Traffic Court Stories

[redhead]

Ok, so we have the stops covered in the other thread, but we all have some sort of traffic court story for some lame ass exucuse or some real story....

mine is as follows......




Them-"Sir, we would like to Dismiss this case in the interest of justice."

Judge-"Son, you just got lucky."

Me-:D

Its always a good thing to show up to Court with your Attorney who is a Pro-Temp traffic court judge and having had thrown some of this officers tickets out in the past, the A.DA decided not to fight it.
{oh to be young again!!!}

[dw]

What court provided a DA representative on a traffic case? Or was it a misdemeanor?

For traffic cases in many Counties, the Officer represents The People, whether the other side has a lawyer or not. I've gone against lawyers several times. Traffic attorneys are usually not the creme de la creme of attorneys, I've never had any difficulty arguing a case.

[redhead]

What court provided a DA representative on a traffic case? Or was it a misdemeanor?

San Jose. I just looked at the court doc and it says Deputy DA. It was a SJPD 22350 ticket.


P.S.---- I only have that one traffic court story, but was hpoing to hear funny/crazy stroies of people explaining how/why they should be let off........

[Your Mentor]

Inyo County provides Deputy DA's to prosecute traffic cites. They're not very busy I guess. One of the only a handfull of counties which do so. It's good and bad. It's good if the violator shows up with an attorney but it's bad if the D.DA is new and doesn't know what to ask or pursue. In most cases you're better off without one.

[jcalder]

this wasn't my ticket, but I saw the trial.

Officer: Your honor, on the date and time indicated....I saw the defendant's vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed....I issued a citation for driving 86 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone.

Defendant: I was not going 86 miles per hour, only about 70 miles per hour.

Judge: Still over 65. Guilty, would you like traffic school?

[HIPCHIP]

I worked in Newhall and the traffic court judge hated being the traffic court judge. I wrote a guy for passing over the double yellows at an intersection. I testified the guy passed at the intersection, the guy testified he passed at the intersection, judge found him not guilty.

This judge also had a reputation that if you wrote a friend of his, he found every case involving you not-guilty ( A Chippy had written HIM once, so he had a bone to pick with CHP and every case that the officer who wrote him had was found not guilty). I must have written one of his friends as he found every case of mine not guilty, except one, and the defendant on that case was African American, so the judge was also a bigot (of all the cases dismissed, this one was the most unique and it would have been justified if it had been dismissed).

Lawyers, gotta love'em!

[AyatollahGondola]

I sat through many a traffic court case a couple years back. Mostly it seems like there's just a bent towards collecting fines, but many of the commissioners/judges seemed a little tuned out after the first hour. I think the one thing that used to raise my hackles most was the court taking interpreter matters first. So non english speakers go to the head of the class. You may think this is a good thing because they meet the hangman first, but the reality is that they get their business done in the first part of the court calendar while everyone else sits through the day for their turn.

[A454ELK]

Here is a case from a few years back.

Officer: "I saw the defendant in my rear view mirror as he approached and I estimated his speed to be approximately 75 mph."

Attorney: "You say you saw my client approaching in the rear view mirror?"

O: "That's right sir."

A: "Are you trained in visual estimation?"

O: "Yes sir."

A: "Are you trained in looking through your rear view mirror?"

O: <chuckle> "Yes sir."

A: "How far back was my client when you saw him?"

O: "About 500 feet."

A: "Wow, you saw my client 500 feet back!?"

O: "Yes sir."

A: "That's pretty far officer. How far can you see in your rear view mirror?"

O: "Well, I don't know sir, but I did see the moon once!"

[iSeeHP]

Yay! East LA/Alhambra :cool:
My residence is right by the walls of the 10WB between Garfield & Atlantic. Always hearing CHP

[x MAIT]

Yay! East LA/Alhambra :cool:
My residence is right by the walls of the 10WB between Garfield & Atlantic. Always hearing CHP

Sorry, I removed this story when I saw that I had already posted it a few years back in the Traffic Stop Stories.

