darrow, but I do know a couple things. The first is that I would never represent myself or family member in an Arlington traffic, or any other litigation, matter. I know some fine lawyers who do that kind of work. I offered to hook you up with one in my first post. I take that “fool for a client” maxim seriously.
The second thing I know is that, in general, the lower the court, the bigger the judge’s ego. That’s not always true, but it is true more often than not in my experience. There are a couple of real doozies in Arlington.
Third, if you aren’t a member of that particular bar, you always want to have local counsel.
Even leaving aside the question of whether it would be wise to go into a strange court pro se as a general matter, there is the question of your experience. You graduated from law school in 1991 and started teaching at GMU in 1995. I don’t see any litigation or trial work on your resume. Maybe you have it and don’t list it — I’m in no position to know. But if you don’t have any, this is not a good place to get started.
If you walk into that courtroom talking about the officer’s stupidity and dishonesty (as suggested above), they will chew you up and spit you out. The judge has a full docket. He or she won’t want to spend much time with this — if the officer says the readout was “XX” and he has the appropriate certifications, that’s pretty much it. Your cross-examination of the officer will last all of 2 minutes — if you are allowed to go that long. The judge will try not to roll her eyes while you testify about things that she won’t believe in the first place and that most likely have no relevance. You can take your de novo circuit court hearing if you want to — maybe someone will believe you there. But is it really worth it? If you have only had three speeding tickets in your life, then it most likely won’t affect your insurance rates.
Cut a deal if you can. You’ll need a courthouse regular to do that.
July 29, 2010, 9:20 pmdavidbernstein says:
Porkchop, I may very well get local counsel, if I can get someone whose rate wouldn’t swamp whatever gain I’d get on my insurance rates. Unfortuately, rates automatically go up 33% or so for a ticket, doesn’t matter how clean your overall driving record. Heck, I just had to point out to my company that they had improperly raised the rates on my wife when she scraped the side of the car on a pole resulting in no payment by the company. But of course if I went to trial, I wouldn’t rely on attacking the credibility of the officer.
July 29, 2010, 10:37 pmPorkchop says:
You need a new insurance company.
July 30, 2010, 1:55 amZoe Brain says:
This is why I’d never make a good lawyer, even if I had an encyclopaedic grasp of the law.
To me, there is only one question: are you absolutely certain you were not speeding?
July 30, 2010, 6:03 pmIf so, you fight the charge, regardless of chance of success. If not, you say so, and accept the penalty that the law requires – assuming that the court thinks you are guilty. They may not, if there is insufficient evidence that you were speeding.
Daniel says:
Try this website:
http://www.motorists.org/memberbenefits/
“Radar & Laser Experts
July 30, 2010, 8:59 pmSome of the resources available for free to members of the NMA include several practicing traffic attorneys, an expert on radar technology, an expert on laser technology, and many others.”
Chad Dornsife says:
Traffic Law 101
What’s truly amazing here is the number of lawyers that have commented and how misunderstood traffic laws are.
On my cases I file a motion to suppress citing federal law and the State’s non compliance with same, including 18 USC 241 and 242 which makes it a federal crime to conspire to deny my rights, including prosecution, officers and judges too. If denied, remove case to federal court prior to trial on the merits of case per se.
Traffic laws and adjudication standards ARE NOT an 10th amendment field anymore, all state jurisprudence is subordinate to the US Constitution and Congress’ intent…
Therefore Federal court is a real threat because a speed limit sign (R2-1) is a federal device that VA is permitted to use if it complies with the conditions precedent of controlling law in this field, which co-governed as matters of science (MUTCD, UVC) and whose enforcement is under the color of federal law.
I have not found a complying posted and adjudicated speed limit in the nation – NONE. In fact we offered to 10,000 challenge for someone to find just one.
Congress in Highway Safety Act of 1966 invoked the Commerce Clause (Trade, Intercourse et al) to the same effect as their domain over navigable waters.
