🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Oct.8.15.46.48.1992.16463@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu> boubez@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu (Toufic Boubez) writes:
>Hi. I've been issued a speeding ticket on the NJ Turnpike. The ticket says
>that I was "paced" at 73mph, which is preposterous, becuase I saw the
>... etc
>pulling out. Now to my question(s): Has anybody been in traffic court to
>fight a ticket? What are my chances, What's a good tactic, Is there any
>required reading before I go plead my case? Any info would be greatly
>appreciated. Thanks.
My one experience with traffic court was a failure - I argued a 'failed to yield'
at a confusing intersection with a certifiable bozon coming the other way. No
accident, and amusingly said intersection now has a stop rather than yield
so there's no doubt.

Umm, one of my coworkers called the court clerk when he was nailed for 70 in a 40
and it turns out its easy to plea-bargain the points. 73 vs. 55 is 4 points, 
you can probably get it down to 2 without much thought. Generally speaking,
if you go to court you will lose. Be humble and contrite to these beaureaucrats.
The system is setup to benefit the
cops (they're automatically expert witnesses, you're not, for instance,)
and no judge ever wants to preside there. If you can get the points down,
I'd just as soon pay and forget about it. 2 points shouldn't affect insurance
(not true if you already have points on the license.)
Face it - traffic summonses
are a major source of revenue for the state and local townships and are
one of the major detriments to the quality of life in this state. Thank gods
they defeated the photo radar stuff.
-- 
"I am the chosen one."  | Copyright 1992 mattk@usl.com. Permission for
                        | reproduction in printed media or by pay-for-read
"And I Choose to be     | services explicitly disallowed. Permission granted to
shopping!"              | USENET and like free facilities.

In article <1992Oct9.140422.29304@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, mattk@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (matthew.kaufman) writes:

> Face it - traffic summonses
> are a major source of revenue for the state and local townships and are
> one of the major detriments to the quality of life in this state.

As an emergency medical technician who tries to piece together the
results of their callous disregard for human life, I think people who
speed, run stop signs, drive drunk, etc., represent a far greater
deteriment to the quality of life than the traffic summonses that
attempt to keep them from wreaking their havoc.
-- 
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 908 582-2998
          att!mhuxd!wolit or jan.wolitzky@att.com
   (Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
           Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

In article <Oct.8.15.46.48.1992.16463@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu> boubez@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu (Toufic Boubez) writes:
>Hi. I've been issued a speeding ticket on the NJ Turnpike. The ticket says
>that I was "paced" at 73mph, which is preposterous, becuase I saw the
>unmarked car at the side of the road, saw it pull out into traffic, and
>there was _NO_ way I was going that fast, since I monitored my speed all
>the while he was behind me in traffic. Whether he clocked me before with a
>radar gun or not is not the issue. The ticket says "paced at 73mph", and
>it's complete baloney (I wasn't going 55, for sure, but with the flow of
>traffic, maybe around 60-65, like everybody else). Anyway, I'm going to go
>to court. The only thing I have going is that I had my wife in the car with
>me.  We both noticed the police car on the side of the road as it was
>pulling out. Now to my question(s): Has anybody been in traffic court to
>fight a ticket? What are my chances, What's a good tactic, Is there any
>required reading before I go plead my case? Any info would be greatly
>appreciated. Thanks.

First, I'd send a letter to the court and request "discovery" for your ticket.
You should then get a copy of the information the cop wrote regarding the
details of the citation/ticket.  His notes are usually written on the
back of the ticket which you don't get (unless you file for discovery).
With that information you should then have a better means to determine
how (how far) he "paced" you.  

In any case, I would fight it, odds are (as another poster suggests) you
can certainly get the speed reduced to 69mph which is a 2 point as opposed
to a 4 point violation.  Pacing is certainly far less accurate
than radar and, if your assessment is correct that the cop
pulled out and never actually ran with you (paced you) then that should
add some degree of reasonable doubt as to the 73 mph speed.

Remember, you do NOT have to testify yourself.  Use the opportunity
to cross examine the cop as the means to ferrit out the details of
where he was parked, etc. (especially with any info that discovery
may provide you).  Also, have your wife testify as to the cops
movements, etc.  Remember, once you take the stand, the prosecutor
can ask you "how fast where you going?"  Your wife, since she wasn't
driving can simply say she knows you were driving with the flow of
traffic, the exact speed of which she doesn't know.