[HIPCHIP]

Here is a case from a few years back.

Officer: "I saw the defendant in my rear view mirror as he approached and I estimated his speed to be approximately 75 mph."

Attorney: "You say you saw my client approaching in the rear view mirror?"

O: "That's right sir."

A: "Are you trained in visual estimation?"

O: "Yes sir."

A: "Are you trained in looking through your rear view mirror?"

O: <chuckle> "Yes sir."

A: "How far back was my client when you saw him?"

O: "About 500 feet."

A: "Wow, you saw my client 500 feet back!?"

O: "Yes sir."

A: "That's pretty far officer. How far can you see in your rear view mirror?"

O: "Well, I don't know sir, but I did see the moon once!"


Me: Your honor, I was pacing a car at approximately 65 miles per hour when a car from behind caught and overtook me.

Judge: So you were pacing from the front?

Me: No your honor, I was pacing a different car when a car caught me from behind. Since I was doing approximately 63-65 mph the car that caught me had to be doing 65+

Judge: Well, it's against the rules to pace from the front, so case dismissed!

Idiot judge (same one I wrote about earlier)

Same judge:
Me: Your honor, I was behind the veh when the signal ahead turned red. The car was approximately ? feet behind the limit line (Don't remember exact amount).

Def: Your honor, I was in the intersection when the signal turned red.

Judge: Well, we have conflicting statements. Not guilty.

Idiot Judge!:hitwall:

[quaylie]

Me: Your honor, I was pacing a car at approximately 65 miles per hour when a car from behind caught and overtook me.

Judge: So you were pacing from the front?

Me: No your honor, I was pacing a different car when a car caught me from behind. Since I was doing approximately 63-65 mph the car that caught me had to be doing 65+

Judge: Well, it's against the rules to pace from the front, so case dismissed!

Idiot judge (same one I wrote about earlier)

Same judge:
Me: Your honor, I was behind the veh when the signal ahead turned red. The car was approximately ? feet behind the limit line (Don't remember exact amount).

Def: Your honor, I was in the intersection when the signal turned red.

Judge: Well, we have conflicting statements. Not guilty.

Idiot Judge!:hitwall:

Sounds like he's a fan of the uneven scales of justice.

[SweepTheLeg]

Sounds like he's a fan of the uneven scales of justice.

You think your judges are idiots...this is from my home county in Northeast PA.

http://www.wnep.com/wnep-luz-two-luzerne-county-judges-indicted,0,485721.story

My family knows these judges well, no one was surprised when this came out.

[dw]

judge: a lot of people take traffic cases to court in the hopes the officer won't show. all your officers are here. anyone want to plead guilty to a reduced fine before we begin? no takers, okay.....

dw: saw the defendant's vehicle 1/4 mile ahead..... 20-30 feet behind an truck @ 70 mph..... continued one mile while i caught up.... got adjacent to vehicles, still no more than 30' back.... safe distance would have been 150-300' depending on whose numbers you use.... stopped, ID'ed, cited and released..... trained and certified in radar which requires accurate estimations.....

lawyer: 1/4 mile back, eh? sure your estimate was correct?

dw: yup

lawyer: hmmmm.... 5:00 PM, getting dark, visibility not as good as at noon, right?

dw: it was fine.

lawyer: how fast did you go to catch up?

dw: dunno, wasn't paying attention.

lawyer: and you were able to speed through traffic while watching my client the whole time?

dw: yeah, kinda' what i get paid to do.....

[i kid you not ten minutes of examination later]

lawyer: ms. defendant, how far back were you following the truck?

defendant: it was a safe distance. the exact number i do not know..... it was at least one, one and one-half car lengths, maybe.

:doh:

[wtf? didn't you go over this with the defendant before the trial? at least we all agree on the distance.]

lawyer: your honor, obviously this case should be dismissed..... [never gave a reason for her argument.]

judge: um, no. want traffic school?

