Stoplight Ticket ... Need Help

[Boodrodon Dykes]

Ah yes, Colony has all bad roads any way! . I live over by the Lowes on 423. Maybe we can have a mini meet! lol... Hope the ticket goes well.







Boodro

 

[Thomas Rogers]

You are not supposed to enter an intersection unless you are sure you can make it through before the light changes to red. It sounds like you entered the intersection right behind someone and couldn't be sure you could make it through before the light change and got caught "in the box" when the light changed.



Instead of trying to get out of it, or blame it on someone or something else, pay the ticket and learn your lesson.



I apologize if I misunderstood your explanation of the event. But from the sounds of it, you were in the wrong.



TJR

 

[Wayne Foy]

I dont know the laws in Texas, but here in Georgia, as long as you cross the "Balk Line" (large white line marking stopping point) and the light is green or yellow, then you have the right of way even if traffic is stopped and you have to stop in the intersection. The only time this does NOT apply is if there are posted signs around the intersection stating "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION".



And Caymen, LOL, I have beaten MANY tickets in court by actually facing the cop, and pulling out a recent copy of the State Traffic Law book (love having a cop as a very good friend) and pointing out his faults when he wrote me the ticket. When faced with the flat law in the book, the judge has no choice but to go against the officer, if you indeed prove he was in the wrong.

Thats why I love how the LIDAR (laser speed detection) laws are written. Most officers utilize the laser incorrectly, and the ticket will be thrown out once it has been proven they werent following the FDA (Yes LIDAR is governed by the FDA) set regulations regarding usage and vehicle position for accurate speed tracking.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

>> I dont know the laws in Texas, but here in Georgia, as long as you cross the "Balk Line" (large white line marking stopping point) and the light is green or yellow, then you have the right of way even if traffic is stopped and you have to stop in the intersection. The only time this does NOT apply is if there are posted signs around the intersection stating "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION".



Wow...Georgia sure is liberal.



Most states can give you a ticket for entering an intersection if the light is yellow if you could have safely stopped. Has anyone ever heard the expression "stale green?" Am I the only one who starts to slow down as I approach an intersection with a stale green light?



As for the "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION", again, my understanding is that for most states it is always against the law to block the intersection, and that such signs are there not to tell people of the law or to make that intersection special, but to try to avoid blockage because the intersection has had a history of getting blocked and deadlocked.



Of course, I do know that Georgia is different. But, I rest on my viewpoint that you shouldn't enter an intersection unless you know you can get through it.



Then again, I do the same thing with side streets and bumper-to-bumper traffic. I won't block a side street, but instead wait until there is room ahead to pull past the street.



Of course, much of this isn't law...it's just common sense, courtesy and defensive driving.



TJR

 

[John Mastrocco]

If you go to court and lose do you have to pay not only the fine but additional court costs?



Might be worth considering - especially if the points don't amount to squat.

 

[Richard L]

If you were the last vehicle into the intersection, it would be hard to prove that you entered the intersection when the light was green.



If you entered the intersection when it was yellow, you should not have done that. And your discription of the incident sounds like you where tucked up under the trucks rear end, which sounds like you probably thought you could squeeze your way in an blame it on the truck.



There are a couple of traffic light near where I live that are close together and has caused similar congestion at the second light. People were always stacking up in the intersection after the light turned red and prevented cross traffic from moving. When the local police department placed an officer in squad car at the intersection during the morning rush hour, there never was another problem at that intersection. I don't know if the police ever gave anyone a ticket but I suspect that many of the vehicles where entering the intersection after the light turned yellow or even red and was creating the problem.



Had you waited until the truck cleared the intersection before you entered, you may have had to wait an extra minute for the light to turn green again, you would not have gotten a ticket. Trying to prove that you entered the intersection while the light was still green is probably doomed to failure.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

People fail to realize that most tickets that are plead guilty is because the state/city knows it would be cheaper for you to pay the ticket then to fight it.



If you just pay the fine and leave, you are promting that idea. It is wrong and should be against the law.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

People fail to realize that most tickets that are plead guilty is because the state/city knows it would be cheaper for you to pay the ticket then to fight it.

Are you sure about that, or might it just be the case that most people don't fight a ticket because they know they are guilty?



