Ohio speeding tickets by sight
#11
06-05-2010, 11:55 AM
They've always been able to do that.
People have really weird misconceptions when it comes to traffic infractions. People think that speeding tickets go through court like Law & Order cases...
If a cop writes you a ticket, you have a ticket. The cop doesn't "need" any evidence or proof to write you a ticket, all he needs to do is write you a ticket, at which point you have a ticket. Arguing legality with the cop on the side of the road is irrelevant, because to the cop legality is irrelevant.
Once you get to court, it becomes a question of legality only to the extent that the judge feels like winking at legality at that point. It doesn't need to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt; you're not being prosecuted, you're not being defended, there's no jury. It's the judge's discretion.
There is no law saying what a judge may or may not enforce a ticket based on. The judge could say that he simply trusts the word of the cop more than your word, and give you a fine with that being his reasoning. Or he could feel like feeding a line of BS about how "police are professionally trained to estimate speed by eye". There's no fairness, justice or truth involved.
"Pleading down" with the district, asking the judge to remove the point off the insurance, or hiring an "attorney" to do those two for you are effective measures... Pretending like your Sam Waterston and arguing the ticket in court Atticus Finch-style based on your understandings of the "holy law" of traffic codes and attempting to cross-examine the officer who wrote the ticket is not effective in the slightest. If you do it well enough you might get some bonus points by accident though.
People have really weird misconceptions when it comes to traffic infractions. People think that speeding tickets go through court like Law & Order cases...
If a cop writes you a ticket, you have a ticket. The cop doesn't "need" any evidence or proof to write you a ticket, all he needs to do is write you a ticket, at which point you have a ticket. Arguing legality with the cop on the side of the road is irrelevant, because to the cop legality is irrelevant.
Once you get to court, it becomes a question of legality only to the extent that the judge feels like winking at legality at that point. It doesn't need to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt; you're not being prosecuted, you're not being defended, there's no jury. It's the judge's discretion.
There is no law saying what a judge may or may not enforce a ticket based on. The judge could say that he simply trusts the word of the cop more than your word, and give you a fine with that being his reasoning. Or he could feel like feeding a line of BS about how "police are professionally trained to estimate speed by eye". There's no fairness, justice or truth involved.
"Pleading down" with the district, asking the judge to remove the point off the insurance, or hiring an "attorney" to do those two for you are effective measures... Pretending like your Sam Waterston and arguing the ticket in court Atticus Finch-style based on your understandings of the "holy law" of traffic codes and attempting to cross-examine the officer who wrote the ticket is not effective in the slightest. If you do it well enough you might get some bonus points by accident though.
#12
06-05-2010, 02:41 PM
isn't traffic court a version of criminal court?
if so it is up to the officer to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt you were speeding, they brought the charge they have to provide proof.
last ticket I had was for a burned out headlight on a vehicle I borrowed... really it was because I was leaving a bar late and he was hoping I had been drinking
went to traffic court for it and was told I can plead not guilty and go to trial, plead guilty and pay the $100 fine, or plead no contest and be found guilty.
I am considering taking a video camera etc. to that court since if you plead no contest you admit guilt but there was an extenuating circumstance which you explain and then the judge decides if you are guilty or not. thats the laws anyways but I guess impartial judges get to decide what parts THEY can follow or not.
like me.. borrowed the car and went to the bar when it was light out left after dark and then found it had a bad headlight.
if so it is up to the officer to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt you were speeding, they brought the charge they have to provide proof.
last ticket I had was for a burned out headlight on a vehicle I borrowed... really it was because I was leaving a bar late and he was hoping I had been drinking
went to traffic court for it and was told I can plead not guilty and go to trial, plead guilty and pay the $100 fine, or plead no contest and be found guilty.I am considering taking a video camera etc. to that court since if you plead no contest you admit guilt but there was an extenuating circumstance which you explain and then the judge decides if you are guilty or not. thats the laws anyways but I guess impartial judges get to decide what parts THEY can follow or not.
like me.. borrowed the car and went to the bar when it was light out left after dark and then found it had a bad headlight.
#13
06-05-2010, 03:00 PM
OK...
Here is the deal with speed estimation...
Yes an officer can write you a ticket for speeding if he is certified in speed estimation. (goes to a class and passes a test that includes a specified number of vehicle speeds estimated correctly).. they are then certified as an expert in speed estimation.
in other words you have an eye witness of the crime...
Now you think about it... if you see a person murder someone that testimony is good enough to convict so why would an officer witnessing a crime, regardless of the severity, be any different?
In fact if you ever fight a Radar Ticket the citation is actually written on the officers estimation of speed and verified by the radar. so in court you can ask for his current estimation certification and also the radar certification..
Hope this helps..
Here is the deal with speed estimation...
Yes an officer can write you a ticket for speeding if he is certified in speed estimation. (goes to a class and passes a test that includes a specified number of vehicle speeds estimated correctly).. they are then certified as an expert in speed estimation.
in other words you have an eye witness of the crime...
Now you think about it... if you see a person murder someone that testimony is good enough to convict so why would an officer witnessing a crime, regardless of the severity, be any different?
In fact if you ever fight a Radar Ticket the citation is actually written on the officers estimation of speed and verified by the radar. so in court you can ask for his current estimation certification and also the radar certification..
Hope this helps..