[23112]

Speed cite: 95 in a 65, dove from the #1 across the 2, 3, 4, and gore to exit the freeway. Once off the freeway (before I lit him up), he tossed an Aquafina bottle out his window. I cited him for speed and littering.

Me in court: I testified to the various violations. I included a statement about how my driver claimed to be speeding to get a prescription for his sick father. I asked him what time the pharmacy closed, he said, "nine o'clock," and it was about 9:30 when I stopped him. I asked him why he threw his water bottle out the window and he answered, "Because I finished." I clearly told the judge all this.

Defendant: He spewed various lies about how he was only going 80 and the wind magically sucked his Aquafina bottle out the window and "Bro...blah, blah, blah, bro, judge, please."

Idiotic Pro-tem (to Defendant): Was there anyone else that could have picked up the prescription?

Defendant: "Yes...my wife."

Idiotic Pro-tem (to me): "Did the defendant cut anyone off?"

Me: "No."

Idiotic Pro-tem (to me): "Did you pick up the bottle he threw out the window?"

Me: Stunned. "No."

Idiotic Pro-tem (to me): "Why not?"

Me: More stunned. "Because I was making an enforcement stop on the defendant."

Idiotic Pro-tem: "I'm going to find the defendant not-guilty on the speeding charge, because the Vehicle Code says you can speed in a medical emergency, and I find the defendant guilty on the littering charge."

[dw]

Idiotic Pro-tem: "I'm going to find the defendant not-guilty on the speeding charge, because the Vehicle Code says you can speed in a medical emergency, and I find the defendant guilty on the littering charge."For everyone reading, no, it does not.... (It exempts doctors with certification from prima facia limits, but not maximums.)

[CitizenKane]

Coalinga used to have "Hang 'em High" Harry Papadackis on the bench. Some time back I stopped an 80+ heading in to town. As I was stopping the violator, the passenger tossed a can of a frothy amber beverage out the right front window. Scratched him for open container. At his trial, he admitted to tossing the can, but said it was empty.

Harry: So, it wasn't an open container?

Violator: No, cuz it was empty.

Harry: So you were just littering?

Violator: Yeah

Harry: So if we ammend the ticket to littering you'd plead guilty?

Violator: Sure.

Harry: I'll accept your guilty plea. Now, if you had pled to open container your fine would have been $125, but since you pled to littering, I'm going to charge you the amount that's posted on all those highway signs. Your fine is $1000. Can you pay that now?

[bcjack]

For everyone reading, no, it does not.... (It exempts doctors with certification from prima facia limits, but not maximums.)

21058. A physician traveling in response to an emergency call shall be exempt from the provisions of Sections 22351 and 22352 if the vehicle so used by him displays an insigne approved by the department indicating that the vehicle is owned by a licensed physician. The provisions of this section do not relieve the driver of the vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect the driver from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges of this section.

[quaylie]

Coalinga used to have "Hang 'em High" Harry Papadackis on the bench. Some time back I stopped an 80+ heading in to town. As I was stopping the violator, the passenger tossed a can of a frothy amber beverage out the right front window. Scratched him for open container. At his trial, he admitted to tossing the can, but said it was empty.

Harry: So, it wasn't an open container?

Violator: No, cuz it was empty.

Harry: So you were just littering?

Violator: Yeah

Harry: So if we ammend the ticket to littering you'd plead guilty?

Violator: Sure.

Harry: I'll accept your guilty plea. Now, if you had pled to open container your fine would have been $125, but since you pled to littering, I'm going to charge you the amount that's posted on all those highway signs. Your fine is $1000. Can you pay that now?

That is great stuff.:lol:

[FTY]

Had a speed stop where violator was consistently at 90, though at the end was 104 mph as I was stopping him. Commercial DL, cited for 90+.
Perfect english on stop and gave me a million excuses as to why he was speeding.

