I got ticketed in San Luis Obispo. What are my options?

[Joel]

Hey guys. I got pulled over in the San Luis Obispo area off the 101 freeway a month ago. First one since I was 18 years old (12 years ago). Yes, I was driving the NSX. Should've taken up Jon Martin's offer to lend me his Valentine 1.

Anyway, I really don't want to take a day off work and drive back up to SBO just to appear for a few minutes in court. I was written up for 85 mph on a 65 mph zone. I kept calm and said as little as possible during the interaction with the cop. He asked me how fast was I going. I knew he was fishing for an answer to convict me later so I just said, "I thought I was going 70." Was that a good answer? I should have said "I don't know."

I got a letter saying either pay the fine and close the case for $190 or go to traffic school and pay the fine for $225. I was surprised because I was expecting some $300+ fine. I was also thinking of going the lawyer route but I don't know any lawyers up there. Does anyone know of a good one in SBO? Or any leads? Other than that, I'd just pick one out of the phone book.

What do you think?

 

[91 X]

A lawyer for a $190 speeding ticket??? Not worth it, even if you weren't speeding...cops win about 99% of those...just send in the money for the ticket and traffic school and be done with it.

Good luck.

 

[ANYTIME]

The TicketAssassin has been helpful to me. If you lose, you can still go to court and appeal. Kinda like a free roll of the dice. Statistics show that 66% win(quoting Ticketassassin stats)

Here is an interesting quote from their website anyone would get a kick out of:

When you receive a traffic ticket, the court will usually suggest that you must appear twice to contest it: first to appear and plead not guilty and second to stand trial with the officer present. This is not true. You can contest your ticket by mail without making a single court appearance. Contesting your citation through the mail gives you a better chance of winning your case than at a court trial. Even if you seem to be guilty of violating the law, the procedural hassles for the prosecution will often lead to a dismissal. If the prosecution does not submit its version of events in writing to the court by the deadline date, your case will be dismissed regardless of your guilt or innocence. Dismissals due to lack of prosecution are won in approximately 30% of written defenses.

The law allows you to contest any traffic infraction entirely by mail. You can appear via mail through a Written Not Guilty Plea pursuant to CVC 40519(b). In your plea you can request a Trial by Written Declaration pursuant to CVC 40902. In this way you can contest your citation without appearing at all and, for reasons already discussed, will have a better chance of winning than at trial. Further, if you lose your trial by declaration, you have 20 days to request a Trial de Novo (new trial) pursuant to CVC 40902(d). You then can appear in court for the first time for your second chance of winning.

Why doesn't the court inform every defendant of their legal right to appear in court via mail (Written Not Guilty Plea), contest via mail (Trial by Written Declaration), and have a new trial (Trial de Novo) if they are not happy with the outcome of the first trial? Money. Most courtesy notices hardly mention or do not mention these rights at all. Many courtesy notices from California traffic courts begin, "To avoid the inconvenience and long lines associated with a court appearance... pay the bail amount listed above." The justice system uses its own bureaucratic inefficiency to discourage you from seeking justice. Nice.

If they even mention the possibility of contesting a citation, they also mention that this generally requires two court appearances, one to plead not guilty, a second for the actual trial. If you do appear in person to plead not guilty, most courts will make you enter your plea last, inconveniencing you to the maximum. Then it will ask you to return to court for a trial. The two days' pay lost through these two separate appearances amounts to more than the traffic fine for most people. This is why less than 1% of cited motorist ever bother to contest their citation. Ignorant of their legal rights, confused and intimidated by the courts and police, 99% of Californians ticketed simply pay up.

The California Traffic Court System extorts over a billion dollars a year from California citizens by keeping us ignorant of our rights. They confuse and intimidate us with a muddled "courtesy" notice mentioning license suspension and jail as possibilities (these are only possibilities for those who ignore the citation entirely). The courts also benefit from the inherent respect most people have for the police that keeps them from questioning the officers' often-arbitrary decision to issue a citation.

California traffic courts use the formality of the courthouse to further intimidate those brave enough to appear, scaring them into pleading guilty or accepting an assignment to attend traffic school. The court strong-arms the majority of defendants, too busy or too intimidated to appear, to surrender without a fight: we collapse like a piece of IKEA furniture and meekly mail in the protection money hoping these bullies will leave us alone. By sustaining this proctological racket, California traffic courts rake in a small fortune for state, county, and local governments. Al Capone would be proud.

 

[SilverOne]

throwing a perspective into the mix for going the ticketassasin route, I got both of my judgement back guilty, and going through trial de novo right now.

One thing I noticed is the judge is not incline to give traffic school once you elect to fight the ticket. So for those that choose to go through the written declaration, then trial de novo, thinking that you can always fall back on pleading for traffic school during in person trial should be aware that once you decide to fight, the judges are not friendly about giving traffic school.

So, if you are eligible to go now, it may be a better route, and just be careful for next 18 months until you are eligible for traffic school again.

 

[Ponyboy]

Ahhhh, good ole home. FWIW, the acronym is SLO. Hope you beat the ticket.

 

[Joel]

Hmmm...now that confuses me as to whether to fight it or not. I don't want to go through the hassle of hiring a lawyer to fix it only to be denied by the judge and still have to go through traffic school or worse yet, get points on my record without the option of traffic school.

I guess I just want to have a smooth experience like DocL does here. But then he lives in Florida so it might not apply.

