Beating Civil Traffic Tickets

This is the reason for all the police-state nonsense we're seeing. And photo enforcement cameras going up all over. It's all designed by beurocrats who provide no valuable service to take money from people who are productive members of society. Take seat belt laws for example. You happen to get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. Can the prosecution (the state) bring charges against you in leiu of YOU for infringing on your own rights?

The shitty thing is, you go into traffic court, and the judge, officer and the prosecutor are all employed by the same entity. Is that a fair trial? Modern day tyranny.

Thanks for this

It's pretty astounding how they do almost whatever it takes to get you in the system and out (minus your money) as fast as possible. The "officer" that wrote my ($200) parking ticket had to commit trespass 18+ feet onto my walled-off property to serve mine!

What I've learned in my research here: You have the right to a fair trial. You also have the right to ask the judge questions on whether he's qualified to preside over the case. Even in something as trivial as a parking violation. So if you say to the judge (CIVIL CASES ONLY THO),

"I'm not a lawyer. So please forgive my ignorance... I was planning on pleading guilty but I have a couple of questions regarding the nature of these procedings."

(He HAS to give "responsive" answers to  your  questions on the record or the trial can't go forward.)

"Do I have a right to a fair hearing? A responsive answer is yes or no." He'll say yes

"Can this case go forward if there is a conflict of interest? Yes or no" He'll have to say no.

"Who do you represent in all of this?"

UH OHHHH...Watch him squirm. He's gonna get pissed at this point and do a lot of blubbering. You have to stay icy at all times! He may even threaten you with contempt. But you are asking fair questions which you have a right to an answer to LOL

Basically where you're going with this is to get the judge to say contradicting things so you will win an appeal or get it dismissed, and chip away at the officer/prosecutor/judge team.

Ok keep going and walk us through a full scenario. 

Well what I've learned from my friend, who's a defense attourney,  has said. "The mistake a lot of people make is focusing on the statute they are accused of violating and allowing a case to go to trial." You're looking for RESULTS.

People see courtroom dramas and think they need to go to trial and make a big case. That's just ego. A good lawyer gets cases dismissed before they even get that far. 

Citation>File Motions>HEARING/ARRAIGNMENT>Trial>SENTENCING>APPEAL

1. Citation. Use tactics to avoid getting a citation in the first place.

2. Write a letter to the complaining party, or prosecutor, without admitting guilt explaining the circumstances and why they should drop the case. (this will most likely fail, but it can't hurt)

3. File Motions. If that fails, you have the opportunity to file MOTIONS. You can file as many motions as you want. Don't be afraid to file them. In my parking case, I'm going to file a few. MOTION TO DISMISS being the main one. I'll be basing in the MOTION (I'll get into this later) that the City has failed to establish STANDING (This is required in every case: an injured party, causation, and redresseability). If your motions get denied. And you're sure it's a valid motion, this gives you a chance to APPEAL if you lose at trial.

4. Next comes the HEARING/ARRAINGMENT where you must plead RESPONSIBLE/NOT RESPONSIBLE/NO CONTEST. This is an important part. 

[The judge will call the case and ask if you’re ready to proceed]

No Sir, I have a pending motion to dismiss the complaint/information, I’d like to go through that if there is any opposition to it.

[There will be] What in particular do you [should be prosecutor opposing] object to? There are several parts, let’s take a minute and you can be specific and if you disagree with a particular point, you can demonstrate how and why it is incorrect and provide your facts and legal support to prove it.

[the same with the judge, if there is disagreement, then you want them to be specific about it, this goes for any disagreement and ALWAYS have them be specific, do not let them get away with being vague.]

[Ask them about each point in the motion e.g., isn’t the sole purpose of government to protect/secure rights? Use the motion as your guide]

The motion is appropriate at this time and may moot the need for a prelim if granted.

Are you denying it with any input from the prosecution?

What facts and legal support do you have besides just your opinion?

[If forced to do the hearing, remember to object to the denial of the issues in the motion]

[to judge]

Sir am I entitled to a fair hearing today?