1st court appearance-

I showed up and Def claimed he ONLY spoke Armenian, pro-tem granted him a new trial date since there was no interpreter available.

2nd court appearance-

Armenian interpreter is there and he now claims he speaks the Armenian language with a Georgian dialect so he needs a different interpreter. Mind you he is using the interpreter to convey his wishes to the court.

Different Pro-tem= Officer, could you come back again at a later date when we have another interpreter available for the Def.

Me= Sure, I will come back any time or any day but I don't see why its necessary.

Pro-tem= Why is that?

Me= Well your honor, it appears that the Def is trying to find a way to get this case dismissed by either not being provided an interpreter or by me not showing up. I then explained the stop and how the def spoke perfect english and was lying in his testimony.

Immediately after I finished the Def stated, "I have a few things to say about what that Officer just said", in perfect english.:doh:

The Judge's face turned bright red and immediately told the Def he was guilty and to get the hell out of his courtroom.

Def waited for me outside to try to find out if I knew he was lying and if I did then why didn't I just go with it. Clueless.:hitwall:

[G-Man]

This wasn't my case, it was a State Park Rangers, but it was still funny.

The Ranger cites a guy for driving an unauthorized vehicle on a portion of a State Park at Leo Carrillo. The guy stated he was a reserve state lifeguard and was doing his duty by watching the swimmers, mind you he was also smoking his medical marijuana while doing so. (He didn't get cited for the Marijuana).

He goes on to read a whole bunch of articles of why the Ranger has no authority to stop him and that the court has no power to impose fines and because the Commissioner and him have done battle of wits in the past he needs to reccuse himself. He then claims that the sign "Authorized Vehicles Only" is the past tense and since his vehicle was a former State Parks vehicle is was "Authorized" in the past tense.

When that didn't work he actually attempted to call the traffic Commissioner as a witness! An hour later of back and forth between this guy, the Ranger, and the Commissioner he was found guilty.

I love Topanga!

[HIPCHIP]

Had a Beverly Hills traffic court commissioner who was a retired LASO deputy. Most of the time he was very pro police, but not always. Heard a story from another officer where he found everybody not guilty, looked at the officers, stuck out his tongue and said to the officers "That'll teach'ya!".

One time I was in court and there were 8 defendants. He asked the defendants if they wanted to go to traffic school. He explained that if you go to traffic school the cite is dismissed, but if you fight it, 75% of the defendants would likely be found guilty. He then proceeded to try the cases and found 75% guilty, just like he said he would. Of course 100% were probably guilty, but he said he'd find 6 guilty and 2 not guilty and the 8 decided they'd hoped they'd be one of the two!

[Dipmo]

For all the Hayward Court guys, "SOMETIMES I DO..."

[Artem]

sorry for bothering

[IrishJoe]

do you believe that some officers may got angry at something and give a ticket to innocent driver? Thank you.

No

[SB 405]

I'm pretty sure the state has enough drivers on the roads pulling stupid stunts to keep everyone busy. The innocent have nothing to worry about.

[TX-DPS]

Had one two weeks ago:

D: Your honor I would not be here if this wasn't so petty
J: Well I don't consider you running a stop sign to be petty, and not only that, no law is petty as far as I am concerned
Me: Trying to control smirk from knowing defendant just stepped on their crank
J: I find you guilty as charged.

[Mac]

...Ohh yeah the question - do you believe that some officers may got angry at something and give a ticket to innocent driver?
I believe there are plenty enough people who righteously deserve tickets that an officer wouldn't potentially sacrifice his career by committing perjury (written, on the citation and orally, in a court of law) by writing a ticket to an 'innocent' person because he "got angry at something".

I'm sure the Sacramento Bee will jump at the opportunity to possibly paint a law enforcement officer in a less than positive light, though....that's right up their alley.