 

[ss_md]

RANT!!!
Where is the justice in Traffic Violations? You are automatically deemed guilty and required to pay a fine. This isn't justice it is extortion by Law Enforcement and the Courts or should we say "Traffic Mafia". This is America, isn't it our right to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial? Not an automatic guilty, pay fine now type of legal system.
Everyone that receives a traffic violation should defend their rights and do Trial by Written Declaration's. Yeah, the courts would be flooded, but that's their job. Defend your rights as Americans!!!!
End of RANT!!!

 

[demigod]

Can you use Ticketassassin if you have a mandatory appearance for a traffic violation?

 

[Cairo94507]

Hey that was a good post re how to contest a citation. I like the trial by declaration for a couple of reasons -

For those young guys with long hair, beards, rings in the face, tattoos, etc, it keeps you from being in front of the judge where they might consider those things....

also if you or a friend writes well, you can make your case like a pro. Most people choke when they appear in person becasue they are too intimidated, nervous, etc.

Last, check with the court clerk's office to see if you are precluded from the traffic school option if you contest the ticket. That smacks of a procedural due process violation and prejudice for exercising your rights.

The closest thing we have here in California is Prop 36 when it comes to first time narcotic cases. You are generally entitled by law to be diverted into a drug program on your first simple possession case. So lawyers can take a prop 36 case to trial and if they win, client walks free. If they lose, the client gets diverted into drug treatment and the matter is expunged once diversion/probation is completed. They do not force the client to accept diversion without exercisign their right to trial first. Got it?

 

[91 X]

.

So, if you are eligible to go now, it may be a better route, and just be careful for next 18 months until you are eligible for traffic school again.

Not true...I learned in traffic school last month that you CAN go to
traffic school more then once every 18 months...especially if the tickets are from different courts...It is just a scam by the courts/dmv/insurance co's to discourage the public from taking advantage of it...ALWAYS take traffic school, unless you want to risk the right and fight it...but unfortunately cops win about 99% of the time, so just take traffic school and get it over with...

 

[ss_md]

Not true...I learned in traffic school last month that you CAN go to
traffic school more then once every 18 months...especially if the tickets are from different courts...

The possibility of going to TS in less than 18 months is more likely if they are in different counties. If the tickets are in the same county the court records are available within the county. If you get a ticket in the same county and it is less than 18 months you can go to court to request TS. The judge or commissioner will then either grant or deny your request. You have a better chance of attending TS in this situation if you are in a time-frame of >3 months since you last TS. Also, I heard that the clock ticks from the time you received the violation not from when you attended TS.

 

[Joel]

Okay...traffic school it is. It is the easier route I guess.

 

[Jeansxbond]

Traffic school is a good choice, Joel. Remember, in California if you are proven by a preponderance of the evidence that you exceeded the Maximum Speed Law (65 unless posted 70) you will be found guilty of speeding. Unfortunately it sounds like you have already given evidence that you are guilty of speeding (unless the highway you were on was posted "70"). This is because you said "70" when asked if you knew how fast you were going by the ticketing cop. They always ask this and write your answer on their copy of the ticket, and if you fight the ticket your answer is testified to by the cop (orally or by affidavit) and is competent evidence because it is a "contemporaneous business record" and because your statement is an "admission against interest". If you say "no, I don't know" or give a speed that is in excess of the Maximum Speed Law they have you, either because your later statement of a lawful speed is contradicted by the evidence that you didn't know how fast you were going, or if you testify later to a legal (lower) speed you have already impeached yourself by the contradictory evidence from your own earlier admission. The only answers you can give with any hope of escaping this trap is "Yes, I know how fast I was going." without stating a speed (in which case the cop will badger you for a statement of the speed) and, unless you can state a speed at or under the Maximum speed with a straight face you still have a problem, because unless you state a speed (which you don't have to do) you have almost certainly blown any chance to get off with a warning. Catch 22. Unless you're trying for a warning, or just trying to get the cop to write you up for a lower speed than he clocked you at to get a smaller fine, the best policy is to say you know how fast you were going but as gracefully as possible tell the cop you aren't going to state a speed until you are in the proper forum (court). This is the only way your later evidence that you were driving at a lawful speed has not been contradicted by you, only by the cop, and you can hope the judge will believe you more than he believes the cop. Unfortunately, it usually takes additional evidence, such a showing that the cop didn't pace you properly, the cop's pacing speedometer wasn't properly calibrated, or the like, in order to tip the "preponderance" scale in your favor, as judges usually give the cop's word more weight than the motorist's absent some other evidence on the motorist's side.

 

[Joel]

Wow.
Thanks Jeansxbond! You must be a lawyer . Either that or you've been ticketed many times.

 

[ss_md]

What was displayed on the sign: Maximum Speed 65 or just 65? There is a difference. You can be written up three ways: exceeding the Posted Maximum, exceeding the Federal Maximum or exceeding the posted Speed Limit. If you were written up for exceedding the Posted Speed limit you might contest under basic speed law. The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350 states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." Although, 85 is probably higher than "reasonable or prudent". I am surprised they even offered you traffic school. I believe there is a limit on how fast you can go before they don't allow TS and it's around 85. You may want to do some research.

BTW - When travelling on the 101 - never, ever speed through San Luis Obispo and between Salinas and Gonzales. These are two of many major speed traps on that highway.