Court proceedings

[MixOp]

I recently saw and ad in a local newspaper showing a lawyer who claims he can fight off any speeding ticket, 100% guarantee.

Is it mandatory for an officer to appear in court for a speeding ticket?

I don't know the current court procedure but it used to be as follows:
A driver gets a ticket. He/ She goes to court on a date stated on the ticket and pleads not guilty. The next court date is set up. During the next court date if an officer doesn't show up, then the ticket automatically dismissed.

What is the current CHP policy on court proceedings?

[Tiredmotor]

Pay your ticket and go to traffic school.

[Mary-1]

"What is the current CHP policy on court proceedings?"

That would be confidential.

[bcjack]

Generally...if an Officer gets a subpoena to appear in court for a citation, he or she appears in court as ordered.

In my experience, if the Officer does not appear, and does not contact the court to explain why, CASE DISMISSED!!!

[ChippieWife]

Generally...if an Officer gets a subpoena to appear in court for a citation, he or she appears in court as ordered.

In my experience, if the Officer does not appear, and does not contact the court to explain why, CASE DISMISSED!!!

That's how my husband told me it works..However, it seems to me that he makes more of an effort to show up than the person that wanted to fight the citation..But in the end, he gets overtime and they get a fine for wasting his and the court's time..

[cal911gal]

I don't know the current court procedure but it used to be as follows:
A driver gets a ticket. He/ She goes to court on a date stated on the ticket and pleads not guilty. The next court date is set up. During the next court date if an officer doesn't show up, then the ticket automatically dismissed.



The other aspects were answered but I thought I would address this section: The date written on the citation (for infractions) is the date for court - there is no "holding over" and normally no other court date assigned on infractions. You go to court on the date specified, the officer is subpoenaed also, if you say not guilty the officer testifies, judge renders a verdict, done. The California court system is way too overburdened to cope with an infraction violator having two or more court dates. That's the general rule of thumb; there can always be exceptions to this. Infractions associated with a 23152 would be different.....

[Mac]

The other aspects were answered but I thought I would address this section: The date written on the citation (for infractions) is the date for court - there is no "holding over" and normally no other court date assigned on infractions. You go to court on the date specified, the officer is subpoenaed also, if you say not guilty the officer testifies, judge renders a verdict, done. The California court system is way too overburdened to cope with an infraction violator having two or more court dates. That's the general rule of thumb; there can always be exceptions to this. Infractions associated with a 23152 would be different.....
Actually, that's not correct. The court date written on the citation is the date the violator shows up for his/her arraignment. At that time, they can plead guilty and pay their fine (or go to traffic school), or they can plead not guilty and request a court trial. The court trial will be set for a later date and the officer will be subpoenaed, and that date is when the trial takes place.

In my experience, most of those traffic attorneys are scams. They appear in court and see if the officer is there - if he isn't, they request dismissal of the case, which is granted due to lack of prosecution. If the officer is there, they plead 'no contest' and request traffic school for the defendant....very, very rarely have I ever seen them actually take an officer to trial. All they do is the exact same thing any defendant can do for themself in court, and save themselves a couple hundred bucks.

BTW - any attorney who claims a 100% success rate in fighting speed tickets is either: a) a bigger liar than most attorneys, or b) a crook who pays off the local (equally crooked) judge. Traffic tickets are some of the hardest court cases to win because they're "general intent" crimes (no need to prove intent - just that the violation occurred), and you don't have the option of having an infraction tried before an (easily-confused) jury. On any given day if you sit in on a traffic court, you'll see an acquital rate of 5-10% at BEST - unless you have a flaming liberal defense attorney sitting as a pro tem on that day.

As for "current CHP policy" on court proceedings - Mary-2 already answered that question.

[SB 405]

So save your money when you see ads for The Law Offices of Shyster & Shyster on TV. I overheard some of these yo-yo's in the hallways talking to clients in the traffic court building last March when I was on jury duty. It's amazing some of the crapola they spew trying to put a spin on things.