[AyatollahGondola]

I think it's a big mistake that court hearings are not allowed to be videotaped. Both sides of the legal proceedings along with those on the outside would benefit greatly from a public airing of traffic court and even other trials.
What a good reality tv show.....Traffic court.

[Dodger Fan]

That show already exists. It is called Speeders Fight Back. It's on TruTV.

[CHPUSMC]

City Officer: I observed a (suspect car) run the stop sign at this off ramp. I estimated the speed of the car to be approximately 10mph as it proceeded past the limit line without stopping. I positioned my patrol car in such a way that the car was in view of my patrol car dash cam as it past through the stop sign. I have a copy of the patrol cars dash cam and I would like to present it as the peoples evidence.

Judge: Go ahead with peoples exhibit 1.

(Cues up tape, shows car not coming to a complete stop. Everyone in the courtroom kinda looks around and nods their head in a yes fashion.)

City Officer: Your honor, that concludes my testimony.

Judge: Go ahead defendant with your defense, which can include asking the officer questions.

Defendant: Your honor, I'd like to change my plea to guilty. I just wish you people would have told me there was a video of me running the light. I wouldn't have wasted my time coming here if I knew. Now I can't even present my story without perjuring myself.

Judge: You were going to perjure yourself if there was no video?

Defendant: I misspoke your honor, I meant to just say guilty. But you should tell people when there is video that shows someone violating the law.

Judge: You had the chance to do so in discovery. I find you guilty.



We were dying in the back of the court room.

[Jeff Rhea]

Speed cite on I-5 in Los Banos Area (rural central Cal). 95 in a 70.
Judge routinely found defendants not guilty in the interst of justice even though he believed the officer.

Me: Saw def speeding, stopped, cited, let go.
Def: (good looking busty blonde, surely another Not Guilty) Well your honor, I was hoping you would just let me go.
Judge: Why?
Def: Well, I just don't want the ticket.
Judge: That's it? That's your defense?
Def: Yes your honor.
Judge: Well...you don't give me much to work with so I'm going to have to find you guilty.

Me: (to myself) You drove 4 hours from North Hollywood and that's all you got?!!:doh:

[Jeff Rhea]

Richmond Court

Me: Your honor, I thought the defendent was in tow until he passed and then I realized he was about 6 feet off the bumper of the vehicle in front of him, so he was following too closely at 65 mph.

Def: Your honor I was not 6 feet! I was about two car lengths!
Me: The people will stipulate to two car lengths at 20 feet each and 40 feet of distance. At 65 mph the safe following distance is approximately 305 feet, so the defendent is still too close.

Guilty.

Immedately following the stop the violator filed a complaint. One of the allegations was rude and discourteous. His passenger spoke to the Lt.

Lt.: How was the Sgt.'s demeanor?
Pass: Oh the officer was very nice. But Calvin? Calvin was a f@#%ing as#$%le. :razz:

Exonerated. :lol:

[x MAIT]

Prior to going to MAIT I was the AI go-to guy in ELA. Was called from home to come out and work a LASD unit vs peds collision. Documented the scene, interviewed the witnesses, and wrote the report putting the Deputy at fault for hitting two peds in a crosswalk. Went to court several months later. It was a court trial (judge only). Defense claimed that the peds ran out into the crosswalk and the Deputy could not avoid them. Witnesses and physical evidence (skidmarks indicating speed in excess of the posted limit) refuted that claim. The judge took the case under submission (that means he would give his decision later when nobody was there). A couple of days later I was informed that the judge stated that he could not make a decision and the case was dismissed. Basically, rather than a hung jury, it was a hung judge. Later, come to find out, the judge was retired LASD.

After that the Deputy made it a point to trash me every time he was in the DA's office, at his station, and everytime he came into contact with someone from my office. This continued until my Captain, at my request, had a talk with the Captain at the ELA Sheriff's Station.

[Bolo4u]

A cuple of years ago, I cited a guy riding his brand new quad (yes, he had purchased it that day from the dealer) For riding on the highway. He was running around showing it off to all his friends. I cited him for no reg, no insurance, no helmet and mechanical.