If someone pleads guilty to an offense, they either did it, or they didn't. That's the black and white of it. Sure, there might be mitigating circumstances, but by and large, you either are guilty of the offense or not. Period.



Your blanket statement seems to imply that most are pleading guilty because it is the cheapest thing to do, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.



Do you have any figures to back that up? Or, are you just trying to insinuate that most authorities out there are giving baseless tickets because they know the system makes it cost prohibitive to fight them? I ask because that is what it sounds like you are saying.



BTW, we know how you feel about law enforcement! ;-)



TJR

 

[John Mastrocco]

Tom,



So what you are basically saying is that most, if not all, traffic citations are bogus and should have never been issued to begin with?



That's a load of crap.



I agree with TJ that the vast majority of tickets are deserved and the reason people pay them is because they know they are guilty as charged.



The only exception I see are speed traps, and those are now illegal in (just about?) all states. And even in those the person is technically guilty, but the trap was laid down in a way that there was no way you could ever be legal - that's what makes them a "trap."



Then there is the percentage of people that know they are guilty, don't give a damn if they broke the law or not, and fight every ticket they get regardless of the truth. With them it's the 'game' they see - how can I break the law and get away with it even if I am caught - not whether they are guilty or innocent.



"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

 

[Tom Schindler]

I never said they were bogus.



If you are innocent of speeding. In Ohio, it will take no less then 4 trips to court to fight your case. 1st trip after the incident to declare yourself "Not guilty", 2nd trip to talk with the prosecution, 3rd trip to have a pre-trial hearing, and finally the 4th trip to have your case heard.



So, lets say I make 15.00 an hour. The court systems are so booked up, you must be there in the morning by 8 Am. You are lucky to be out of there by 2 PM. That is missing 8 hours of work. 4 days without work is abut $480.00. The court systems know it is cheaper for you to pay the fine, innocent or not, then it is to fight it.



Just because you were given a citation doesn't mean you did the crime.



We always assume just because an officer arrested someone they are guilty of something. Many people have been found guilty of a crime they did not do. It happens every day.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Again, though, Caymen, you said that most tickets that are plead guilty are plead that way because it's too costly to fight. Frankly, you just have no real evidence to back that up only a gut feeling.



Reading your comments it makes me feel like you think that a large number if not a majority of tickets given should be fought. You seem to be RALLYING people to fight tickets. You even imply that somehow this practice should be against the law.



I, on the other hand, think that an OVERWHELMING majority of the traffic tickets given are just and the people are guilty.



The fact that the system makes it difficult and costly for guilty people to try to get reduced fines and have their day in court really only hurts the small, few that actually are innocent or have true mitigating circumstances. Case-in-point is this one started by this thread. If you were a judge wouldn't you get sick of hearing every little reason as to why "it's just not my fault!".



I think things are fine the way they are. If I could change anything it would be that IF and WHEN those that are innocent are found not-guilty of the offense that they could get punitive damages (money for the time, travel costs, lost time from work)...that, and NO lesser charges and bargaining for those that are guilty.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR and Rocco, I think Tom's primary point is that there is something seriously wrong with a system where it is more costly to fight a ticket than it is to simply pay the ticket and plead guilty. As Tom's example quite accurately points out, it'll cost about $400 to go to court and try to prove your innocence than to plead guilty, regardless of whether you are or not. And that's if you're making $15/hr--if you're more than that, the cost difference escalates dramatically. And both cops and municipalities know this, and I believe they abuse this. I know that recently, some cities in Minnesota have lost cases in the MN Supreme Court regarding their practices in cases like this--and those cases were blatant enough that I'm convinced there are many (likely a majority) of other municipalities that do this as well, but they've simply avoided such lawsuits by skirting the rules or covering their violations better.



Are the overwhelming majority of traffic tickets issued deserved? I agree with you that they are. But the means that those tickets are issued, or the systems in place allowing you to contest them, fair? No, I'm convinced they are not. See the situation regarding my wife that I gave earlier in this thread as an example. The Constitution assures us a speedy trial. I'm no Constitutional scholar, nor do I have much legal knowledge, but when the system is set up to cost you multiple times more time and money to clear your name of something you didn't do than to lie and plead guilty, to me it seems to be in violation of what the founding fathers intended when this was written.



Good grief--I just defended Caymen's position in a discussion on this site. Hell must truly be frozen. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yes, I agree there is something wrong with the system.