[cal911gal]

Thanks for the correction Mac - I appreciate the clarification~

[AyatollahGondola]

I'll add one thing to this:

At arraignment, if you are in a bigger city, they take all the no contests and "guilty with explanation" cases first. If you plead not guilty, they usually make you sit in the court room till that calendar ends, and then set a date for your trial. They waste your time also. This means you must sit through all the interpreter matters too. that means, all the russian speaking, spanish, and several dialects of chinese.

Who said there might be crooked pro-tems? How could that be? They are all influential or highly respected members of the Republican or Democrat parties. The parties wouldn't recommend someone that wasn't of high moral character now, would they?:razz:

[Royd5150]

Since court is a public venue, why not go sit in the court your assigned to for your ticket before hand. This way you can see what the judge and district attorney do in similar cases. And before hand means a week or so. When in court notice what the trend seems to be. then make up your mind weather to plead guilty or fight it. CHP policy on court is not your worry, but the judge's actions will be something to majorly consider.

[dw]

My guess would be that there is a caveat about payment and the 100% guarantee. I've seen, "only pay if we win" type things.

In my personal experience, lawyers have a 0% success rate.

I would also add I have been surprised how many defendants fail to appear after specifically requesting a court date.

[AyatollahGondola]

I would also add I have been surprised how many defendants fail to appear after specifically requesting a court date.

Nothing surprising at all there, It's just a delay tactic.

[Mac]

I would also add I have been surprised how many defendants fail to appear after specifically requesting a court date.

Nothing surprising at all there, It's just a delay tactic.
"Surprise surprise" on them when the judge/commissioner either issues a warrant for their arrest, or holds the trial "in absentia" and finds them guilty! :shock:

Yep....it happens.

[dw]

I would also add I have been surprised how many defendants fail to appear after specifically requesting a court date.

Nothing surprising at all there, It's just a delay tactic.
"Surprise surprise" on them when the judge/commissioner either issues a warrant for their arrest, or holds the trial "in absentia" and finds them guilty! :shock:

Yep....it happens.

Agreed. If being used intentionally, it is a very poor tactic.

[AyatollahGondola]

No, not really,

the court does not treat all traffic cases seriously. Being a business to them, they probably will issue a default type judgement and send it to their collection arm. The collections division in many times is a private company that goes through normal collection procedures for quite a while before taking steps like requesting DMV to suspend a license or send it back to the County sheriff as a warrant. that whole process can buy a defendant or a "convict" several months, and more if they work out a favorable payment plan for the offense.
On the other hand, if you plead guilty and get your judgement that day, you must start paying right away. The delay one obtains by prolonging the process is often worthwhile if your really stuck financially or if you just like to procrastinate as a lifestyle.
Like it or not, the decriminalization of so many offenses has made a mockery out of our justice system and made a business out of some areas of law enforcement in many counties.

[ace553]

I don't know about that....

I got a measely fix-it ticket in a commercial vehicle that was for no lights on my trailer. The ticket was written, and since it was just a loose light plug, it was signed off at the scene as well. I turned in the ticket when i returned, since it was a company responsibility, for them to send in with the $10 court fee. For whatever reason, they did not turn in the ticket in a timely fashion resulting in a fine increase to $325. In this case a VERY expensive mistake. The point being that the procrastination tactic would not be a wise choice to make, no matter what the case. ;)

[AyatollahGondola]

Yeah,

The point I was making is, that from that point on, let's say you didn't pay it. It could be months and even a year before you actually had to address it again. Meanwhile, the fine only draws minimal intrest rates.
You'd probably be shocked if you saw:
The amount the collection agencies recieve from the ones collected.
The amount that never get collected.
The amount of people using false identification who go through the system more than once and still take years to pay a fine and still drive around without a license

The thing is, fines are supposed to be a deterrent to the crime. However, if the punishment becomes just a cost of doing business, and in the course of that business you can defer the costs for quite a while, we no longer have law enforcement, but rather a perverse form of administrative monitoring for profit.