PDA

View Full Version : How to Beat a speeding Ticket - 100% Cops Hate this!!!



sweetchariot
04-14-2006, 02:37 PM
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!!!!!:thumbsup:

euro_racer
04-14-2006, 03:07 PM
damn long read but very good information :thumbsup:

Hakkola
04-14-2006, 03:27 PM
:rofl: Awesome, if I ever get another speeding ticket I'll fight it myself. :thumbsup:

Moe Man
04-14-2006, 03:29 PM
you ass**** i did this in court today and they convicted me......thanks buddy.






jking............good job, it seems like it will work i wanna try it. i feel like going out and getting a ticket now.

BlueGoblin
04-14-2006, 03:46 PM
You should probably not take copyrighted material from a website add your own stuff and pass it off as your own, but whatever blows your hair back...

http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket.html


More importantly though, is that very little of what you have posted is of any relevance in Alberta Traffic Court. The author wrote this as a generic guide for the U.S.

While I could go on and on, here are some problems:

- The simple but important burden of establishing jurisdiction is left out.
- You need not be proven to be driving a specific car, just that you were driving a motor vehicle as defined by the TSA on a highway as defined by the TSA.
- Disclosure should be obtained prior to trial, but looking at the ticket notes on the trial date is fine too. Just don't make some wild demands for other stuff that you cannot show is relevant.
- Laser does not have to be tested against a Radar.
- The mythical but undefined 'case law' does not exist that requires 'any document' demanded by an accused to be produced - If you can show that some document is relevent to your defense, you may request it from the crown beforehand.


If traffic ticket defense was so simple, why do professional traffic ticket defense specialists like POINTTS not have a 100% acquittal rate?

A good and resonable defence may be conducted in traffic court, but not from this advice.

liquidboi69
04-14-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by BlueGoblin
You should probably not take copyrighted material from a website add your own stuff and pass it off as your own, but whatever blows your hair back...

http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket.html


O well, usefull post regaurdless...and he took time and effort to post all that info. Thx :)

GTS Jeff
04-14-2006, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by BlueGoblin
You should probably not take copyrighted material from a website add your own stuff and pass it off as your own, but whatever blows your hair back...

http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket.html
hahahaha it was so obviously copyrighted but trust you to point out the link. :D

(it's even funnier that he took the time to paste his own name into the text)

sweetchariot
04-14-2006, 07:08 PM
Not really, I didn't profess to write this, just trying to help out. Whats the problem?

mo_virgin
04-14-2006, 07:18 PM
Coles notes please

kane584
04-14-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by sweetchariot
Not really, I didn't profess to write this, just trying to help out. Whats the problem?

great info man, thanks :)

GTS Jeff
04-14-2006, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by sweetchariot
Not really, I didn't profess to write this




Yeah you did. If not, why would you change this:


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

to this?


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

sweetchariot
04-14-2006, 09:37 PM
Because people would say "who the fuck is Damon"

RickDaTuner
04-14-2006, 09:49 PM
who the fuck is sweetchariot ?


:drama:

Tha VZA
04-14-2006, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Hakkola
:rofl: Awesome, if I ever get another speeding ticket I'll fight it myself. :thumbsup:

i'll come sit with ya!!! :thumbsup:


Originally posted by RickDaTuner
who the fuck is sweetchariot ?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

ciao

kane584
04-14-2006, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by sweetchariot
Because people would say "who the fuck is Damon"

hes got a point there, he was just trying to help


Originally posted by RickDaTuner
who the fuck is sweetchariot ?


:drama:

the guy who posted this thread

BerserkerCatSplat
04-15-2006, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by kane584


the guy who posted this thread

Captain Obvious: 0
Internet Sarcasm: 1

Si_FlyGuy
04-15-2006, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Captain Obvious: 0
Internet Sarcasm: 1

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


btw, welcome back GTS Jeff. Missed your wit.

cmodem
04-15-2006, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by kane584

Hes got a point there, he was just trying to help


Still he should've said this was posted by some dude named damon on this web site : blah blah blah.

And all the problems are solved.

GTS Jeff
04-15-2006, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Si_FlyGuy


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


btw, welcome back GTS Jeff. Missed your wit. Thanks!