Here is a little bit of trivia:



Did you know that in most jurisdications you can plead NOT GUILTY to a traffic violation AND request that your hearing be handled via US mail. You can; and typically it only costs you notary fees and postage.



I have fought two tickets in the past. In each case I got a reduced fine. In one case I thought the infraction as written up was wrong/excessive, and the other I felt that there were mitigating circumstances. In both cases I was moreso trying to prove some noble point on my part, and in both cases I would have been better off just paying the fine (at least monetarily). I have paid other tickets without fight...a couple.



I DO think there is something wrong with the system. But having sat in traffic court a couple of times, I think much of the problem with what is WRONG with the system is actually the people that fight the tickets when they are caught-dead-to-rights, as they just increase the costs of tickets for everyone and make the innocent look guilty by association.



My advise to everyone...if you are truly innocent, fight the ticket via mail (or at LEAST TRY THAT), and if you are guilty, pay your fine and learn something.



TJR

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

I called 1-800-UGOFAST- here in FL- $99.00, ticket dismissed. They reschedule court appearance twice, then they are sure cop will not show- dismissed. This loophole should be closed, Its a loss for the court system, the police and taxpayers. But, as long as it can be done......

 

[steve twyver]

I once got a questionable red light ticket. The officer gave it to me because I was also speeding. He could prove neither offense. He was too far away from the intersection to see me cross in relation to the red light. He didn't follow me long enough to get a speed reading.



I challenged him in court. The intersection was dubious at best since the line was recessed 20 feet from the actual intersection. The officer was at least 150 feet behind me when I crossed the intersection. It was close to being red and I was certainly not into the intersection yet. I felt I could beat the case and took photos of the intersection. In court the officer played right into my trap and incorrectly drew the intersection on a white board. I provided photo evidence and explained that relative to the light turning red, I had in fact crossed the line while it was not yet red. There was no way that the officer could make a judgement from that distance. I think I had the judge convinced that it was questionable. Then the prosecutor trapped me with a simple question which I was not prepared to answer. He asked me: How does that make you innocent.? I wasn't quick enough on my feet and I was stumped. The judge then helped me out but relied on my honesty. He asked if I was absolutely sure that I went through the intersection while the light was not red. I had to say that I wasn't. In the end I did not get any points, but was still charged with a fine.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mother, I am sure you presented a good case, but my experience is that for MOST such cases if you plead innocent and show up in court, and just babble incoherently you will get FINE and WAIVED POINTS.



That's part of the scam/scheme. They keep the money, you keep your insurance from going up...it's a give and take.



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Traffic court is the only place in America where you are guilty until proven innocent. I have a clean record, but it just burns me to know that if I get a ticket, the government doesn't have to produce a shred of evidence to convict. :angry:

 

[John Mastrocco]

Nelson,



The evidence is the testimony of the issuing officer. It's eyewitness testimony. And the ticket is his sworn statement that is what he saw you do. And sometimes there is other evidence - ie: the radar reading for a speeding ticket.



And you aren't "guilty until proven innocent." You are charged with a "crime," faced by your accuser (the issuing officer), and allowed to cross examine and refute the testimony of an eyewitness - also the issuing officer. How does that differ from any other "trial?"



Tom,



If that is the only way to fight a ticket in Ohio, then it is onerous and the system needs to be changed. In Oklahoma you are given a court date on the ticket and when you show up you can plead innocent, there is no preliminary and the 'trial' is conducted immediately unless you or the prosecutor asks for a continuance. (I've never heard of the 'prosecutor' asking for one except in complicated ticket cases where there were multiple offenses.)



Mother,



The officer didn't play into any trap - he presented truthful testimony, which is what he is required to do by law. And to your credit you did exactly the same. As a result, you got the fine but not the points. Did you cheat the light (not run it) and were you speeding? If so, you got a good deal on the "plea bargain."

 

[Tom Schindler]

Nelson, You couldn't be more correct. You are "guilty until proven innocent" in traffic court. No matter how someone tries to sugar coat it, it is still a rat.



Everyone, here in Ohio, if you are pulled over for Druk Driving, you get two citations. One for driving under the influence, and another with driving with a Breath Alcohol Content above the legal limit. Two citations for the same crime. If you fight it, the court system will be "kind" enough to drop the BAC citation. It is one of those cases where the courts do that to make you think they are helping you out.