The Highway Safety Act of 1966 incorporated into federal law the progeny of the 1926, Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) which in part required motorists to drive at speeds “reasonable and prudent” (Basic Speed Law UVC § 11-801) et al; and, the 1927 the American Association of State Highway Officials published the “Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture, Display, and Erection of U.S. Standard Road Markers and Signs (for rural roads)” which evolved into the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a) et al.
Congress delegated the Act’s oversight to its newly created cabinet level Secretary of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) (former U.S. Bureau of Public Roads); powers governed in part by 5 U.S.C. § 706 to achieve Congress’ “roadway safety” mandates via fact-based uniform laws, practices, devices, expectations and the exercise of police powers thereof.
From a regulatory and police powers perspective all instruments of travel became federally regulated and protected within these travel enclaves, and once a person enters or employs an instrument of travel all their Constitutional Rights are preserved therein and the exercise of police powers thereof shall be uniform, transparent, and fact based regardless of state lines or entity type or classification.
Thus, all instruments of travel, traffic control and the exercise of police power thereof within a right-of-way open to public travel within the U.S., its Territories and Protectorates became a federally regulated and protected field and the regulation thereof shall be subordinate, fact based, uniform and in substantial conformance within the bounds of federal law and the Constitution.
1. Speed limit safety value probably not established in accordance with federal law;
2. enforcement threshold as described here repealed in 1988 and 1995 respectively;
3. Absent a complying study no foundation for the range of speeds that are safe for the particular segment of roadway;
4. Absent prior knowledge to the range of safe speeds there, the officer is incompetent to testify as to an unsafe act;
5. Under the color of federal law in this instance you have an unauthorized use of a federal device (illegal): an invented safety value, invented “shall not exceed” safety threshold, and invented probable cause for starters;
6. Disparate state jurisprudence violates equal protection, void for vagueness et al and and and and
Neither Congress or a federal regulatory agency can recede superior authority back to the States if said purported authority impinges on an unalienable or fundamental due process right or Constitution authority et al; including Substantive and Procedural due process, Equal Protection, Supremacy, Commerce, Confrontation Clause(s), Void for Vagueness protections, habeas corpus,1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 14th Amendments respectfully.
UNDER THE COLOR OF FEDERAL LAW
Uniformity is implicit in all federal regulations, laws and the exercise of police powers thereof in this field are subordinate to the US Constitution, Congress’ Intent et al respectively and shall be uniform and in substantial conformance. Each act in its promulgation and the exercise of police powers thereof shall:
1. be narrowly tailored and vetted as to factual foundations in this field that is governed by the both the US Constitution and Matters of Science to assure it will achieve its desired effect via field trials that examine it for unintended consequences, efficacy in attaining the desired affect, and how trends or evolving technology may alter the efficacy or need of the proposed remedy, and its effects on commerce or due process;
2. that the federal regulations be promulgated to facilitate substantial conformance with a single uniform application, appearance, expectation and adjudication standard regardless of entity type or jurisdiction in the United States and its Territories; and
3. be fact based per nationally recognized engineering institutions and scientific methodologies et al; in which all subordinate act’s foundation or justifications are transparent and can be cross-examined in a court of law;
4. be in conformance with the domain of the Constitution per the Commerce, Supremacy and Equal Protection Clause(s), and Congress’ intent et al in this field; and
5. be implemented uniformly in substantial conformance to these conditions precedent within the U.S., its Territories and Protectorates;
6. per each discipline which include inalienable rights that cannot be impinged, narrowly applied adjudication of Constitutional Rights and Substantive and Procedural Due Process, and matters of science in this field that
Nor can a federal agency or a State under color of federal law or inferior state laws, as in this instance, in any manner impinge on, or facilitate the denial of, or suspend the Appellant’s Constitutional Rights.
August 5, 2010, 12:19 amChad Dornsife says:
Did a cut and paste, but you get the idea. Because the USDOT has abrogated its oversight mandate and has been malfeasant to advance the interest of a few, it does not stop the governed from exercising their constitutional rights.