Yeah I'd be pissed if my work was plagiarized by some teenagerfuck on the internet.

handsomebassman
04-15-2006, 02:26 AM
lol, replacing the authors name with YOUR name in every little fruity ass quote was probably the GAYest thing you couldve done. Well, not as gay as doing that, and then not even giving credit to the actuall authors. Like gts said, anyone would be pissed if their work was stolen and plagiarized by some teenage motherfucker on the internet.

-1 for class on sweet chairiot.

"But what can we do about it NOW Sweet Chariot?"

Si_FlyGuy
04-15-2006, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by handsomebassman
plagiarized by some teenage motherfucker on the internet.


You almost plagiarized gts jeff in the post above you errr...teenagedfuck...lol..jk.

Either way, poor Damon.

handsomebassman
04-15-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Si_FlyGuy


You almost plagiarized gts jeff in the post above you errr...teenagedfuck...lol..jk.

Either way, poor Damon.

Maybe you should read the beginning of the sentence again.
The first thing i did was give credit to gtsjeff>


Like gts said, anyone would be pissed if their work was stolen and plagiarized by some teenage motherfucker on the internet


Originally posted by Si_FlyGuy
Either way, poor Damon.

lol

BlueGoblin
04-15-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by GTS Jeff
hahahaha it was so obviously copyrighted but trust you to point out the link. :D

(it's even funnier that he took the time to paste his own name into the text)

Yeah - I'm good that way, eh? It's fun though seeing how long it takes with Google to find the source though...

My problem with this post, besides the plagarism part, was the fact that it is bad information. Using this as a guide to defending yourself in Traffic Court in Alberta will send you down a quick path to Convictionland, and depending how much you press certain incorrect issues from this, you may end up in a worse spot than if you didn't use any of them. The traffic stop post and the don't use an IDP to evade tickets post is generic enough to not be harmful, but this one is.

Goblin
04-15-2006, 04:45 PM
This is what I do..

Pay the ticket.

Si_FlyGuy
04-15-2006, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by handsomebassman


Maybe you should read the beginning of the sentence again.
The first thing i did was give credit to gtsjeff>


Bah...name me one poster on beyond who is actually literate.

I rest my case...:nut: :rofl: :rofl:

A790
04-15-2006, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Si_FlyGuy


Bah...name me one poster on beyond who is actually literate.

I rest my case...:nut: :rofl: :rofl:

I am quite literate.

You're case was rested too early.

Sorry about it :)

There was no real point to that. I just felt the need to contribute the massive amount of e-thuggin going on in this thread.

cherpintow
04-15-2006, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by sweetchariot


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.


HAHAH, ya because the judge and prosecutor have zero experience with the law, now you absolutely own them! hah.

GTS Jeff
04-15-2006, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by A790


I am quite literate.

You're case was rested too early.

Sorry about it :)

There was no real point to that. I just felt the need to contribute the massive amount of e-thuggin going on in this thread. That's like saying, "your retarded."

googe
04-15-2006, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by sweetchariot
Because people would say "who the fuck is Damon"

no they wouldnt

Orbie
04-16-2006, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by googe


no they wouldnt

Exactly, if you had posted where you had gotten it from or who the original author was no one would say anything. I would love to hear someone use that as an excuse when caught handing in someone else's paper for an assignment. Just change the original author's name anywhere you find it to yours and after you get caught and they ask why you did that you can say something like:


Originally posted by sweetchariot

Because people would say "who the fuck is Damon"


Anyways, interesting read, thanks for posting in an indirect way I guess...

Si_FlyGuy
04-16-2006, 09:51 AM
I think that a lot of the info here is bogus. Maybe sweetchariot would volunteer to document himself getting out of a speeding ticket?


Btw, Damon eats bunnies for Easter.

skidmark
04-16-2006, 01:34 PM
There is some useful information here, but some is absolutely incorrect as bluegoblin points out. You would be better off with a Canadian source, and better still with an Albertan source.

Alex_FORD
04-17-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by skidmark
There is some useful information here, but some is absolutely incorrect as bluegoblin points out. You would be better off with a Canadian source, and better still with an Albertan source.

You are our best Albertan Source, cna you help us out here?

Rockski
04-17-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Alex_FORD


You are our best Albertan Source, cna you help us out here?

yet his location says nanoose bay BC

Alex_FORD
04-17-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Rockski


yet his location says nanoose bay BC

:rofl: What I was getting at is he's a police officer, and it would be nice if he could edit the content of this thread and bring it closer to Canadian Law. (I'm not begging for perfection so you don't have to bust out the law books)

Please help.