Anyway, take your best shot at it, you have nothing to lose (except
for a few bucks court costs) and everything to gain...not guilty
or at least a reduced speed charge.

Bill Sohl, member national and NJ National Motorists Association

The above is what I would do and should not be considered legal opinion
and/or advice.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

In article <1992Oct9.144712.9223@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> wolit@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Jan Wolitzky) writes:
>
>As an emergency medical technician who tries to piece together the
>results of their callous disregard for human life, I think people who
>speed, run stop signs, drive drunk, etc., represent a far greater
>deteriment to the quality of life than the traffic summonses that
>attempt to keep them from wreaking their havoc.

Jan, speed, in and of itself, is not a problem.  It is only when excessive
speed is involved that your medical background might get involved. 
That should not mean that traffic on NJ highways shouldn't have speed
limits that reflect the safe, reasonable and acceptable limits the
public wants.  For most NJ highways, that is clearly not 55mph.

Answer this, why is it OK to drive 55 on a two lane undivided highway
and not 65 on a 4 (or 4+) divided highway?  Before you answer, consider
that an head to head crash between a large truck and a passenger
vehicle on a the two lane will result in the passenger car absorbing
the bulk of the energy, thus the resulting impact for the passenger car
is more akin to hitting a stone wall at a far greater speed than the
55 it was going.  Driving 65 on a highway is not likely to
result in head-to-head crashes at that speed, nor is anyone likely
to hit a brick wall going 65 on the GSP or NJ Turnpike.

Those of us (myself included) that are calling for a raising of the
HIGHWAY speed limits are NOT asking to see speed limits on other
roads increased.  You, yourself, are probably aware that most serious
accidients happen at intersections and on undivided roadways, NOT
on the highway system.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

In article <Oct.8.15.46.48.1992.16463@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu> boubez@tastesgreat.rutgers.edu (Toufic Boubez) writes:

> Hi. I've been issued a speeding ticket on the NJ Turnpike. The ticket says
> that I was "paced" at 73mph, which is preposterous, becuase I saw the
> unmarked car at the side of the road, saw it pull out into traffic, and
> there was _NO_ way I was going that fast, since I monitored my speed all
> the while he was behind me in traffic. Whether he clocked me before with a
> radar gun or not is not the issue. The ticket says "paced at 73mph", and
> it's complete baloney (I wasn't going 55, for sure, but with the flow of
> traffic, maybe around 60-65, like everybody else). Anyway, I'm going to go
> to court. The only thing I have going is that I had my wife in the car with
> me.  We both noticed the police car on the side of the road as it was
> pulling out. Now to my question(s): Has anybody been in traffic court to
> fight a ticket? What are my chances, What's a good tactic, Is there any
> required reading before I go plead my case? Any info would be greatly
> appreciated. Thanks.

You might as well forget it - with the cop pulling out, he probably
had to go 73 to catch up to you. This exact same thing happened to me
in South Jersey a few years back - I was in fact moving at between 50
and 55 - the cop claimed I was going 68. I went to court - had to
drive 1.5 hours each way, 3 times - the first 2 times, the cop wasn't
there. The 3rd time, he was. He lied on the witness stand. Every
question I asked him was objected to by the prosecutor, and sustained
by the judge. In the end, the judge said - Mr. Rinehart, I'm not
saying you lied. I just don't believe you told the truth. Guilty.

There's not much you can ask when it comes to a pace. It's basically
your word against the cop. You might try to introduce the idea that
it's feasible that the officer had to go 73 to catch up to you,
because he was at a dead stop or coasting as you passed him. In my
case, the cop stated that he paced me for 1.5 miles. The fact was he
had someone else pulled over as I passed him, and he pulled me over
exactly .6 of a mile down the road. He lied about that on the witness
stand. In my case, I believe I know why I got the ticket. It
was Christmas night, 1987, and he pulled me over for 2 reasons - one,
I was driving an IROC-Z28 Camaro; two, to check me for drunk driving.
Speeding never came up in our conversation until 20 minutes after he
pulled me. By that time, he was able to determine for himself, what I
had told him initially - I didn't have anything to drink that
day/night, BECAUSE I knew I had to drive and there would be lots of
cops on the road looking for exactly that. 

Speeding and municipal courts in NJ are NOT about reality and truth.
They are about LYING COPS and MONEY. It's the single biggest legal
scam in this country.


Good luck. Let us know how it comes out.

