usdmJON

I didnt read the quoted text but agreed with the last couple posts.

In cali cops dont like showing up to court. You must pay the ticket first but if the cop doesnt show up (happened to me) or they forget a step or didnt right down the cross roads and youre off with a refund for the fines you paid.

But if he shows and wins, as the officer justin and flip said, youre stuck with no chance at school now.

usdmJON

Quick rant. In cali to speed things up you are not innocent until proven guilty but instead guilty until a cop doesnt show up. Then youre innocent.

I paid my traffic ticket up front then fighted it as required. In the maybe 50 people in court that day the judgr called at least half of the room to stand then told us all to leave because our cop didn't show up.

I then had to wait 6-8 weeks for my refund since no one could prove i did anything wrong.

Yay cali.

Flipster23

iTrader: (15)

Yup pay us first by a certain date...

Then when it's time for us to pay you, we will take however long we want...

TacoBello

Isn't going against "innocent until proven guilty" unconstitutional?

Flipster23

iTrader: (15)

Kalifornia....

The stupid state behind Floriaduh

TacoBello

If you're going to make fun of Floriduh, at least spell it right

Flipster23

iTrader: (15)

You didn't catch why I did it like that.

:TB: your slacking, we all know how you spell Floriduh

ceb

Horsemanure. This "advice" is so stupid that I don't even know where to start.

Let's just leave it at the "court of queens[sic] bench" - I wasn't aware that the traffic laws of California fell under Canada's jurisdiction.

The OP has a lot to lose - points on his license which equate to $$$ in higher insurance costs for the next few years. Anyone who makes a fool of themselves in court by presenting such a cockamamie defense (notwithstanding the fact that he already admitted to speeding) will get the book thrown at him.

You've got to love internet experts - it isn't their points or their money they are gambling with.

Quote:
I can see the looks on your faces right now. You’re thinking that this just can’t be true. That there is no way the average Joe is going to walk into a courtroom and beat his case.

Honestly, I can’t blame you. I know there is a huge belief that speeding tickets just can’t be beat. And for me to say it’s so easy to do makes you wonder why more people don’t know about it.

After all, if it’s so simple everyone would be doing it. Right?

Well, you are right. But you have to remember one thing…. what I am about to reveal to you is virtually unknown to the general public. It utilizes an ingenious method for catching the prosecution off guard.

If more people knew how to do it, the courts would quickly go bankrupt.

Fortunately for us, since so few people know how this works, it’s not used very much and the courts have yet to catch on! The court’s ignorance allows you to milk the system for what it’s worth and easily beat your speeding ticket.

Nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral about it. This is a clever legal strategy anyone can apply regardless of whether you have ever been inside a courtroom before.

As a matter of fact, this system is so powerful it even works if you’re absolutely guilty of the charge against you! It just doesn’t matter. No other defense you can concoct will have the certainty that this one has.

By using proven courtroom strategies that even a teenager could do, you will have the upper hand and take revenge on the court system and beat your speeding ticket.

Standards of Proof

It is essential that you first understand there is no one sure-fire way to beat a speeding ticket. Everyone’s situation is different. One person might be fighting a speeding ticket from a stationary radar unit whereas another will be contesting a speeding ticket from a moving radar unit or even a laser unit.

Each one requires different defenses.

There could also be other aspects involved, such as the location where the offense occurred. All of these play an important part when deciding what defense strategy is best for you.

Also bear in mind that some states have different standards of proof when it comes to proving a case against a defendant. There is the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof.

I won’t go into too much detail at this point because I have written an entirely separate report on standards of poof that I urge you to read.

It is enough for now that you at least know there are two main classifications of speeding tickets:

1. Mandatory Court tickets - Pink

2. Voluntary payment speeding tickets - Yellow

Since there are two classifications of speeding tickets, there are often times two different defense strategies you have to choose from.

To make things simple here, I will give you a general defense strategy you can implement when it comes to beating speeding tickets.

First Things First

First off, it’s important to know the exact measuring device used to clock your speed. You can find this out by examining your speeding ticket. Once you know the exact speed measuring device used, (radar, laser, pacing, etc.) you can now begin preparing your defense.

The next thing to do is to print out a special case law document and make three copies of it. One will be for you, one for the judge and one for the prosecutor.

Phase one is now complete! Now on to phase two.

Believe it or not, just by completing this first phase, you are way ahead of the game.

Now, because you have this case law, you have total control over the judge and prosecutor. Once the prosecutor sees that you have this document with you, he’ll know to back off a bit and play his cards right.

Case law can play a huge, factor in beating your speeding ticket when the judge or prosecutor are taking advantage of you.

Technically you can still beat a speeding ticket without one, but it sure makes your job a whole lot easier with it.