August 5, 2010, 12:40 amrepeal_the_va_radar_detector_ban says:
As you may know, Virginia is the only state that bans the use and sale of detectors. There is no evidence that the detector ban increases highway safety. Our nation’s fatality rates have fallen consistently for almost two decades. Virginia’s fatality rate has also fallen, but not any more dramatically than it has nationwide. Research has even shown that radar detector owners have a lower accident rate than motorists who do not own a detector.
Maintaining the ban is not in the best interest of Virginians or visitors to the state. I know and know of people that will not drive in Virginia due to this ban. Unjust enforcement practices are not unheard of, and radar detectors can keep safe motorists from being exploited by abusive speed traps. Likewise, the ban has a negative impact on Virginia’s business community. Electronic distributors lose business to neighboring states and Virginia misses out on valuable sales tax revenue.
Radar detector bans do not work. Research and experience show that radar detector bans do not result in lower accident rates, improved speed-limit compliance or reduce auto insurance expenditures.
• The Virginia radar detector ban is difficult and expensive to enforce. The Virginia ban diverts precious law enforcement resources from more important duties.
• Radar detectors are legal in the rest of the nation, in all 49 other states. In fact, the first state to test a radar detector ban, Connecticut, repealed the law – it ruled the law was ineffective and unfair. It is time for our Virginia to join the rest of the nation.
• It has never been shown that radar detectors cause accidents or even encourage motorists to drive faster than they would otherwise. The Yankelovich – Clancy – Shulman Radar Detector Study conducted in 1987, showed that radar detector users drove an average of 34% further between accidents (233,933 miles versus 174,554 miles) than non radar detector users. The study also showed that they have much higher seat belt use compliance. If drivers with radar detectors have fewer accidents, it follows that they have reduced insurance costs – it is counterproductive to ban radar detectors.
• In a similar study performed in Great Britain by MORI in 2001 the summary reports that “Users (of radar detectors) appear to travel 50% further between accidents than non-users. In this survey the users interviewed traveling on average 217,353 miles between accidents compared to 143,401 miles between accidents of those non-users randomly drawn from the general public.” The MORI study also reported “Three quarters agree, perhaps unsurprisingly, that since purchasing a radar detector they have become more conscious about keeping to the speed limit…” and “Three in five detector users claim to have become a safer driver since purchasing a detector.”
• Modern radar detectors play a significant role in preventing accidents and laying the technology foundation for the Safety Warning System® (SWS). Radar detectors with SWS alert motorists to oncoming emergency vehicles, potential road hazards, and unusual traffic conditions. There are more than 10 million radar detectors with SWS in use nationwide. The federal government has earmarked $2.1 million for further study of the SWS over a three-year period of time. The U.S. Department of Transportation is administering grants to state and local governments to purchase the SWS system and study its effectiveness (for example, in the form of SWS transmitters for school buses and emergency vehicles). The drivers of Virginia deserve the right to the important safety benefits that SWS delivers.
*** A small surcharge($5-$10) or tax(2%-3%) could be added to the price of the device to make-up for any possible loss of revenue from reduced number of speeding tickets and the loss of tickets written for radar detectors.***
Please sign this petition and help repeal this ban and give drivers in Virginia the freedom to know if they are under surveillance and to use their property legally:
http://www.stoptheban.org
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-the-virginia-radar-detector-ban
August 5, 2010, 8:52 pmDon says:
Has there been a “Frye” type hearing in your state to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence from laser guns?
September 5, 2010, 2:19 pmMany jurisdictions require that before evidence from any “novel” device can be used, a court must have concluded, based upon expert testimony, that the evidence is reliable. The conclusion must have be confirmed on appeal by a published appellate decision. Only then can such evidence be admitted.
Cases in Illinois and Texas are the most recent to conclude that laser guns are
novel and not like radar guns, so the evidence from them is not admissible without a “Frye” determination. A recent case from the Hawaii Supreme Court also places several obstacles in the way of admitting laser gun evidence.You should be able to find these cases quite easily via Google or other search engines.