Mark

In article <Oct.9.15.54.25.1992.8664@aramis.rutgers.edu> rinehart@aramis.rutgers.edu (Mark J. Rinehart) writes:
>
>You might as well forget it - with the cop pulling out, he probably
>had to go 73 to catch up to you. This exact same thing happened to me
>in South Jersey a few years back - I was in fact moving at between 50
>and 55 - the cop claimed I was going 68. I went to court - had to
>drive 1.5 hours each way, 3 times - the first 2 times, the cop wasn't
>there. The 3rd time, he was. He lied on the witness stand. Every
>question I asked him was objected to by the prosecutor, and sustained
>by the judge. In the end, the judge said - Mr. Rinehart, I'm not
>saying you lied. I just don't believe you told the truth. Guilty.
>
That is interesting.  In the past, I got a speeding ticket in
NY state.  I asked for the "sworn deposition" and never got it.
I went to court and the cop never showed up.
The judge instantly dismissed the case and I went home.

What are the rules in the case where the cop doesn't show up
for the trial?  Surely, they cannot have you running back and forth
to court forever!
(But knowing the bureaucracy of the court system, I guess I should not
be surprised.)
 
-- 
Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state

In article <1992Oct13.153724.100583@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:

> In article <Oct.9.15.54.25.1992.8664@aramis.rutgers.edu> rinehart@aramis.rutgers.edu (Mark J. Rinehart) writes:
> >You might as well forget it - with the cop pulling out, he probably
> >had to go 73 to catch up to you. This exact same thing happened to me
> >in South Jersey a few years back - I was in fact moving at between 50
> >and 55 - the cop claimed I was going 68. I went to court - had to
> >drive 1.5 hours each way, 3 times - the first 2 times, the cop wasn't
> >there. The 3rd time, he was. He lied on the witness stand. Every
> >question I asked him was objected to by the prosecutor, and sustained
> >by the judge. In the end, the judge said - Mr. Rinehart, I'm not
> >saying you lied. I just don't believe you told the truth. Guilty.

> That is interesting.  In the past, I got a speeding ticket in
> NY state.  I asked for the "sworn deposition" and never got it.
> I went to court and the cop never showed up.
> The judge instantly dismissed the case and I went home.
> What are the rules in the case where the cop doesn't show up
> for the trial?  Surely, they cannot have you running back and forth
> to court forever!
> (But knowing the bureaucracy of the court system, I guess I should not
> be surprised.)
> Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  


In NJ, the rules appear to be that you keep coming back until the cop
shows. Of course, there's good reason why a judge will not throw such
a case out. He's looking out for the best interests of those who pay
him - and who knows, maybe in NJ, the judges get a kickback (oops, I
mean commission) for all such bullshit cases. In any case, my
experience and that of most everyone I know who's been thru the
municipal court system in NJ, is that cases rarely get thrown out
because a cop doesn't show - several times. Just another in a long
line of legalized extortion rackets perpetrated on the public in NJ by
the thieves of the legal system, most, if not all, of whom are
lawyers. I suppose that extortion is acceptable in NJ, as long as the
*right* people are doing the extorting. 







Mark

rinehart@aramis.rutgers.edu (Mark J. Rinehart) writes:

>In NJ, the rules appear to be that you keep coming back until the cop
>shows. 

The rule is that the judge can reschedule any matter as he or she pleases 
and different judges have different attitudes. I witnessed several courts
(since my wife works in the courts sometimes) and it really depends. I have
seen judges becoming so angry with the police that cases were dismissed  after
the fourth case in a row couldn't go forward because the officer wasn't 
present. I also saw judges reverse there decision when the defendent pleaded
hardship that would result from rescheduling. Obviously, the seriousness
matters too. At a minimum the judge will give the police officer til the
end of the session to show up. Also, you must notify the clerk in
advance that you will contest the charges or rescheduling will happen
for sure. 

Btw. I recently contested a moving violation and won the case without
a lawyer (judges dislike people who represent themselves) against the
statement of an officer on a "reasonable doubt" basis. 

If you contest charges, KNOW THE COURT PROCEDURES, the patience of
judges is often limited. 
For example, after the officer testifies on behalf of the
state, you have the right to QUESTION him or her. That is, you can ask
questions, BUT IT IS NOT THE TIME TO TELL YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY (a
very common mistake), your time will come later. If you miss this
chance you WILL NOT BE ABLE to ask questions later when you tell your
side (when you are on the witness stand). Oh, and be EXTREMELY FORMAL 
AND POLITE "Your Honor" and "Sir" will make you stand out.