Okay, now that you have made three copies of the case law, it is time to prepare your defense.

Officer’s Testimony

In order to be found guilty of a speeding ticket in court, the police officer must prove certain things during his initial testimony. Here are a few of them:

1. You were the one he caught speeding.


2. You were caught speeding in a specific make, model, and year vehicle with license plate number.


3. You were speeding on a specific street at a specific time and day within his jurisdiction.


4. The unit used to measure your speed was properly functioning and calibrated.

This is exactly what the officer must testify to. If he leaves anything out, you should "attack" it and try to beat your case.

QUICK SIDE NOTE:
If while giving his testimony you notice the officer reading word- for-word from his notes, object immediately! Tell the judge the officer should testify from his recollection instead of his notes. Also, you have a right to see the officer’s notes if you so choose.

By objecting to the officer reading from his notes, even if you are overruled - (the judge will tell him to use them as a mental refresher), you will seriously throw the officer off his normal mode of operation. Anything you can do to disrupt the officer from giving his usual testimony will be a big plus for you.

Of the above things the officer will attempt to prove, you are going to attack any one the officer left out during his testimony. If the officer fails to testify to one of the points above, wait for the prosecutor to rest his case and point out the missing testimonies to the judge and ask for a dismissal.

These testimonies are required by law if the officer is to prove you are guilty of speeding. If he makes a mistake and skips a certain testimony, then by law the officer has not established his case against you.

Now, you may be thinking, “What are the chances of that happening?”

Actually, the chances are very good that he may forget to testify to something.

Although the officer is no stranger to traffic court, many times he’ll inadvertently forget to mention something (like the license plate # of your car), that you can use against him.

Remember, he’s only human.

However, it's up to the defendant to stop it!

The officer makes the same mistakes over and over, but if the defense (you) doesn't say anything, it's allowed.

If the officer does testify to the first 3 things above, you will leave well enough alone. Because, YES it was you who the officer pulled over and YES you were in the same vehicle the officer described and finally YES you were on the same street within the officer’s jurisdiction at the exact time the officer mentioned.

Do not attempt to challenge these points. You will lose! Only go this route if he forgets to testify to them and the prosecutor has rested his case.

But, we will use one of his testimonies against him.

Testimony #4 is the killer!

An officer is required to testify that the unit used to measure your speed was calibrated at the time it was used on you. But, merely testifying to this fact is not enough. He must also prove it.

This is where most people screw up. They are the ones who try and “prove” the radar gun was faulty or that the officer made a mistake. However, this is not the proper way to defend yourselves.

There is something called judicial notice in the courtrooms. This means that radar guns are adequate methods of speed enforcement. Merely arguing to the judge that the radar unit made a mistake or targeted a different vehicle is not enough to convince him.

He will take judicial notice on the matter and tell you to move on.

Your only chance at beating your ticket is to attack the officer’s last testimony: TESTIMONY #4: The unit used to measure your speed was properly functioning and calibrated.

The judge will accept the officer’s testimony that the unit was accurate at the time it was used.

But here’s the exception: if you ask the officer to provide documentation (proof) proving that he did do something he said he did during his testimony, he must provide this documentation.

He doesn’t initially have to provide it during his testimony, but if you ask for it... HE DOES!

If the police officer or the prosecutor doesn’t supply this documentation, then the prosecution has failed to do one of the required steps by law in order to legally convict you.

Every testimony given must be clearly proven. He can’t prove one and not the other. Most everything above can be proven:

* When the officer said that it was you who committed the offense, he can prove that because he stopped you & issued you the ticket.


* When the officer described your car as being the vehicle you were driving at the time, he can prove that because it’s written on the speeding ticket.


* When the officer said that you were caught speeding in his jurisdiction, he can prove that because the location of the offense is written on the speeding ticket.

However, the last one will be extremely hard (almost impossible) to prove!

If and when the police officer or prosecutor can not prove this last testimony (that his radar gun was calibrated), your speeding ticket should be DISMISSED!

As just mentioned, most everything the officer testified to can be proven. However the last statement the officer gives can never really be proven because neither the officer nor the prosecutor have brought the appropriate documentation to prove it.

When you ask the officer for proof he doesn’t have, you are one step closer to winning your case. As for this example, all you have to do is ask for ONE simple thing (which by the way should have been brought to court) and your case is over!

No proof? No case!!

Our legal system requires substantial evidence to a crime before a defendant can be found guilty. The same holds true in traffic court. In order for you to be convicted, the prosecution must present enough evidence to prove you did in fact exceed the speed limit.

When it comes to speeding tickets, there is only so much evidence they have. They don’t have stacks of evidence against you. Heck, most of the time the only sheet of paper they have brought with them is your speeding ticket!.

