I won a ticket using Trial By Declaration!

[timmah1991]

haha. I got a ticket for 107 in a 55.

I don't speed anymore.

[craiggroves91]

Lets see if we can get me out of my 48 in a 35 ticket yeah?

[CleanAzzE30z]

They might have even tried charging his dad with child endangerment or conributing to the delinquency of a minor in the trigger-happy police-state that is California!

[briansjacobs]

A client of mine let his son (16 years old) take his veyron. Kid can handle the car as the races Radicals....so anyways 140 (betting he was going faster) in a 55. The kid had to do 40 hours of community service and I have no idea what the fines where. He was very lucky to be out in the hamptons at the time, anywhere else he would have been in jail!

[briansjacobs]

Failure to make a full stop at a red light before making a right turn. I allegedly did a nice Cali roll. :nice:

fixed

[CleanAzzE30z]

this

X Eleventy meelion. I love it when people get on their high horse about laws that are blatantly and flagrantly put in place to generate revenue for municipalities. Its so obvious.

[StereoInstaller1]

Safety? Please. It's revenue generation of the most blatant sort. Let's not give it any sort of moral justification. I find that offensive.

this

[Rodoni]

Yes, but how would you win? Is it a moving violation? I guess you could to see if he turns in his side of the story, which if he doesnt, you automatically win even if you just turn in a paper that says "Im not guilty". Ive seen it happen.

I would just say "not guilty because I was dialing the person I wanted to call with and had my hands free unit in my center console where the police office didn't look. Under the CA cell phone law it is not illegal to dial." I would insert cell phone law stating so and send it in.

He never saw my phone, never asked me about hands free, it was a simple stop and ticket. I watched behind mr after receiving the citation and he didn't wait for me to leave to take notes. He just hopped in his car and pulled a u turn and sped off. Which leads me to believe if I postpone the court date long enough and just write that little segment I'd have a chance because he wouldn't remember.

Cell phone tickets arent moving violations, but they do appear on your driving record because the state needs to keep track of how many you get because the more offenses, the higher the fine.

[E30Idea]

All I wrote as my argument, so not to further incriminate myself in trial, was "Not Guilty."

I did a nice Cali roll. :nice:

So much for not self incriminating.

[graphikg]

i disagree, it is not necessarily dangerous (and therefore bad) to be driving over the speed limit. someone paying attention driving at 90 is safer than say someone driving 60 in the left lane while eating(which is more or less legal). the law isn't always right for everyone, maturity is not just sitting back and obeying every single law.

^^^ Has a point here. What disappoints me are those people who drive with those poodles and chihuahuas on their laps - don't those people get in accidents too? Having a dog in the front seat and smoking a cigarette while driving should as well be illegal.

[CleanAzzE30z]

Yes, but how would you win? Is it a moving violation? I guess you could to see if he turns in his side of the story, which if he doesnt, you automatically win even if you just turn in a paper that says "Im not guilty". Ive seen it happen.

[Rodoni]

bumping an old thread.

Is it possible to do trial by declaration for a cell phone ticket??

[nmlss2006]

Speed kills... drinking and driving kills.

Maybe. And when I'll see tickets being handed out for dangerous behaviour in a majority of the cases - I have even given up on all the cases, mind - I'll gladly take my share. Until that happens, please, don't put 'safety' and 'tickets' in the same sentence without a negation and, if you could, keep the moral outrage to a minimum.
Because, you see, I was going through west texas last year. And I was going about 10 over the speed limit in the middle of nowhere, with tractor trailers PASSING ME because I was going too slow for them - and they were correct, incidentally, it would have been absolutely safe to go well above 120 on that particular highway, but I had seen a rest area and I know how things work. And sure enough, a nice constable comes out, gets behind me, IGNORES THE TRACTOR TRAILER PASSING ME AND THE ONE ABOUT TO REAR END HIM, turns on his lights and proceeds to give me a ticket. Clearly the 911 going 90 was much more DANGEROUS to itself and others than the 18 wheeler going 105 or so in the passing lane.
Safety? Please. It's revenue generation of the most blatant sort. Let's not give it any sort of moral justification. I find that offensive.

[CleanAzzE30z]

Its not about beating the system when you are clearly doing wrong. Im talking about beating the corrupt revenue hungry cops who write tickets for common sense stuff. Not driving after drinking, because all bets are off if youre intoxicated in any way while driving. I have 2 DUI's and Im still saying that. Although the legal limit is rediculously low and does not in any way do anything in the ways of prevention and is a cash cow for all municipalities. Its still a law that definitely should be on the books. Im talking about cops who give tickets while flagrantly doing what they can to subverse and undermine the laws they claim to protect.

Basic Speed law in California allows for up to 10% higher than the posted speed limit given conditions and the latest speed survey taken on that street. Since very few people know this, most of them avoid hassle, bend over, lower their boxers and take the raise in insurance, fines, etc for pleading guilty and avoid going to court. Cops know this and it makes tons of money for the city. Not that the city doesnt need the money, but this is inherently unethical. I fight tickets and win not because I maneuver the system, but because I present a very well-thought out and reasonable argument of which the cop submits his and a judge ultimately decides that I am correct. Nothing that I do is underhanded or slippery. I quote the letter of the law and then state the facts in my case, sometimes helped by the policemans comments in terms of conditions and the like. That is all. I dont want to be confused with some "stick-it-to-the-man for the sake of sticking-it-to-the-man" person. I graduated high school in 1998 and I can think rationally on more than one side of an argument.


Mariano

[downernsp]

I told you, asshole. Ive gotten people off of like 10 tickets including myself. The system works sometimes.



Mariano

Haha!