I shouldn't bring Michael Jackson into this, but I feel it has an interesting lesson involved that you can compare with "just paying the fine and get on with it".



He was accused of Child Molestation in the past. Guilty or not, it is not for me to decide. Lets say he is not guilty of anything. The first time he was accused of something, $1 million dollars paid the person to drop the charges. That was $1 million bucks. If he had a tour going on, he would make that money back in a day or two. No biggie. Now, lets say someone else accuses him of the same crime, but won't settle. The court systems can and will use that "admission of guilt" against him. If he did not do it, why did he settle?



The same goes for traffic citations. You are 100% innocent of commiting a traffic violation. If you plead no contest (you accept that officers findings, but do not accept guilt, and the court finds you guilty), or guilty (admit you did it, even if you didn't do it) and just pay the fine, it is on your record. If 6 months from now, you get pulled over for something like going 5 over the limit, an officer is more likely to ticket you because you now have a "history of speeding". If you would not have "just paid the fine and be done with it", odds are, you would have been let go since it was only 5 over and you had no record.



The court system knows this and uses it to thier advantage. Police officers know how it works and get paid overtime to sit in court to defend a $100.00 ticket, while the "community" will pay the officer $150.00 in OT.



It is wrong and they know it, but don't care because the system works for them.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

I think most of you are right in as much as "You are guilty until proven innocent" in traffic court. Traffic citations are issued by police officers who are always considered to be expert, credible witnesses. So the burden of proof always falls on the defendent to prove a negative which is always very difficult.



I also think that many people who attempt to fight tickets know in their own mind they were at least somewhat guilty, but are only fighting the ticket based on a technicality.



Many years ago, I was in traffic court and listened to a case that I though was very unjust. I man was ticketed by a police officer for running a red light. The man protestest to the officer saying that the traffic light malfunctioned by jumping from green to red without a yellow warning light? The man even filed a report with the local highway maintenance department which tested the light and found that it indeed was randomly malfunctioning and not always turning on a yellow light before switching from green to red. The defendent had a letter from the traffic mainenance department stating that they had witnessed the light malfunction at least 5 times over a 45 minute period exactly as the defendent described.



How would you rule in this case? Well the judge convicted the man for running the red light and said that there was no proof that the traffic light failed when the defendent drove through the light !!! I think I nearly went into shock knowing my case was coming up soon.



In my case I was caught going the wrong way on a one-way street. I was in the military at the time stationed in Washington, DC. My vehicle was registered in VA (no sales taxes at that time) and I had an drivers license from my home state of Ohio. The Police officer claimed that by Virginia law, I had to have a Virginia drivers license within 72 hours of registering my vehicle in Virginia. So I was additionally charged with driving without a valid drivers license?



I was not there to fight the ticket for going the wrong-way on a One-Way street, I explained that I had been driving on a two way street the changed to one-way, and gotten lost and turned around in a parking lot where there were no One-Way signs. However, when I showed the judge my valid Ohio drivers license and my military ID card, the judge jumped all over the police officer. He explained that as an active-duty member of the military, I had the right to register my vehicle where ever I wanted and drive on any valid drivers license from any state.



Other than that one occassion, I do not feel I ever received a ticket that I was not at least partially guilty. I may have disagreed at the speed I was clocked at, but in nearly all cases, I thought I was going faster than they actually charged me with. I also know of several tickets I received that I could claim the police officer made a technical error that a sympathetic judge might rule in my favor, however if I were to consider the time/money I would loose going to court to fight when I know I was guilty and the technicalities don't really change my guilt or innocents. Yes, I have had officers put the wrong date/time on the ticket, the wrong year/model of the vehicle, etc I even had an officer give me a ticket for speeding based only on his estimate which was at least 5 mph faster than I was actually going, but in the end I was still speeding, and the 5-6 mph difference was not going to make any difference.



My point is that if you do not get many tickets, fighting a ticket on a minor technicality is really a waste of time, especially if you are at least partially guilty. Most people who fight tickets, have so many that another conviction could raise their insurance rates, or get the license suspended. In those cases, your driving record speaks for itself and everyone pretty smuch know why you're there, and that more likely as not you know you are guilty and just trying to squeeze<