He took it to court. Following my testimony the offender was rather pissed as he told the judge:

Def: 'But your honor the vehicle is registered... See here is the paperwork'

Me: :popcorn:

Judge: 'Yes I see that, but its not registered for the highway...'

Def: 'But your honor, I have insurance for any vehicle I drive...'

Me: :popcorn:

Judge: 'Sir, you may have insurance for any vehicle you drive, but not for that vehicle on the highway'

Def: 'But your honor.... :hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:'

Me: :popcorn:

Judge: "Sir, you are not allowed to ride that vehicle on the highway at all...'

Guilty, and if I remember correctly, It was about a $2000.00 fine with fees, court costs etc...

[AyatollahGondola]

Prior to going to MAIT I was the AI go-to guy in ELA. Was called from home to come out and work a LASD unit vs peds collision. Documented the scene, interviewed the witnesses, and wrote the report putting the Deputy at fault for hitting two peds in a crosswalk. Went to court several months later. It was a court trial (judge only). Defense claimed that the peds ran out into the crosswalk and the Deputy could not avoid them. Witnesses and physical evidence (skidmarks indicating speed in excess of the posted limit) refuted that claim. The judge took the case under submission (that means he would give his decision later when nobody was there). A couple of days later I was informed that the judge stated that he could not make a decision and the case was dismissed. Basically, rather than a hung jury, it was a hung judge. Later, come to find out, the judge was retired LASD.

After that the Deputy made it a point to trash me every time he was in the DA's office, at his station, and everytime he came into contact with someone from my office. This continued until my Captain, at my request, had a talk with the Captain at the ELA Sheriff's Station.
Inter-agency rivalry is no way to conduct the publics business. I seem to remember two agencies in the Sacramento vicinity getting into a scuffle over traffic and one of the heads threatening a "ticket war" with the other or something to that effect. Most unbecoming to end up in public like that.
Hung judge eh? Please; No pictures....

[cg+fd2chp]

x MAIT, that is a pretty sad situation




Thanks for sharing

[bcjack]

Prior to going to MAIT I was the AI go-to guy in ELA. Was called from home to come out and work a LASD unit vs peds collision. Documented the scene, interviewed the witnesses, and wrote the report putting the Deputy at fault for hitting two peds in a crosswalk. Went to court several months later. It was a court trial (judge only). Defense claimed that the peds ran out into the crosswalk and the Deputy could not avoid them. Witnesses and physical evidence (skidmarks indicating speed in excess of the posted limit) refuted that claim. The judge took the case under submission (that means he would give his decision later when nobody was there). A couple of days later I was informed that the judge stated that he could not make a decision and the case was dismissed. Basically, rather than a hung jury, it was a hung judge. Later, come to find out, the judge was retired LASD.

After that the Deputy made it a point to trash me every time he was in the DA's office, at his station, and everytime he came into contact with someone from my office. This continued until my Captain, at my request, had a talk with the Captain at the ELA Sheriff's Station.

As I heard said once before..."The truth hurts". It's too bad that you were called in to do the right thing (impartially investigate the crime) and you do your job, then get screwed in the end.

[Jeff Rhea]

Worked a solo into a field once. 17-yr-old driver swerved to avoid another car entering the intersection and clipped a power pole. 83-yr-old woman had started to pull out in front of him then realized he was coming "awfully fast." Kid's dad and uncle are there. They start telling how she has no business driving. The kid ended up 188 feet out in an alfalfa field. After everyone leaves I measure the kids' centrifigul skid, twice. 17' cord with a 7" mid-ordinate. I go to a local truck stop, break out my advance AI notes (thanks Dane Lobe) and my calculator. I run the numbers five times and come up with 80.5 mph. I have another officer double check my calculations - 80.5 mph. I find him at fault and make her a witness (can't gain right of way by breaking the law so she didn't violate his right of way and therefore is not a party to the crash, just a witness :smile:). I cite him and we go to juvy court. Guilty.