It’s the evidence and only the evidence that can prove your guilt. All you have to do is attack the evidence they plan to convict you with.

Don’t be discouraged though. There’s nothing at all hard about doing this.

Rest assured that 50 to 70% of the time there isn’t any evidence to begin with. The judge will be relying solely on the officer’s verbal testimony to find you guilty.

The police officer’s testimony alone has found hundreds of other people guilty in the past, so they have no reason to think that it won’t work on you too.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the prosecutor (or police officer) didn’t bring any physical evidence and are relying solely on the officer’s testimony. If this is the case (which it is 50 to 70% of the time) consider yourself fortunate. Now all you have to do is simply ask for ONE thing you know the officer or prosecutor doesn’t have and your case should be dismissed.

Because they don’t have what you are asking for, they don’t have the proof that they so desperately need to convict you. Unless they can supply this evidence you request, neither the police officer nor the prosecutor can legally prove you’re guilty of speeding.

“That Sounds Great Sweet Chariot, But What
If The Judge Says The Prosecution Doesn’t
Have To Supply This Evidence?”

This is where most people fail. They come to court prepared with only half a defense. They don’t know how to respond when something like this occurs.

If the judge or prosecutor says something to the effect that the evidence you are requesting is immaterial or not important, simply give the judge a friendly smile and remind him of the case law you brought with you. This is why you brought it to begin with.

This document (which comes from the highest courts, usually Court of Queens Bench) clearly states that if a defendant should request any type of evidence from the officer, the officer is obligated to provide it!

It also states that if the police officer can not, a dismissal should be rendered to the defendant. The judge can not go against this mighty document.

That’s why it’s a very good idea to bring it with you. It acts as a good slap in the face and shows the judge and prosecutor of who’s really boss in that courtroom. They can’t go against a ruling from a State Supreme Court!

The judge will have NO choice but to turn to the officer and ask him if he has brought this evidence you request.

When he says “no”…. CASE DISMISSED!

It really is as easy as that. It all depends on whether or not you know what to ask for.

So, to sum things up a bit...

...your main goal is to ask the prosecution for something essential to the case, but doesn’t have!

Once you’ve accomplished this, their whole case against you is worthless.

Okay, so far are you with me?

That was a scenario where the prosecutor or officer has failed to bring any evidence. You’ll easily win your case if they don’t (50 to 70% of the time).

Now you’re probably wondering what to do if they have the evidence you request.

Attacking The Evidence

The following is a scenario where the prosecution has brought some evidence to court.

Before the police officer begins his testimony, the prosecutor will begin by introducing the evidence he has against you. More times than not, the only evidence the prosecutor has brought is the paper work documenting the calibration (or testing) on the speed measuring device used.

This is actually very damaging evidence against you because it proves to the court that the officer's radar gun was functioning properly at the time he used it on you.

Remember, if he can clearly prove this, the case is over for you!

Once the prosecutor has made his opening statement and presented this paper work as evidence, the police officer will then give his testimony. The officer will also give reference to the fact the calibration paper work is present in court.

Once the officer is done, it will be your turn to cross examine him.

First, ask the officer for proof that his radar gun was tested and/or calibrated at the time he used it on you and wait for them to present the evidence.

The next thing you should do is ask to see the paper work. They can not deny you this right.

Once you have this paper work, look to see if it is of a certain type. If it is not (which 90% of the time it isn’t), turn to the judge and ask him to have the officer or prosecutor present legally accepted paper work.

When I say “legally accepted”, I mean the paper work has to be one the courts will accept as evidence. Not any old plain sheet of white paper will do.

The judge will ask the prosecutor or officer if they have “legally acceptable” paper work with them. And, of course they don't.

They don’t have it because they didn’t expect you to know the difference between acceptable and unacceptable paper work.

When they say they don’t have one, the judge will then throw out the current paper work as evidence.

Now you might be wondering if the paperwork wasn't acceptable in the first place, why would the prosecutor still bring it?

Good question!

In court, it's only unacceptable if you bring up the issue. The judge will allow it if you make no objections to it. But if you do object to it, then legally the judge should refuse it as evidence.

Uh oh… now the prosecutor is in deep sh*t. The only evidence he brought with him has just been rendered inadmissible. And no, he can’t call a recess and go get the proper paper work. The judge won’t allow that.

With no other evidence to present and no other avenue to turn, the prosecutor will motion for a dismissal. He has to, because there’s nothing left for him to do at this point. And besides, there are other people in the courtroom waiting to have their case heard.

Can you imagine what would happen if everyone else in the courtroom did the same thing you just did? It would be catastrophic for the court. Instead, both the judge and prosecutor will want to get on with the rest of the days proceedings.

They’ll accept your one case as a loss and move on.