I doubt that POINTS will help us out because they are in the business of charging for their services.

Traffic_Cop
04-19-2006, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by BlueGoblin
You should probably not take copyrighted material from a website add your own stuff and pass it off as your own, but whatever blows your hair back...

http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket.html


More importantly though, is that very little of what you have posted is of any relevance in Alberta Traffic Court. The author wrote this as a generic guide for the U.S.

While I could go on and on, here are some problems:

- The simple but important burden of establishing jurisdiction is left out.
- You need not be proven to be driving a specific car, just that you were driving a motor vehicle as defined by the TSA on a highway as defined by the TSA.
- Disclosure should be obtained prior to trial, but looking at the ticket notes on the trial date is fine too. Just don't make some wild demands for other stuff that you cannot show is relevant.
- Laser does not have to be tested against a Radar.
- The mythical but undefined 'case law' does not exist that requires 'any document' demanded by an accused to be produced - If you can show that some document is relevent to your defense, you may request it from the crown beforehand.


If traffic ticket defense was so simple, why do professional traffic ticket defense specialists like POINTTS not have a 100% acquittal rate?

A good and resonable defence may be conducted in traffic court, but not from this advice.

WOW, for someone who proclaims they know alot they sure know nothing!!

1) A police officer if asked WILL have to identify the car & that he never lost sight of it

2) In many jurisdictions LASER must be tested against RADAR

3) Case law DOES exist

4) You will find that Traffic Ticket Defence proffesonals are generally ex-Police Officers, if you know the system, you know how to beat it.

5) Much of the above posted info is useful in Alberta Courts.

b_t
04-19-2006, 07:23 PM
Cops vs. Cops! Oh noes!

BlueGoblin
04-19-2006, 07:37 PM
I used to be a paralegal in traffic court.

I do not claim to know a lot, but I have some knowledge; Perhaps more than someone who only appears in court and has never before had to prepare and try a matter, which is different.

I did not give a full description of what it takes to prosecute a matter, only pointing out some problems given in the initial post.

in response:

1) A police officer may and probably will be asked to identify the car. This does help establish that the accused person was operating a motor vehicle as defined by the TSA. That alone is the 'element of the offense' required. More detail is better, but not mandatory. Continuity of the vehicle and therefore the driver is more of an element of identification.

2)In Calgary, Laser is not tested against Radar. I do not know of any juridisctions in Alberta that do so. Moreover, the manufacturers of the LTI 20-20 did not seem to think it was necessary either.

3)Case Law absolutely does exist. Quite right. Its a fundamental portion of legal work. The 'case law' referred to in the original post that is never specified or named that, and I quote here,
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.


So taking this at face value, specifically the "requests any type of evidence" bit, it would mean that at trial, the accused could demand a notarised copy of the Magna Carta, or perhaps your birth certificate to prove you exist.

Please dear Traffic_Cop, do tell which matter this refers to? and not R. vs. Stinchcombe, because I already dealt with the matter of disclosure though briefly in my original post. This does not describe the way in which disclosure works.

4. Traffic Ticket Professionals (that's with one f, incidentally) are indeed frequently retired police officers. They do tend to get some extra training though. Many of them became traffic court prosecutors first to get this training and experience before 'going to the dark side' and doing defense work.

5. If you say so... I really do think though that if you carefully reread the original post you will see what I am on about.

Felix_the_Cat
04-19-2006, 07:44 PM
^^ i think im going to trust bluegoblin over some internet "get out of any ticket easy" thread.

smontyLS1
04-19-2006, 08:02 PM
if its less than 20 over and you just go in to negotiate they can deduct the price or all the demerits. I guess it depends on how you value your time.

BerserkerCatSplat
04-19-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Traffic_Cop


WOW, for someone who proclaims they know alot they sure know nothing!!

1) A police officer if asked WILL have to identify the car & that he never lost sight of it

2) In many jurisdictions LASER must be tested against RADAR

3) Case law DOES exist

4) You will find that Traffic Ticket Defence proffesonals are generally ex-Police Officers, if you know the system, you know how to beat it.

5) Much of the above posted info is useful in Alberta Courts.