Can I get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest?

Who do you represent here today?

What is the nature of your relationship to this other lawyer [prosecutor]?

If there is no relationship, then why are you holding me to answer his complaint?

If you represent the state , and the state is a party, then you represent a party to these proceedings?

If you represent a party to these proceedings, wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest?

But I’m not the one paying you, the other party is, how is that not a conflict of interest?

Could you please explain how you can admit to representing a party to these proceedings and have it not be a conflict of interest?

If you represent no one, then is this your own private court?

Do you hold an objective standard of proof?

At the very least this will at least make the judge be careful. At best, it'll get a dismissal.

[If forced to do the hearing, this is where you will be offered a PLEA BARGAIN. ie "Plead responsible and x charges will be dropped or the fine will be $X or community service." This is to grease the wheels of the court. If you don't believe that you can win at trial take the plea bargain (you can make counter offers, don't forget). If you plead NOT RESPONSIBLE it goes to TRIAL.]

5. TRIAL. [This can go one of two ways. Either the cop doesn't show = YOU WIN or he does show (most likely) = YOU PROBABLY WILL LOSE] If he does show, this is where you really don't want to be, if at all possible. The deck is stacked against you. You have the judge, the officer, and possibly the prosecutor, who all work for the state or city, working against you. If the prosecutor is there, you're EFFED. He went to law school, he's trained to cross examine witnesses, it's his JOB, the judge will tend to side with him and he'll do anything not to lose to a "nobody" like you. NEVER give any information to the prosecutor that he doesn't have legal right to. He is NOT your friend. He will try to trick you.

[Some questions for the cop. These are geared toward showing that there is no case against you, except for the legal opinion of the cop himself. Keep him on point. If you ask a Yes/No question and he doesn't answer say, [Strike that from the record. Answer is NON-RESPONSIVE.]

Did you file this citation? Yes or no?

Is this a criminal citation? Yes or no? [this is a trick question in CIVIL traffic court, if he answer's yes it hurts his credibility, if "no" ask next question]

Are you qualified to file a civil cause of action?

I'm looking at the citation here. Is this a valid civil cause of action? Yes or no

What are the elements required for this to be a valid cause of action? [This is undermining the credibility of the cop's ability to write valid citations. ]

[Also during your CROSS-EXAMINATION. If the prosecutor is present, he will be OBJECTING constantly. This is ok. He'll say, "Objection. Relevance." Here the judge will look at you to explain RELEVANCE. You have to say, "The purpose of the questions is to assertain whether the witness is competent."]

[This is a very grey area of law, in my opinion. CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE requires the plantiff (cop) to establish 3 things: 1) an injured party, 2) a violation that caused injury, and 3) redresseability (a fine). There doesn't need to be an injured party in CRIMINAL. Although cities say that a civil violation (traffic ticket) is treated as CRIMINAL in CIVIL court. Law dictionaries define CIVIL as any case that is not CRIMINAL. So what city's are trying to do here is have the best of both worlds, CIVIL and CRIMINAL]

If all that fails, you just have to pay the ticket. Or appeal the decisions of the judge to a higher court.

Dude. Your fuckin smart 

Another fuckin awesome way to get out of a ticket is to do some research and find a violation that has a short STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, which is, the time limit the state has to charge you after the alleged act. And use a PLEA BARGAIN to switch the charge to a different one with an expired STATUTE OF LIMITATION. PLEA BARGAINS between Plaintiff and Defendant can be made at any time before a VERDICT.

For example, you're charged with a seatbelt violation.

1. You MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE. Which is, motion the court to delay the hearing (until the statute expires heeheehee)

2. At the hearing you make the officer admit that he pulled you over for speeding.

3. Make him a PLEA BARGAIN that if he dismisses the seatbelt charge you'll plead guity to the speeding.

4. He writes the citation up for speeding.

5. You MOTION TO DISMISS on expired STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Sneaky lawyer tricks.

Lol this is one of the coolest posts I've ever read on this forum.... like the level of detail and intensity that you're going after this, with, is fucking sick

Thanks guys. Most of this comes from lots of research I've done every time I have a tangle with the law, and asking questions of my lawyer friends/watching them in action. There's TONS of information on the internet. You have access to all the statutes, legal definitions, procedures etc. Look for Supreme Court rulings and use them to support MOTIONS TO DISMISS. The court has to go by the ruling of a higher court.