“Okay Sweet Chariot, But What If They Do
Have Proper Paper Work With Them?”

“Then what?”

Never fear, Beat the System has an answer for everything. But before I continue, let me just say that the chances of the prosecutor bringing the correct type of paper work with him is extremely slim. And the reason for this has to do with one factor – TIME.

Remember, the prosecutor has to try between 20 to 30 cases a day. If he were to take the time and retrieve the proper paper work for each person, he would never be able to finish his job.

It’s just impossible!

Also, remember one other thing… the prosecutor has used this same paper work hundreds of times in the past and it worked like a charm. Because those other defendants didn’t know the secrets.

Okay, let’s get back to contesting this speeding ticket. So, the prosecutor happened to have brought the correct paper work, now what?

What you want to do is examine the paper work some more. There are four other things you will be looking for. 1 Tuning fork test certificate, make sure the serial #'s are consistant with the make & model of the RADAR, if LASER make sure it was tested against a RADAR. It's extremely rare to find a document that will contain all four required steps.

For instance, the officer is required to do two things to the radar gun before and after he uses it on you. Each one of these two steps MUST be documented in order for the paper work to hold up in court. More than likely the officer has completed only one of the two legally required steps.

Look to see if both steps have been documented. I’ll bet any money that only one of them is. Once you see this second step has not been done, simply turn to the judge and request a dismissal based on this fact.

Anything left out of the paper work is grounds for a dismissal.

Another way to have the paper work thrown out as evidence is as follows:

Police officers regularly share each others squad cars. This means, that they also share each others radar guns (second shift will share first shifts and third shifts will share second shifts radar gun).

The radar gun regularly exchanges hands many times throughout the day. This can only mean three things… mistakes, mistakes, mistakes!

Don’t be surprised if the paper work the prosecutor presents as evidence has a different police officer’s name on it. This happens more times than you think.

Before the officer comes to court, all paper work was given to him by an employee (possibly another police officer) at the police station. Rarely do they check the authenticity of this paper work.

Simply look to see whose name is on the document and if it mentions anyone other than the officer present in court, the document is inadmissible. Easy as that!

CASE DISMISSED!!

I hope by now you see the simplicity of it all. You’re not defending yourself against a murder charge. This is a simple speeding ticket so the prosecutor and police officer don’t do much to prepare their case.

Take advantage of that!

They’re assuming that you will be like the rest of the idiots they prosecute on a regular basis. As a result, they’re also assuming the lousy evidence they have against you will hold up in court as it always does.

If only they knew!

What I’ve given you hear was just a small sample of the type of strategies you can learn to easily beat a speeding ticket.

Good Luck...oh and slow down!!!!!

TacoBello

Ceb, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? You seem awfully pissy. Like I said, take it for what it's worth. The original article was done in the US, but some guy went and changed it to the Canadian system- that's how I found it, when I was looking to fight a ticket.

Again, some have gone this route and apparently it worked for them. It's the internet. Take it with a grain of salt and don't get so butt hurt over nothing

And PS- it's not your points or money you're gambling with either.

ceb

Naw, I'm like this all the time.

I don't suffer fools well. Sometime you just have to look reality in the face and decide what the best course of action is depending on the facts. Let's look at the facts:

The OP was caught in a speed enforcement zone
The OP admitted to speeding (both to the cops and here)
Because of the OP's good driving record, he was offered the possibility of traffic school.

Speed enforcement zones are manned by cops that know how to write tickets. The hearings are scheduled to allow the cops to show. As a side note, some jurisdictions no longer require the cop to appear, the documentary evidence suffices.

The OP admitted to the infraction. This was noted on the cop's notes and will go into the record.

If the OP pisses off the judge then he will lose the chance at taking the traffic school and bypass points.

Courts throughout the US have "caught on" to the technical gotcha defenses and have modified their procedures and requirements to account for them. The concept that the offender has the automatic right to see all sorts of documentary evidence is ludicrous in traffic court.

The OP's only defense that may work (depending on jurisdiction) is to plead guilty with an explanation - the explanation being that "my perfect driving record demonstrates that I am a law abiding, safe driver. I was going with the flow of traffic and didn't recognize how fast I was going until I got lit up and looked at my speedometer"

kixo

Several years ago, hundreds of speeding tickets in Honolulu were dismissed because the officer who operated the radar/lidar gun was NOT the officer who wrote the ticket.

Basically, one officer used the gun from a stationary position, and as you sped by, radioed ahead to other officers. They flagged you down (not even a pursuit!) and issued you the ticket.

When a citizen asked to see the radar gun reading, they were told it had been erased.

Not sure if there is any similar case law in California, but you could lawyer up and argue that the officer who issued the ticket was not a witness to the alleged infraction.

Rae Rad