Wow, how fortituous that you just happened to register a mere day after this thread was started, Mr. Traffic_Cop! We'll believe everything you say about the law, because you drive a "Crown Vic Interceptor," and have handy regurgitated police slogans in your signature!

I find your presence way too convienient to be believable, and the fact that skidmark (A well-known officer of the law) seems to disagree with you completely further discredits your validity.

I'm going to remain extremely skeptical of your supposed credentials.

Traffic_Cop
04-19-2006, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by BlueGoblin
I used to be a paralegal in traffic court.

I do not claim to know a lot, but I have some knowledge; Perhaps more than someone who only appears in court and has never before had to prepare and try a matter, which is different.

I did not give a full description of what it takes to prosecute a matter, only pointing out some problems given in the initial post.

in response:

1) A police officer may and probably will be asked to identify the car. This does help establish that the accused person was operating a motor vehicle as defined by the TSA. That alone is the 'element of the offense' required. More detail is better, but not mandatory. Continuity of the vehicle and therefore the driver is more of an element of identification.

2)In Calgary, Laser is not tested against Radar. I do not know of any juridisctions in Alberta that do so.

3)Case Law absolutely does exist. Quite right. Its a fundamental portion of legal work. The 'case law' referred to in the original post that is never specified or named that, and I quote here,
Please dear Traffic_Cop, do tell which matter this refers to? and not R. vs. Stinchcombe, because I already dealt with the matter of disclosure though briefly in my original post. This does not describe the way in which disclosure works.

4. Traffic Ticket Professionals (that's with one f, incidentally) are indeed frequently retired police officers. They do tend to get some extra training though. Many of them became traffic court prosecutors first to get this training and experience before 'going to the dark side' and doing defense work.

5. If you say so...

In response Mr Goblin,

1) When asked by Crown or Defence, the officer MUST state that he estimated the speed of the moving vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit, prior to activation of speed reading equipment, if the officer cannot succesfully identify this a case will be thrown out.

2) Wetaskiwn, Red Deer and Ft Macleod circuits/Jurisdiction's, (thats with an "S" by the way and not a "d") all require that an officer test the LASER against a RADAR. Although not required by the manufcaturer it is now required by the Courts.......Hmmmm Case law I beleive????.

3) See above, if you are smart and a defence lawyer you may want to use that.

4 & 5) Yes I do say so.

Traffic_Cop
04-19-2006, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Wow, how fortituous that you just happened to register a mere day after this thread was started, Mr. Traffic_Cop! We'll believe everything you say about the law, because you drive a "Crown Vic Interceptor," and have handy regurgitated police slogans in your signature!

I find your presence way too convienient to be believable, and the fact that skidmark (A well-known officer of the law) seems to disagree with you completely further discredits your validity.

I'm going to remain extremely skeptical of your supposed credentials.

I was disagreeing with the comments of BlueGoblin, you are very correct though, some of this is not pertinent in Ab courts, however if you are smart & humble, much of the info is good. But hey I guess you know way more than me.:dunno:

BlueGoblin
04-19-2006, 08:31 PM
Ok. In the case of #1, I think that we are on the same page here. I agree with you completely on the speed estimation. My point was that if the officer cannot remember whether the vehicle was a Subaru Impreza coupe or a Subaru Impreza 4 door, it is immaterial. The vehicle need not be described to that degree. Likewise, if the license plate was not not recorded in the notes, this would not be the end of the case. The original post suggested that it may be.

I will take your word on #2. I never prosecuted in those jurisdictions. This is however, more likely a matter of service policy being accepted as the acceptable standard of the court - and rightly so if it is the way in which operators are trained. The case law on this matter would have come from a Court of Queen's Bench decision and affected all of Alberta.

I'm willing to agree to disagree on the rest.

Felix_the_Cat
04-19-2006, 08:32 PM
:rolleyes:

Im going to make a new user id called "Prime_Minister" and tell everyone how its legal to drag kids behind their cars, and that I love to smoke crack before public speeches. People are bound to believe me.

Traffic_Cop
04-19-2006, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by BlueGoblin
Ok. In the case of #1, I think that we are on the same page here. I agree with you completely on the speed estimation. My point was that if the officer cannot remember whether the vehicle was a Subaru Impreza coupe or a Subaru Impreza 4 door, it is immaterial. The vehicle need not be described to that degree. Likewise, if the license plate was not not recorded in the notes, this would not be the end of the case. The original post suggested that it may be.