The main thing is to realize that most of your effort should be concentrated on what happens before a trial. Don't go by what you saw on Good Will Hunting or Law and Order. You don't want to go to trial.

I've never won a trial. But I have gotten out of a ton of tickets. The worst ones I got out of were two Class 1 Misdemeanors, up to $1500 and a year in jail. They were for having an empty bottle of whiskey in my trunk and the police didn't know the law when they wrote the ticket.

I found a fabulous article here. I've been looking EVERYWHERE to find an article that explains everything all the fundamental things all at once. Here it is. If anyone gets a ticket READ THIS.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/903/fighting-speeding-ticket.html

OK I have a very interesting update on this parking ticket that got me all riled up to begin with. I had my hearing today

I filed a motion to dismiss that basically called attention to the fact that the officer didn't describe a violation of the law on the face of the ticket. The officer wrote "Vehicle parked covering paved sidewalk." The law says ON a paved sidewalk.

At my hearing today, the "Honorable" Judge denied my motion saying that, "The officer notes don't matter."

Later I asked if there was any evidence provided to prove that I had violated the law. He said, "Well... we have the officer's notes of the violation."

This is exactly why you want to file motions and do your homework. You end up digging up the contradictions. Otherwise they will WALK ALL OVER YOUR RIGHTS.

APPEAL TIME!!!

'k please keep us updated. What's the appeal process? This is gawdamn stellar love hearing this stuff.

OK. I'll try to explain what was going on with my MOTION TO DISMISS as best I can first because it's important. This is exactly how you would contest a ticket if the officer made a mistake on it. It's literally the first thing you should look for.

---

My first Motion to dismiss was filed well before the HEARING date. In this motion I argued that the CITATION should be dismissed because on the face of the ticket, in the section labelled "officer notes" the officer describes the violation as "VEH REAREND COVERING PAVED SIDEWALK" the city ordinance he cited states "ON A SIDEWALK." He should have written "VEH REAREND ON PAVED SIDEWALK." (which it wasn't) The issue here is that the officer can't cite you for an act that isn't a violation of the law he cites. So for example, you get a speeding ticket and the officer says, "I saw him drag racing." There's no law against drag racing. Side note: In California this is known as a "Demurrer." In most states demurrers are considered archaic and use the motions process instead. For more info: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/demurrer

---

Now here's the kicker. I finally found the LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. Too late though. These are the rules that govern how a case is handled by the judge. if you're fighting a ticket you should really look up your city and/or state's RULES OF PROCEDURE. There are seperate rules for federal, state, county and municipal courts. I've been looking a long time for these (these should not be so gawdamn difficult to find). Apparently the judge made a correct statement (according to those rules) that the citation itself IS evidence of a violation. Side note: in legalese it's known as PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. PRIMA FACIE means "on the face" or evidence that would, if uncontested, establish a fact or raise a presumption of a fact. For more info: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie

SO. The ticket is evidence (in my city). It's considered the officer's testimony, since they don't want to waste resources having the parking officer come to court. Fair enough. That said, the judge ruling that the statement made in the "officer notes" as irrellevant was essentially throwing out at least part, if not all, of the evidence against me. If he ruled the testimony irrelevant, then theoretically there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE and the case should be dismissed. Side note: in essesnce what the judge said is, "The citation is testimony against you... Just don't pay attention to part where he says you didn't do anything  illegal."

So I'll file an appeal to a higher court to have a second look at that ruling.

Next up: The APPEAL.

So the judge made the proper ruling on it then in the next sentence completely undermined it? 

Naw, he made an incorrect ruling, then a correct ruling (according to the Rules of Procedure) but it contradicted his first one... Aspects of the citation don't matter/The citation is the evidence.