Dad, "Are you going to suspend my son's license?"
Judge, "No." To me later, "I don't have to; I looked at his driving record. The DMV will suspend him."

Two months later we're in Superior Court on the appeal. Dad has all kinds of def info from the inter-net.

Judge, "If the officer said your son was speeding he was speeding. This is what they do for a living and the Highway Patrol is very good at it.
Me: :biggrin:

[Jeff Rhea]

Rio-Hondo Traffic Court, ELA, many years ago:

Judge is 10 minutes late. Court room is packed. Judge finally comes in buttoning up his robe. Judge turns to bailiff:

"Bailiff do you have your ticket book?"

"Yes your honor."

"I had to speed to get here. Write me a ticket for 75 in a 65; here is my driver's license and vehicle information. I find myself guilty and the fine is $120.00. (breaks out check book, fills out check, hands it to the clerk) Please process this for me."

To the crowd: "Now that I have a clear conscience, would anyone like to change their plea to guilty and accept traffic school before I hear your case?"

I've never seen a traffic calandar cleared faster. :lol:

[bplusmc]

:lol:

[Fire1]

"I had to speed to get here. Write me a ticket for 75 in a 65; here is my driver's license and vehicle information. I find myself guilty and the fine is $120.00. (breaks out check book, fills out check, hands it to the clerk) Please process this for me."



Not to hijack, but this sounds like it belongs in the office stop thread. How many of us would give ourselves a ticket. Just saying.

[quaylie]

Rio-Hondo Traffic Court, ELA, many years ago:

Judge is 10 minutes late. Court room is packed. Judge finally comes in buttoning up his robe. Judge turns to bailiff:

"Bailiff do you have your ticket book?"

"Yes your honor."

"I had to speed to get here. Write me a ticket for 75 in a 65; here is my driver's license and vehicle information. I find myself guilty and the fine is $120.00. (breaks out check book, fills out check, hands it to the clerk) Please process this for me."

To the crowd: "Now that I have a clear conscience, would anyone like to change their plea to guilty and accept traffic school before I hear your case?"

I've never seen a traffic calandar cleared faster. :lol:

That's a great story. :lol:

[Jeff Rhea]

King City traffic court:

Officer testifies she catches the defendent driving 95 mph on the 101, but in kindness, wrote him for 65. (The limit was 55 at the time, judge thought it should be 65 and would not convict if they were actually doing 65.)

Defendent: I don't know what she is talking about your Honor, I was only going 55.

Judge: Okay, I've heard enough, I'm ready to render my verdict.

Defendant: Your Honor I haven't finished testifying yet.

Judge: Yes you have. You've started lying to me so I'm going to stop you right now.

Defendent: But your Honor!

Judge: Listen, I drive down here from Monterey twice a week. I always drive 65 and I don't ever pass anybody. Nobody drives 55 on the 101; nobody. That's number one. Number two: the officer did not misjudge your speed by 40 miles per hour; that is what she does for a living. If you said, five, maybe ten, I might have believed it, but not 40 miles per hour. Number three: I can not believe that after my officer gave you a break of 30 miles per hour you have the nerve to come to my court and waste my time! This court has to render it's decision based on the evidence presented before it and based on the evidence I find you guilt of 95 in a 55. The fine is......$450.00 (originally $75.00). Can you pay that now or do you need to make payments?

Defendent: Wait a minute your Honor!!! How can you find me guilty of something you just admitted to doing yourself??!!!

Judge: The difference is, you got caught!

The only time I've seen the cost of a ticket go UP in court. :lol:

[LadyVol@330]

Thanks! What a riot!

[dw]

Not to hijack, but this sounds like it belongs in the office stop thread. How many of us would give ourselves a ticket. Just saying.Maybe on my last day I'll give myself a ticket. But I'm sure as hell taking it to court!