I will take your word on #2. I never prosecuted in those jurisdictions. This is however, more likely a matter of service policy being accepted as the acceptable standard of the court - and rightly so if it is the way in which operators are trained. The case law on this matter would have come from a Court of Queen's Bench decision and affected all of Alberta.

I'm willing to agree to disagree on the rest.

Absoloutely on #1, Make of veh, brief description & colour though are somewhat vital. Not sure what judges you have had to deal with, but a correct licence plate when asked for by defence is almost critical, as you are well aware this forms part of the officers notes on Pt1 of the ticket.

2) Very suprised you are not running into this portion of law, I agree that a superior machine should not be tested against an inferior machine, and its not part of training or manufacturers recommended list of tests. But as stated many of the courts are now requiring this, and many cases are being tossed despite the protest's of crown.

Traffic_Cop
04-19-2006, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Felix_the_Cat
:rolleyes:

Im going to make a new user id called "Prime_Minister" and tell everyone how its legal to drag kids behind their cars, and that I love to smoke crack before public speeches. People are bound to believe me.

Seems to me you have smoked way too much crack tonight already by simply posting that ridiculous comment.

Traffic_Cop
04-19-2006, 08:48 PM
:drama:

GTS Jeff
04-19-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Traffic_Cop


Seems to me you have smoked way too much crack tonight already by simply posting that ridiculous comment. If you were really a member of the force, you wouldn't sully their good name by being such a dink on a public forum.

I call :bullshit:

Toms-SC
04-19-2006, 10:15 PM
Ban +1

Alex_FORD
04-19-2006, 11:19 PM
Case law, gentleman!!!

Don't just call each other names, lets hear you quote some case law that might help all of us, if we ever get a ticket that we want to fight.

Carfanman
04-24-2006, 11:43 AM
What ever happened to taking responsibility for your actions?
Everyone wants to be able to do whatever they want no matter how it affects other people and suffer no consequences.

Alex_FORD
04-24-2006, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Carfanman
What ever happened to taking responsibility for your actions?
Everyone wants to be able to do whatever they want no matter how it affects other people and suffer no consequences.

Can I quote you on this when you become a wellfare case because you dropped out of school.

BlueGoblin
04-24-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Alex_FORD
Case law, gentleman!!!

Don't just call each other names, lets hear you quote some case law that might help all of us, if we ever get a ticket that we want to fight.

There's no magic bullet, if that's what you mean by case law.

If you want some laughs though, cite the Magna Carta as stating that no tax shall be imposed upon men for use of the highways of the realm.

It's done at least a couple times a year.

richoud
04-02-2010, 08:46 AM
Very nice information,

i think 90% of all ticket can be fight, and i have a good records because i go in court.....


But in Quebec Canada, things are a little bit diffrent.


You must send a suppoena to the Municipality to request all documentation if you don t, the judge will desaprouve your request. Plus Judge in Canada refuse Court case from USA.

1. Driver must tell they were not overspeeding by telling the speed they saw on the speedometer and tell why you check your meter at that time (answer, i know cops do radar at that place, i use to pass there).

READ THIS I NEVER SAW A SPEEDING TICKET WITH NO ERROR

Take the time to read all details distance, movement, time, etc

2. Confuse the judge with things impossible with those information.


3. Something else, TESTING TESTING
Refered to the manual instruction of the radar or laser and asked if the cops have done al the test requesting by the manufacture.

example

ask the cop how many second he push on the the button, if he say one, bang manufacture recommand 3 to 5.

ask what distance he tested the laser , if he use a lti 2020 he must have tested the equipment for a minimum distance of 23 meter and give the documentation for that (distance calculated by a specialist), cops must present they log of all test they have done.

Cops must be qualified each three years upon manufacture request. Equipment must be tested by an electronic expect each year.

Superior court New-jersey 714 A.2D 381, 391-92 1998

1. Expert testimony is not requested
2. Officers must be trained and prove it.
3. all testing have been done upon manufacture recommandation.
4. the lidar must be tested at a specific speed (car odometer)
5 no good reading with a bad temperature a sign or light
6 more than 1000 feet cops need an expert in court


something else, if you were not alone on your speeding ticket so it is just not yoooo uuuu

BUT DRIVE SAFELY.....

BerserkerCatSplat
04-02-2010, 09:05 AM
Thanks for the 4-year bump.