[AyatollahGondola]

During one set of traffic court hearings, I witnessed the commissioner picking up the slack where the prosecution was either inexperienced, having a bad day, or maybe just incompetent. When the accused tendered logical defense, the commissioner stated that then may have committed another offense in the process(not so charged originally). The prosecution sat there frantically looking up said charge while commissioner pressed on drilling the accused for a response. He left guilty of the first offense, although his defense to the charge was reasonable enough to have called for a not guilty verdict.
Call me old fashioned, but a guy still deserves a fair trial. Even the guilty ones. I was sitting in the back seats there wishing I could telepathically convey an urge to the defendant to ask the court "which one of you is the prosecutor, and which one the impartial judge?"

[Watercadet]

Me: On the date and time blahh, blahh...I observed the (violator) driving his vehicle at a speed of 75 MPH, at a distance of no less than 10 feet from the rear of the vehicle in front if him, for a distance of 1/4 mile in light traffic.

Judge: Officer, where were you in relation?

Me: I was parallel to the small gap between the (violator's) vehicle and the vehicle in front, in the lane to their immediate right.

Judge: Officer why didn't you cite him for exceeding 65 MPH?

Me: Because I felt that the following distance was more dangerous than the speed.

Violator: I was not following too close!

Judge: Based upon the testimony given, I don't find the (violator's) driving to be unreasonable or unsafe. NOT guilty.

Me::shock:

[AyatollahGondola]

Me: On the date and time blahh, blahh...I observed the (violator) driving his vehicle at a speed of 75 MPH, at a distance of no less than 10 feet from the rear of the vehicle in front if him, for a distance of 1/4 mile in light traffic.

Judge: Officer, where were you in relation?

Me: I was parallel to the small gap between the (violator's) vehicle and the vehicle in front, in the lane to their immediate right.

Judge: Officer why didn't you cite him for exceeding 65 MPH?

Me: Because I felt that the following distance was more dangerous than the speed.

Violator: I was not following too close!

Judge: Based upon the testimony given, I don't find the (violator's) driving to be unreasonable or unsafe. NOT guilty.

Me::shock:
I'll bet that as technology advances and costs decline, defenses of the "He said - I said" kind will be muted and replaced with "That video is doctored your honor"

[Fifty150]

Cited a guy for driving over 100 mph. Testified to the facts.

Defendant: Your Honor I am going through the process to become a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff and my background investigator asked why I wasn’t cited for reckless driving if I was going over 100 mph.

Judge: The officer didn’t testify that you were driving reckless. Is that correct officer?

Me: Correct your Honor. It was 0530 in the morning with very little traffic. The defendant was not driving in a reckless manner but was well over 100 mph.

Defendant: Your Honor I was not going over 100 mph.

Judge: How fast were you going?

Defendant: 80 – 85 tops

Judge: I find you guilty. Normally I would suspend your license but since you are going through the process to become a Deputy, I would think you need your license. Your fine is $500 plus penalty assessment for a total of $1200.00. Can you pay that today or do you need some time to make payments?

[PTR-Jason]

Cited a guy for driving over 100 mph. Testified to the facts.

Defendant: Your Honor I am going through the process to become a Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff and my background investigator asked why I wasn’t cited for reckless driving if I was going over 100 mph.

Judge: The officer didn’t testify that you were driving reckless. Is that correct officer?

Me: Correct your Honor. It was 0530 in the morning with very little traffic. The defendant was not driving in a reckless manner but was well over 100 mph.

Defendant: Your Honor I was not going over 100 mph.

Judge: How fast were you going?

Defendant: 80 – 85 tops

Judge: I find you guilty. Normally I would suspend your license but since you are going through the process to become a Deputy, I would think you need your license. Your fine is $500 plus penalty assessment for a total of $1200.00. Can you pay that today or do you need some time to make payments?

OUCH... That is great. Just what I needed before I get off of here and go spend 10 hours in a car for the night.